Progressive Christianity

[SacredWithin]

I know it probably seems weird that I'm letting people know about Progressive Christianity, but I've never come across such a netwrok with Christianity before.

The Center for Progressive Christianity (http://www.tcpc.org/index.html). You can find churches and individuals and everything. Just a little something for some of our Christian members who find it hard to find a comfy home in the Christian community.:)

[Sol Invictus]

My own experience has been that progressive "Christians" typically use the label "Christian" (because of the moral authority and weight it carries in the Western imagination) to promote a progressive social agenda without actually adhering the the traditions and historical beliefs of Christianity. They may be more palatable to those who have chosen paths other than Christianity, but they aren't Christians in any legitimate, historical sense.

This is not necessarily a criticism of progressive "Christians," but Christianity is a creedal faith (something those of us without creeds often overlook) that is defined by a corporate and historically continuous body of belief.

[Kyra Kismet]

This in my mind is a good aspect of the christian faith!

[equinox2]

This is an attempt to make an inclusive, open-minded, accepting Christian religion. To do that, they’ll have to either disavow parts of the Bible, or lose all credibility. It sounds like good religion, but I don’t think it will be successful. First, Jesus is so closely associated with the Bible that I’m afraid that taking the Bible out of Christianity (without replacing it with other ancient scriptures) leaves you with very little real historical substance. Second, liberal Christianity is being tried with many larger denominations (such as Episcopal), but it has been losing even there for over 30 years – and I don’t see why this will be any different. And Thirdly, since they are ignoring the Bible and ignoring some of Jesus’ teachings (like Jesus’ disdain for other religions), then why even call it Christian?

They are making up the God they’d like and then calling that god Jesus, regardless of historical probabilities. It would be more accurate to pick a hero who better reflects their views, such as Ghandi or M. L. King. It seems that they only slapped the name “Jesus” on there for the cultural impact. I think it is a fine idea to make up a god or a religious approach, but I don’t see the reason to associate it with only Jesus.

I don’t have a problem with Christianities that deviate from the traditional Christianity (which picked the books to include in the Bible), such as the Gnostics or Ebionites. However, in both of those cases, they do make a case (and a good one) that they are following Jesus’ teachings.

More power to ‘em. Maybe it’ll help. Maybe they can make a Christianity that is both liberal AND relevant. I wouldn’t put money on it though.

[Luminessence]

... but they aren't Christians in any legitimate, historical sense.

But then, some people say the same thing about pagans. It seems like we of all people should be open to these sorts of explorations. I do agree that there are some major differences between these Christians and other Christians, and that some of what they say contradicts the Bible. But I don't necessarily think that means they can't call themselves Christians. After all, think of the beginning of Protestantism - now Protestants are certainly considered legitimate Christians. And again, many people say the same thing about pagans.

[SacredWithin]

Is following the bible the same as following Jesus? I mean, not all of the bible are words from Jesus. Can a devout Christian safely say they believe whole-heartedly in the bible and call themselves Christian? Is a Christian not a follower of Christ?

[Morning Star]

???

[Ben Trismegistus]

This is an attempt to make an inclusive, open-minded, accepting Christian religion. To do that, they’ll have to either disavow parts of the Bible, or lose all credibility. It sounds like good religion, but I don’t think it will be successful. First, Jesus is so closely associated with the Bible that I’m afraid that taking the Bible out of Christianity (without replacing it with other ancient scriptures) leaves you with very little real historical substance. Second, liberal Christianity is being tried with many larger denominations (such as Episcopal), but it has been losing even there for over 30 years – and I don’t see why this will be any different. And Thirdly, since they are ignoring the Bible and ignoring some of Jesus’ teachings (like Jesus’ disdain for other religions), then why even call it Christian?
I disagree. I think that the success of progressive Christianity (in the areas that are ready for it) will be in a metaphorical or symbolic approach to traditional Christianity. Look at neopaganism. We have taken the mythology of ancient cultures, recognized it as mythology, and created a new religion out of it. Successful progressive Christianity sees Christian mythology for what it is -- if not entirely untrue, then at least highly symbolic and metaphorical. Therefore, they are Christians not in the sense that they follow the rigid literality of the Bible, but that they follow the spirit of Jesus - the essence of his teachings. Much like a neopagan can worship the Greek gods without condoning rape and adultery, a progressive Christian can worship Christ without having disdain for other religions.

[Pilot]

I am in agreement with Ben on this one.

[equinox2]

Luminessence wrote:

I do agree that there are some major differences between these Christians and other Christians, and that some of what they say contradicts the Bible. But I don't necessarily think that means they can't call themselves Christians. After all, think of the beginning of Protestantism - now Protestants are certainly considered legitimate Christians.

Certainly true – my point wasn’t that they aren’t Christian, it was that they were deciding what their religion was first, then going back and calling it Christian. That is very different from first deciding what Jesus’ religion was (Apocalypic Judaism), then molding your beliefs to Jesus’.

I agree that the Bible represents only one type of early Christianity – the one Christianity that beat the other Christianities, and then was able to rewrite history to make it look like it’s religion went back to Jesus. To learn about these other Christianities, and the rise of the Christianity we know today, I recommend “Lost Christianities” by Dr. Ehrman, or listen to it on tape. He is a world – renowned expert on early Christian history, and gives an accurate view of what we have learned from archeology, ancient documents, and research. I taught a class on this at our UU church.

Here is the book ($20):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195141830/qid=1084542370/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-3269012-9977445

Here are the lectures on tape ($35): (note that the book has more information, these are a little shortened).
http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/6593.asp

SacredWithin wrote:

Is following the bible the same as following Jesus? I mean, not all of the bible are words from Jesus. Can a devout Christian safely say they believe whole-heartedly in the bible and call themselves Christian? Is a Christian not a follower of Christ?

Very true. Very little of the Bible is actually from Jesus, even many of the words specifically attributed to him are known to be proto-orthodox fabrications. However, culturally in America today, nearly all Christians base their religion on the Bible. “Christians” in the sense you mean (which I agree is a more accurate use of the term “Christian”), such as an Ebionite or such, are very rare. Nonetheless, I agree that we need to acknowledge that all Christians are Christians, even if Bible-based Christians do not consider other Christians to be Christian.

Ben Wrote:

I disagree. I think that the success of progressive Christianity (in the areas that are ready for it) will be in a metaphorical or symbolic approach to traditional Christianity. Look at neopaganism. We have taken the mythology of ancient cultures, recognized it as mythology, and created a new religion out of it.

Ben - We mostly agree. The approach you mentioned - of taking the good parts of a religion while recognizing and rejecting the bad- is, in my mind, a good approach. I just feel that it is a little difficult to do that with a religion that is centered on a single person - that means you have to pick and reinterperate the views of a single person while still claiming the religion to be based on that person. Think of doing this with, say, Ayn Rand. I'll keep the emphasis on the individual, while tossing out the requirement to use empirical science because I feel like it. Should I still call it Randian philosophy? Why not call it my own, and acknowledge her influence? Or call it a type of modern philosophy?


they (progressive Christians) follow the spirit of Jesus - the essence of his teachings. Much like a neopagan can worship the Greek gods without condoning rape and adultery, a progressive Christian can worship Christ without having disdain for other religions.

Ah, there is the rub. To take only the "essence" of the teachings, you have to toss some and emphasize others - does that still reflect the views of the one person, Jesus (Yeshua) who had some of those views? Is your view of the "essence" of his teachings the same as mine? I think, based on scholarship, historical criteria, and my own reading of the source documents, that the essence of Jesus' teachings went something like this:

"Acknowdge the one true God (Yahweh) and repent now. Live good lives now because God will take over the world very soon (like decades), and all people who don't live their lives according to my interpretation of some of the Jewish Scriptures will be cast into Hell forever."

Now, I agree that Jesus' interpretation was in most cases good and open minded, but I think that the apocalyptacism and the focus on the one God were major parts of the essence of Jesus' message - and both are parts that progressive Christianity cuts out.

I think we both agree that the end religion professed by Progressive Christianity is a good and healthy religion - I just think that their attachment of Jesus to their religion is not a good fit, partially because Jesus was a real person who had a philosophical system worked out himself.

Take care-

[Ben Trismegistus]

Ben - We mostly agree. The approach you mentioned - of taking the good parts of a religion while recognizing and rejecting the bad- is, in my mind, a good approach. I just feel that it is a little difficult to do that with a religion that is centered on a single person - that means you have to pick and reinterperate the views of a single person while still claiming the religion to be based on that person. Think of doing this with, say, Ayn Rand. I'll keep the emphasis on the individual, while tossing out the requirement to use empirical science because I feel like it. Should I still call it Randian philosophy? Why not call it my own, and acknowledge her influence? Or call it a type of modern philosophy?
Well, the difference is that you can say without a doubt exactly what Ayn Rand wrote and didn't write. There's no such thing as an apocryphal book by Ayn Rand. With Jesus, there's no way of knowing what he actually said, what was manufactured by the gospel writers in order to make a point, and frankly, whether Jesus really existed. This is why, in my opinion, it makes sense to elevate Jesus to the level of a mythological figure. Some stories may be true, some may be false, and it's up to the reader to pick and choose which stories resonate with them.


Ah, there is the rub. To take only the "essence" of the teachings, you have to toss some and emphasize others - does that still reflect the views of the one person, Jesus (Yeshua) who had some of those views? Is your view of the "essence" of his teachings the same as mine? I think, based on scholarship, historical criteria, and my own reading of the source documents, that the essence of Jesus' teachings went something like this:

"Acknowdge the one true God (Yahweh) and repent now. Live good lives now because God will take over the world very soon (like decades), and all people who don't live their lives according to my interpretation of some of the Jewish Scriptures will be cast into Hell forever."
See, that's not what I get out of the teachings of Jesus at all. While the heavily Jewish stuff is definitely there, it feels like detail to me. In my opinion, the essence of Jesus' teachings is something like this:

"Be nice to one another. Love God. Accept everyone, no matter who they are and how they're different from you."

New-agey, perhaps, but it's all in there. The Beatitudes pretty much sum it all up for me.


Now, I agree that Jesus' interpretation was in most cases good and open minded, but I think that the apocalyptacism and the focus on the one God were major parts of the essence of Jesus' message - and both are parts that progressive Christianity cuts out.
If, in fact, he actually said any of those things, and they weren't just fabrications by a gospel writer hell-bent on the end times.


I think we both agree that the end religion professed by Progressive Christianity is a good and healthy religion - I just think that their attachment of Jesus to their religion is not a good fit, partially because Jesus was a real person who had a philosophical system worked out himself.
A philosophical system which you and I interpret entirely differently. :)

Of course, since neither of us are Christians, it's rather a moot point. ;)

[Sol Invictus]

Ben, it seems to me less a question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure or what his actual teachings and sayings were as it is a question of the historical beliefs and tenets of the Christian tradition. THESE are Biblically based and Biblically founded. Christianity is not neo-paganism. It isn't an eclectic and personalized spiritual ethos. It is a corporate, creedal, confessional tradition historically defined by formal doctrines and beliefs. People whose beliefs do not conform to these traditions and doctrines cannot really be called "Christian" in any sense that has real meaning.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Ben, it seems to me less a question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure or what his actual teachings and sayings were as it is a question of the historical beliefs and tenets of the Christian tradition. THESE are Biblically based and Biblically founded. Christianity is not neo-paganism. It isn't an eclectic and personalized spiritual ethos. It is a corporate, creedal, confessional tradition historically defined by formal doctrines and beliefs. People whose beliefs do not conform to these traditions and doctrines cannot really be called "Christian" in any sense that has real meaning.
Well, that's what they'd like you to believe. But there are those that would argue that you don't have to buy into the dogma of the Church to be a Christian - you just have to lead a Christ-centric life. After all, that's what the Protestant Revolution was all about - breaking convention and finding a new way to practice their faith. Maybe it's happening again.

[Sol Invictus]

Well, that's what they'd like you to believe. But there are those that would argue that you don't have to buy into the dogma of the Church to be a Christian - you just have to lead a Christ-centric life. After all, that's what the Protestant Revolution was all about - breaking convention and finding a new way to practice their faith. Maybe it's happening again.

Historically, that's not at all what the Reformation was about. It was mostly about stripping away doctrines and practices that emerged from the political necessities of the Middle Ages and returning to the traditions of the Apostolic church. It wasn't a revolution, but a 'reform' (as the name implies), and its chief inspirations were Scripture (particularly the Pauline corpus) and the writings of the Patristic authors (Augustine, Jerome, Origen etc.).

[Ben Trismegistus]

Historically, that's not at all what the Reformation was about. It was mostly about stripping away doctrines and practices that emerged from the political necessities of the Middle Ages and returning to the traditions of the Apostolic church. It wasn't a revolution, but a 'reform' (as the name implies), and its chief inspirations were Scripture (particularly the Pauline corpus) and the writings of the Patristic authors (Augustine, Jerome, Origen etc.).
Yes, but the point remains that any religion has to have room to adapt and be flexible over the centuries. Christianity has changed a lot in 2000 years and will continue to change.

[Sol Invictus]

Yes, but the point remains that any religion has to have room to adapt and be flexible over the centuries. Christianity has changed a lot in 2000 years and will continue to change.

Christianity has remained flexible around the periphery for 2000 years, which is why it has survived and thrived. It's core principles have NOT changed though, and most progressive "Christians" propose a "Christianity" that has very little to do with any of the essential historical beliefs of the faith.

[equinox2]

Hi all!


Ben T. wrote:


Well, the difference is that you can say without a doubt exactly what Ayn Rand wrote and didn't write. … With Jesus, there's no way of knowing what he actually said, what was manufactured by the gospel writers in order to make a point, and frankly, whether Jesus really existed. This is why, in my opinion, it makes sense to elevate Jesus to the level of a mythological figure. Some stories may be true, some may be false, and it's up to the reader to pick and choose which stories resonate with them.

Good point. I think that we can say some things, but that your point here allows for more wiggle room, as you claim. I guess it is a balance between only allowing certain doctrines vs. allowing anyone to call themselves anything. Tricky.


Ben T's view of Jesus’ essence:

"Be nice to one another. Love God. Accept everyone, no matter who they are and how they're different from you."

I think that critical scholarship leans more towards what I stated, but of course it is controversial. Looking over all our notes, it seems that I lean towards the Jesus of the Gospel of Mark, you lean toward the Jesus from the Gospel of Luke, and Sol leans towards the Jesus of the Gospel of John. Do you agree?

This discussion (especially points by Ben and Luminessence) have made me wonder whether or not it is actually valid even to refer to traditional Christians as “Christian”. We’ve talking in circle many times about “What is a Christian”, so I’ll leave that to the other threads.


If, in fact, he actually said any of those things, and they weren't just fabrications by a gospel writer hell-bent on the end times.

I’d guess they weren’t fabrications because if you put the NT books in the order they were written (paul, GoM, GoMt, GoL, Rev, GoJ, deuteroPaul, pastoral), then the later you go, the more they try to cover up the apocalypacism. Thus, for that and for several other reasons, my guess is that Jesus was apocalyptic, and the later writers were actually embarrassed by it. Others disagree though.

We do agree however that there were tons of blatant fabrications, many that are in the New Testament, - virtually all scholars agree on that.

Sol wrote:

Christianity … isn't an eclectic and personalized spiritual ethos. It is a corporate, creedal, confessional tradition historically defined by formal doctrines and beliefs. People whose beliefs do not conform to these traditions and doctrines cannot really be called "Christian" in any sense that has real meaning.

Back in, say, 1000 CE it was unified, but wasn’t at first, and isn’t now.

Sol, you seem to be unaware that there were many different Christianities that sprung up after Jesus’ death, and that these were more different than our current wide-ranging denominations. They had different Bibles, different numbers of Gods, different Jesuses, and very different practices. They all claimed apostolic authority back to Jesus, they all claimed to have sacred scripture written by apostles, they all called each other “heretics” and they all claimed to be the “true” Christianity of Jesus. In their conflict, one church was able to harness the political power of the Roman Empire, and for that and other reasons, become dominant. That was the Roman Catholic church – so basing the criteria for being “Christian” on the scripture of that one Christianity (the Bible) and the creeds of that one Christianity is ignoring history. Those tapes I mentioned on page 1 are a good place to learn about these other Christianities, or do a web search under “heresies”.

Sol wrote:

Christianity has remained flexible around the periphery for 2000 years, which is why it has survived and thrived. It's core principles have NOT changed though

Again, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the history of Christianity. Between 40 and 150 CE, many Christianites started, including the Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics, Theodotans, Adoptionists, Proto-Orthodox, Thomasines, etc. During the 3rd to 5th centuries, all other Christianities were eliminated or marginalized by the Proto-orthodox, who became the Roman Catholic church. Interestingly, some views of the early Proto-orthodox were later labeled as heresies by later Proto-orthodox, so I wouldn’t say that a core has been the same for 2000 years, even if you ignore all the other Christianities.

You could say that one core (one of the literally dozens of cores that started), dominated Christianity for over 1000 years (from the victory of the proto-orthodox by around the 6th century to the protestant reformation in the 16th century). Because the differences between Catholic and Protestant are small potatoes compared to the initial differences between Christianities, one could claim that the “core” of the one Christianity that beat the others has been mostly unchanged for 1500 years (500 CE to now).

Also, I wouldn’t characterize the Catholic church of the dark ages as “flexible”, periphery or not. Lastly, with explosive growth among some non-trinitarian Christian churches today, it looks like the ancient diversity of Christian may be returning. But don’t take my word for it – have fun learning about it on your own.

May the wind lift your spirits-

[Ben Trismegistus]

Good point. I think that we can say some things, but that your point here allows for more wiggle room, as you claim. I guess it is a balance between only allowing certain doctrines vs. allowing anyone to call themselves anything. Tricky.
Well, I think that there's actually quite a lot of wiggle room within Christianity. The orthodoxy, of course, would disagree, but that's what orthodoxy does. It seems that, oddly enough, there are as many ways to be a Christian as there are ways to be a Wiccan.


I think that critical scholarship leans more towards what I stated, but of course it is controversial. Looking over all our notes, it seems that I lean towards the Jesus of the Gospel of Mark, you lean toward the Jesus from the Gospel of Luke, and Sol leans towards the Jesus of the Gospel of John. Do you agree?
I'd agree with that assessment, yeah. And that should tell you something -- if Jesus is presented as such a different character in those three gospels, it should give you an indication that the actual Jesus was a lot more complicated, and also that the individual gospels were tweaked based on the intentions of the author.


This discussion (especially points by Ben and Luminessence) have made me wonder whether or not it is actually valid even to refer to traditional Christians as “Christian”. We’ve talking in circle many times about “What is a Christian”, so I’ll leave that to the other threads.
Well, it's like all the "What is a Wiccan" threads. I'd suffice it to say that if you identify as a Christian, and if your spirituality centers around the person of Jesus in a literal or symbolic way, and specifically the myth that he rose from the dead (either literally or symbolically), then you're a Christian. I think there's a growing sentiment of "Solitary Christianity", Christians whose beliefs are developed outside of a Church context.


I’d guess they weren’t fabrications because if you put the NT books in the order they were written (paul, GoM, GoMt, GoL, Rev, GoJ, deuteroPaul, pastoral), then the later you go, the more they try to cover up the apocalypacism. Thus, for that and for several other reasons, my guess is that Jesus was apocalyptic, and the later writers were actually embarrassed by it. Others disagree though.
That wouldn't surprise me. That would make him a product of his time, after all. But here we enter an even more tricky area -- is Christianity based on the person of Jesus, or the idea of Jesus? Is it more "authentic" to seek out the apocalyptic, Jewish Jesus, or to seek out the semi-fictional, quasi-divine, Messianic Jesus?

Interesting discussion! Thanks!

[Morning Star]

I think this progressive christianity will be merely a gateway to paganism anyway. As the individual feels a desire to reconnect with nature and to disconnect with dogma, they may decide to hold on to their christian language for a little while, but I think eventually they will give up christ for other gods and more natural idols. Once you escape the Church, it is often a long and unconscious road toward paganism. I just don't see how people can, once outside of the church, maintain a belief structure predicated on salvation, the sinfulness and evil of human nature and the antiquated ideal of redemption. It must, imo, fall apart eventually.

Even if Jesus remains a god, he will be a minor god like Dionysus or Prometheus, or even as half man and half god, he'll become a part of reoccurring mythology. It is the ridged dogma of the Church, the fear of hell and the hatred or mistrust of "others" that keeps the Church together. How can it become progressive and survive?

Also, I just want to point out that Christianity is based more on the teachings of Paul than on the teachings of Jesus.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I think this progressive christianity will be merely a gateway to paganism anyway. As the individual feels a desire to reconnect with nature and to disconnect with dogma, they may decide to hold on to their christian language for a little while, but I think eventually they will give up christ for other gods and more natural idols. Once you escape the Church, it is often a long and unconscious road toward paganism. I just don't see how people can, once outside of the church, maintain a belief structure predicated on salvation, the sinfulness and evil of human nature and the antiquated ideal of redemption. It must, imo, fall apart eventually.

Even if Jesus remains a god, he will be a minor god like Dionysus or Prometheus, or even as half man and half god, he'll become a part of reoccurring mythology. It is the ridged dogma of the Church, the fear of hell and the hatred or mistrust of "others" that keeps the Church together. How can it become progressive and survive?
It's possible. I can definitely see certain pagan ideas creeping in. I think that it's more likely that progressive Christianity will evolve into a sort of Monotheistic Naturalism, a Spirit-based faith which still holds Jesus as the primary spiritual figure, but rejects the dogma of the Church. In fact, I think it's already happening in isolated corners.

[equinox2]

Hi All-

Ben, yeah interesting discussion!

Ben T. wrote:

I'd agree with that assessment, yeah. And that should tell you something -- if Jesus is presented as such a different character in those three gospels, it should give you an indication that the actual Jesus was a lot more complicated, and also that the individual gospels were tweaked based on the intentions of the author.

True – there’s obviously a lot about Jesus’ theology we don’t know. About the tweaking – we can untangle a little bit of that tweaking. Remember that Mt and Lk started with Mk’s gospel, and rewrote it to fit their own desires (plus adding some other stories). Thus, to get different views, it is best to compare Mk with Jn, since both Mk and Jn weren’t dependent on anything else we have (comparing that with Thomas is interesting too- another very different Jesus). The difference between Mk and Jn is striking – there is little they agree on beyond basics like Jesus being executed and rising from the dead. In fact, the original Mark stops at 16:8, so no one has seen the risen Jesus when Mark ends.


is Christianity based on the person of Jesus, or the idea of Jesus? Is it more "authentic" to seek out the apocalyptic, Jewish Jesus, or to seek out the semi-fictional, quasi-divine, Messianic Jesus?

Ah, that indeed is an important question. I agree that for a group (or individual) making a religion, the second Jesus could indeed be more important.

Morning Star wrote:

Even if Jesus remains a god, he will be a minor god like Dionysus or Prometheus,

Heresy! Heresy!!! I happen to like Prometheus! “minor god” indeed! * snort*
:falloffch



Also, I just want to point out that Christianity is based more on the teachings of Paul than on the teachings of Jesus.
Yep.


Have a fun day!

[SacredWithin]

I think this progressive christianity will be merely a gateway to paganism anyway. As the individual feels a desire to reconnect with nature and to disconnect with dogma, they may decide to hold on to their christian language for a little while, but I think eventually they will give up christ for other gods and more natural idols.


I don't think so. Not entirely Pagan per se. I think people will be leaning more towards the original Christianity which I believe was centered around mysticism. There are a lot of Christian Mystics all throughout the ages. The problem is that they are not embraced or even mentioned by Christians because they only focus on the Bible and it doesn't seem they could care much about their history. I think that is a major flaw of the religion. It has changed and evolved and it's journey has not been acknowledged.

I think people would become more spiritual than religious.


Also, I just want to point out that Christianity is based more on the teachings of Paul than on the teachings of Jesus.

This is most definately true.

[Ben Trismegistus]

True – there’s obviously a lot about Jesus’ theology we don’t know. About the tweaking – we can untangle a little bit of that tweaking. Remember that Mt and Lk started with Mk’s gospel, and rewrote it to fit their own desires (plus adding some other stories). Thus, to get different views, it is best to compare Mk with Jn, since both Mk and Jn weren’t dependent on anything else we have (comparing that with Thomas is interesting too- another very different Jesus). The difference between Mk and Jn is striking – there is little they agree on beyond basics like Jesus being executed and rising from the dead. In fact, the original Mark stops at 16:8, so no one has seen the risen Jesus when Mark ends.
Yup. :) (nothing more to say really)


Ah, that indeed is an important question. I agree that for a group (or individual) making a religion, the second Jesus could indeed be more important.
That's what I think. In fact, I think you could make a distinction between the scholarly and historical Jesus, and the spiritual and religious Jesus.

[Athene]

blessings everyone,

Going back to the general points made by Sol Invictus, I tend to agree that many people are creating a religion first and then sticking a convenient label on it later. Or, others are retaining the label and then making up the religion.

It has already been eloquently stated how there are virtually countless forms of Christianity. I believe that if you lead a Christ-centred life you are a Christian. The rest is theology and church doctrine.

What I agree on with Sol Invictus is that if your philosophies are only partly congruent with an individual, why not find a better figure to fit your philosophies, or heck, none at all.

If you can support your theology, how ever off the wall it may seem, on the Bible, other Christian texts, and/or on Jesus' teachings, then you're Christian. But if you base your Christianity simply on Christ as one of your gods, or on Christ as the main god among your gods, or on the teachings of Jesus that you like best, then it just doesn't sound like Christianity at all, to me. It sounds like you're having trouble giving up, or are unwilling to give up, Christ despite that you have moved away from Him.

While I respect, and will argue for, everyone's right to call themselves whatever in the world they desire, this situation of people creating their own religion but using an existing term is diluted spirituality to me. It creates a world of useless labels.

Okay, I recognise that the term 'Christian' is already almost useless, when I tell someone I'm a Christian, I am almost always pre-judged as a fundamentalist or some other preconceived idea of what a Christian is. I even see this happen in MW, where anti-Christians (including ex-Christians) claim to know what I believe. That being said, it isn't getting better with some pick-n-mix religions claiming the term. I retain the term because I am a Christian = I follow the teachings of Christ (even if it is as I understand them).

I think it was Sacredwithin who mentioned 'spirituality over religion'. This is my path, I am very non-religious and my theology is firmly based outside of the church. However, I use scripture as guidance (mainly the teachings of Christ) and a personal relationship with Godde as my framework.

I'm not alone, there are many that feel the same. Many Christians that do not believe in eternal torture, that EVERYONE will be 'saved', and other such unorthodox ideas, and can firmly base it on the Bible.
The point being, that the debates in this thread about who is or isn't a Christian, are partly based upon what the individual thinks Christians believe. Personally, I feel that every Christian and 'church' needs to be judged on individual merit by balancing historical theology with personal spirituality.

Are you lost yet to what my stance is? :drinking:
As I said at the start, if you lead a Christ-centred life you are a Christian, but if you're going to use the title 'Christian' make it a cogent assignation and not just a convenience or a security blanket.

Ben, I like your term 'Monotheistic Naturalism'. Acknowledging nature is not exclusive to Pagans, is it? I don't think the definition of Paganism is solely as a nature-based religion. Also, 'progressive Christianity' could be a misnomer if you believe what I believe. Recessive may be more apt, lol, as I feel that I'm going back to the teachings of Christ and leaving the historical church by the wayside.

Morningstar, I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you that the more I have reconnected with nature and further away from dogma, the closer I have connected to Christ and Godde.


:kooky:

[Morning Star]

Athene - I'm very confused. You are so outside of mainstream Christianity. Why in the world would you want to confuse others by using "Christian" as a label? Why not call yourself a Gnostic? Or a Mystic? or a Pagan? When you call yourself a "Christian" witch, you use Christian in a sense that no one else but you will understand. Before coming to this website, I never could have imagined such a thing. My first reaction was anger. My second reaction was curiosity. But now I'm just confused. It doesn't make sense. You gain nothing by using the term Christian. Obviously you have put a great deal of effort and time into your conception of your own religious beliefs, so I cannot dissuade you...but...I don't know. I just don't get it. *shrugs*

[Athene]

Blessings Morning Star,

That's okay that you don't 'get it'. Understanding in all things comes with time, and the willingness to understand.

I call myself a Christian because I follow the teachings of Christ, try to live as Christ did, believe the Bible was God-inspired and is a valuable spiritual tool (it's a complex and highly rich grouping of texts that most don't come close to appreciating).

Concisely:

I'm not gnostic at all. Although I have a very high regard for knowledge, I don't believe 'salvation' (whatever you might believe that to be, as Christians differ) is not achieved through knowledge.

My understanding of Paganism is that it's a polytheistic nature-based religion. Or, nature-veneration.
I believe in one Godde and though I appreciate and respect nature because it's Godde's creation, I don't worship it or have it at the centre of my spirituality.
I could be Christo-Pagan, although the Pagan term seems pointless to me as I have only the respect for nature as a common characteristic, so do many people, religious or otherwise.

Mysticism - well, I believe that Christianity at it's core has a large element of mysticism anyway. But to use the term, I feel that I would need to move further away from my nature-based practice and Biblical study.

What it comes down to is that I believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and I use the Bible for instruction. I think that makes me a Christian. :spinnysmi

As for using the term in only the way that I understand it. That's inaccurate. There are many, many Christians who believe the things I believe. There are also many Christian witches. If your contention is with Christian + witch, I find no problem with my religion and practice (and in how I practice) with how I understand the Bible, but that's a separate thread.
My beliefs may not be mainstream, but who cares? I'm not interested what the mainstream believe, I'm interested in 'truth'.

I don't expect to be accepted at all, Christians fear or are angered by me, Pagans who have Christian issues wish I would give up the term.

I'm not surprised at your anger. But I believe that if you approach religions without preconceived ideas, presumptions, that your experience is everyone's experience, and with an open heart and mind, you'll find that things begin to make sense.

I would say that I'm a devout Christian in that I commune with Christ and my Godde regularly and am passionate about what I believe in. But I'm just as happy to accept the person who has 100 gods and speaks daily to the Green Man.

I believe that the opposite of Love is not hate, but fear. I believe that fear is the real evil amongst us. If you fear something or someone, this turns to hatred, anger, resentment, vindictiveness, abuse, malice, and so on. If you're secure in your own beliefs, there is no compulsion to fear anyone else.

If you are willing to learn, you may find my website useful. I think that your going from anger to confusion is great, it's a start.

I tell you what, I'll give up the term if I stop being a Christian. _happydanc

[Morning Star]

Excellent post. I think Christian is the right term to apply to your beliefs. Good luck with that btw. :) I suppose on the upside it is very admirable that you know what you believe and that you believe it strongly. The strength of your beliefs is often a testiment to the reality they hold in your life. While I have no problems saying that I reject Christianity and nearly all that it stands for, I do understand its' appeals and you sound like a delightful and peaceful person - the type of person who creates good in the world - that being the case, when I judge Christianity Harshly it is a judgment on the Bible, on the History of the Christian Church, on Jesus Christ, on Paul and so forth, it is not a personal judgment against you. Obviously you do not let anyone spoon fed you your religion or allow a Church to Define for you how your scriptures are to be understood - that shows a real commitment to have a real relationship with the Divine. That is good. I find it very difficult to express my distaste for Christianity without offending Christians - but think of it like this.

I hate the Yankees (may they burn in hell) - but I have many beloved and close friends who are Yankee Fans. I don't understand them and come playoff time I'm ready to kill them - but I love them just the same. I don't allow the fact that they root for the devil, I mean the Yankees, affect my personal feelings for them as individuals. :)

[arctic splash]

First of all... a little known fact... did you know that, in Africa and I guess parts of South America and Asia (I don't remember exactly where, but a considerably large part of the globe) Christian fundamentalism is the fastest growing religion?


My beliefs may not be mainstream, but who cares? I'm not interested what the mainstream believe, I'm interested in 'truth'.

I completely agree with you. I see so many people saying, 'but how can you be Christian AND a witch / believe in goddess / believe earth is sacred / [fill in the blank]'. I don't know why they say this, but they seem to be equating the Christian tradition they're familiar with (or mainstream Christianity in general), with *all* Christianity. There was a time when Christians didn't have a standard Bible, but that didn't make them any less Christians. There were many writings that didn't make it into the standard Bible that very well could have... and many of the Biblical writings were altered by Constantine. I don't see why Biblical contradiction is a problem. Even among pagans, it seems, people have no problem accepting paganism as mythology, but with Christianity, they can't do it... when one starts talking about Christianity in a mythological context, some people will deny the myth and start talking about Biblical texts set in stone. (I.e. you must believe the Bible to be divinely inspired to be a Christian).

Christianity is much more than the mainstream; this was true in the ancient past, and it is becoming increasingly true again today. It was also true in the middle ages, I think. (Even Aquinas acknowledged femininity in the Divine). For those of you who have major criticisms of Christianity, don't you think it's best to allow Christianity to evolve, allow it to *become* something you can accept, instead of insisting that forms of Christianity that *are* more acceptable to you are not Christian at all? It seems like some people say, "I have major problems with Christianity, but if it evolves, it's not Christianity." So Christianity will never be something you'll accept. It's not going away, but it may very well change, and it *could* become a positive force in the world.

[Morning Star]

Or we could happily await the day when Christians suffer the same fate of the religions and cultures they've destroyed over the last two thousand years.

[arctic splash]

Or we could happily await the day when Christians suffer the same fate of the religions and cultures they've destroyed over the last two thousand years.

Happily? I wouldn't wish that on anybody. I surely don't think my grandmother deserves that fate...

I also think it's totally unfair to blame the populace, who were actually *victims* of the oppressive and power-hungry church, for the terrible things done in the name of Christianity. Blame the Catholic Church, if you want... blame Puritanism.... blame the theology.... but please don't blame 'Christians'. Please don't confuse the church with the faith itself. There is much that is deeply spiritual within Christianity; people who call themselves Christians, who may not agree with the mainstream, understand this. They understand that, although Christianity has led to some truly horrendous things, a lot of true spiritual substance can still be salvaged.

I think a LOT of people understand where Athene is coming from. I do... there's a world of difference between Quakers and Baptists, and I think anyone who has studied *diversity* in Christian belief should understand.

Why call yourself a Christian if most people won't 'get' your definition of Christianity? I could ask a similar question: why call yourself a witch when the term has such negative connotations? Why call yourself a pagan? Some Christians feel that a reclaiming of Christianity is necessary, just as a lot of pagans saw that reclaiming the words 'pagan' and witch' were necessary.

I think pagan-friendly Christian author Matthew Fox had one good answer, although I'm sure there are *many* good answers. My answer, in short, would be this: meanings are always changing. The more people like Athene that call themselves 'Christian,' the more accepted will be her usage of the term. Using the word 'Christian' to describe something outside the mainstream can actually bring about a transformation from *within* the mainstream. (Just as belonging to a political party doesn't mean we agree with the entire platform; we may disagree with some essential aspects of that platform; but one reason to join a party is to transform it).

I think Christianity is in need of a transformation. A transformation in Christianity could make this world a much more life-affirming and positive place for all of us. I don't see anything positive in what you're saying, Morning Star, and I certainly don't see how rejecting Christianity and rejecting the idea of an evolving concept of Christianity could make the world a better place.

This is from an interview with Fox (http://www.levity.com/mavericks/fox.htm)

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

Rebecca: I'm intrigued why you chose to remain a Catholic when your philosophy seems so much more closely aligned with eastern religions.

Matthew: Well, a lot of my work has been on the medieval mystics who have been ignored and condemned. Meister Eckhart was condemned by the church in the fourteenth century and is still on the condemnation list, but so was Galileo for three hundred years. Then there was Hildegard of Bingen, a renaissance woman of the twelfth century, musician, poet, painter, healer, scientist and mystic. The Middle Ages were amazing times. Thomas Aquinas, who my last book was about, was the last theologian to really care about bringing science and religion together. He was condemned three times before they canonized him a saint.

I am a Westerner. We're not going to change the West by going East. The East has a lot to teach us, but essentially it's like a mirror, saying, hey, can't you see what's here in your own religion, what are you, stupid? Carl Jung said that we Westerners cannot be pirates, thieving wisdom from foreign shores as if our own culture was an arid land.

Our religious ancestors were not all stupid and they were certainly not as stupid as some of the people running the churches today. People like Aquinas, Eckhart, Francis of Assisi, Julian of Norwich, Nicholas of Cusa were all of the same movement. David Bohm, an English physicist says he owes more to Cusa than to Einstein.

So there was a period of about two hundred years, beginning in the eleventh century when the Goddess came roaring into Christianity. Have you ever been to Chartres Cathedral? It's an incredible experience to be there, it's a temple to the Goddess. And they built five hundred like that all over Europe - to Mary the Goddess.

So I try to draw on the Western tradition first because I'm interested in social transformation - a few can go East but that's almost elitist. We have a cultural DNA, we have to stir things up and demand things of it.

[Athene]

While I have no problems saying that I reject Christianity and nearly all that it stands for, I do understand its' appeals and you sound like a delightful and peaceful person - the type of person who creates good in the world - that being the case, when I judge Christianity Harshly it is a judgment on the Bible, on the History of the Christian Church, on Jesus Christ, on Paul and so forth, it is not a personal judgment against you.


Blessings Morning Star,

Thank you for your kind words but mostly for your show of understanding.

I think it's acceptable for you to reject whatever you like. However, I do feel that generalised negativity bleeds into areas we don't necessarily intend to feel negative towards.

For instance, you have had this single (hopefully good) experience with me, and accept that Christianity is my faith and who I am. But if then your general behaviour in the world is centred on rejection you will give out negative energy, hence why you're probably offending people, you're probably being offensive. LOL :hairred:

If you accept that there are many types of Christians with varied beliefs, then you would accept that there are an equal number of anti-Christian attitudes. What I'm getting at is that it's all about personal perception, which stems from experience.

I don't know you at all, and excuse my presumptions, but based on my 'reading' of you, you have had some awful experiences [read: Bible-bashing dogma that oppressed you] that were church based.
Even if I'm way off base, if you have had bad experiences, what you're rejecting is man-made church dogma, or even simply a few people's treatment of you, but not Christianity, not it's core. I stand with you, right there side by side. I also reject man-made church dogma.

I see many Christians have bad experiences and turn away from Christianity when all was needed was turning away from the church (or just a particular church). I'm not suggesting you should return to the fold, heaven forbid. :D , but I'm saying that you could start re-accepting Christianity as a viable faith, not just something that's 'appealing', and not something to waste being angry about.

In an earlier post, you said that you won't try to "dissuade" me. I feel the need to address this without 'telling you off' or such.
I think that this is a very dangerous place to be in your journey in life. You probably didn't mean anything that strongly, but if anyone tries to dissuade others from their faith, from their spiritual walk, I feel that this is spiritual abuse. And yes, Christians are guilty of it too. Never in my 18 years of being a Christian have I tired to dissuade anyone from their path (and I've worked in homeless shelters, crises centres, etc and met all sorts of people...) If someone wants to chat with me about my faith, and I about theirs, fine, that's simply relationship/communication.
Thanks for letting me get that one out.

And hey, if you ever want to chat to a friendly, slightly off-beat, Christian witch, I'm always up for a good natter. I believe that we all cross paths for a reason.

Love & light

[Morning Star]

Happily? I wouldn't wish that on anybody. I surely don't think my grandmother deserves that fate...

I also think it's totally unfair to blame the populace, who were actually *victims* of the oppressive and power-hungry church, for the terrible things done in the name of Christianity. Blame the Catholic Church, if you want... blame Puritanism.... blame the theology.... but please don't blame 'Christians'. Please don't confuse the church with the faith itself. There is much that is deeply spiritual within Christianity; people who call themselves Christians, who may not agree with the mainstream, understand this. They understand that, although Christianity has led to some truly horrendous things, a lot of true spiritual substance can still be salvaged.


I disagree completely, but it doesn't make a difference. They have the power. At this point they will determine their own fate. It is important to be optimistic though, to have hope in the future and I suppose if we are practical that future will have to include Christians, Muslims and Jews - so logically it would be wise to be optimistic concerning the future of Christians, Muslims and Jews and in the possibility of real change and in the possibility that the Christians, Jews and Muslims of the future will do enough good to repay the horrors of their past. However, at the same time - if they destroy themselves - if an alternative comes along and a war is fought and they lose, and they suffer...it will be fair and right. They have earned such a fate. However, that is emotion talking, it would please me to see the Abrahamic Religions disappear.

Now, if I am more reasonable, I would say that yes, we should practice a bit of optimism. But let's make sure that our optimism isn't blind. Let's at least make sure that just because we want to believe that change can be made, that we don't blind ourselves to the continued horrors of these religions. Lets not ignore the realities and the problems. As long as these religions remain violent and intolerant, I will continue to wait for them to be repaid in violence and intolerance. Again, not being a Christian, I don't buy into turning the other cheek. There are real problems out there in the world and it is foolish to ignore them just to be sensitive and politically correct.

[Morning Star]

Athene,

My rejection of Christianity is a rejection of Jesus Christ, Jehoviah and The Bible; not the Church. However, I understand that most ex-Christians are just upset by their experiences of the Church. It is not just Christians, Jews & Muslims that believe dogmas that I reject - there are many pagans who believe essentially the same things just in a different way with a different language. It is an entire religious paradigm that I reject - but it is only because of the harm that the paradigm has caused in the world. I won't make a difference in this worlds' religions or the paradigm under which they operate - that's OK. It's your world guys - you don't have to defend yourselves. :) It's your world, your history, your future. People like me are easily ignored. OR in the past, murdered, burnt, staked and so forth. ;)

[arctic splash]

I agree with what you're saying, Morning Star, in the first of these two posts, except for your disagreement with my previous post, and your belief that if Christians suffer it is fair and right. If paganism became mainstream, let me tell you, I'm sure someone would find a way to screw it up and it'd be just as intolerant as Christianity has been. I think the reason religions become destructive is that they become enmeshed in power politics... and I think pagans killing Christians, who gain power and kill pagans, who gain power and kill Christians, who gain power and.... well, I think it's just madness. If it came to that, it'd be a sad day for all of us. Understanding will work better than revenge.

[Ben Trismegistus]

My rejection of Christianity is a rejection of Jesus Christ, Jehoviah and The Bible; not the Church. However, I understand that most ex-Christians are just upset by their experiences of the Church. It is not just Christians, Jews & Muslims that believe dogmas that I reject - there are many pagans who believe essentially the same things just in a different way with a different language. It is an entire religious paradigm that I reject - but it is only because of the harm that the paradigm has caused in the world. I won't make a difference in this worlds' religions or the paradigm under which they operate - that's OK. It's your world guys - you don't have to defend yourselves. :) It's your world, your history, your future. People like me are easily ignored. OR in the past, murdered, burnt, staked and so forth. ;)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. You say that you reject the paradigm because of the harm its caused in the world. But Jesus, Jehovah and the Bible didn't burn people at the stake or start the Crusades - the Church did.

[arctic splash]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. You say that you reject the paradigm because of the harm its caused in the world. But Jesus, Jehovah and the Bible didn't burn people at the stake or start the Crusades - the Church did.

I think his point is that the paradigm reenforced the mindset that allowed the Church to do what it did. To some extent, I think he's right. I think the paradigm is still causing harm (simple example: Armageddon's coming anyway, let's ravage this planet's resources...) However, I do think that's *one* paradigm of Christianity, and there are certainly others, many of them life-affirming, and ecologically conscious. Hopefully the others will begin to be heard...

[Morning Star]

I think the reason religions become destructive is that they become enmeshed in power politics... and I think pagans killing Christians, who gain power and kill pagans, who gain power and kill Christians, who gain power and.... well, I think it's just madness. If it came to that, it'd be a sad day for all of us. Understanding will work better than revenge.

It would be a sad day for there to be religious war of any kind. Violence is a terrible thing. Like my religious beliefs, I gain my beliefs about the world from nature and one of the things I've learned is that when you plant a specific type of seed it produces a specific type plant. The Bible and the Koran are bad seeds, in my opinion, which doesn't need to be taken for much. But I believe the Bible and Koran both encourage fear, insecurity and a rejection of nature. It is extremely difficult to produce peaceful, loving people from fear, insecurity and a mistrust, hatred, rejection of nature...even if it is only the nature of man that they believe is evil. I don't want to see anyone killed - I would like to see the Abrahamic Paradigm disappear.

The acts committed by The Church, were committed by Christians who believed in the Bible and therefore in the apostles' version of Jesus and the Jewish and post-Jewish version of Jehovah. Now - Jehoviah, Jesus Christ and the Bible are the seeds of the churches power, not just politics. The world view and paradigm are interwoven with the concepts of the Christian God and Jesus Christ. When I read the Gospels I do not hear the word of God - but the word of a rebellious man, that rejected the authority of the Church, but not their version of God. Jesus added eastern "wisdom" to Jewish religious practice or maybe I should give credit to Paul for this. I'm not sure. I look at Jehoviah the way Christians look at Satan or the Devil - it is representative of what is wrong in the world. Jesus Christ seemed to come close to wisdom, but in the end he died without doing anything. He didn't make a difference. The Bible has more books written by Paul than Gospels about the teachings of "Jesus".

So who are Christians? They didn't meet Jesus - they have to discover Jesus through the Bible and through their conception of Jehoviah, which is also derived from the Bible. Jesus and Jehoviah are the seeds or foundations of the Christian Faith. I find very little to admire in Jesus Christ and even less in the idea of Jehoviah. Yet, entire religions are predicated upon these concepts, upon these religious seeds. What have been the results? Horrors and Terrors of every kind.

What the Christians have done in the past will come back to haunt them - this is often times the way of things. Your past comes back to you. Each individual Christian is neither good or bad because they are a Christian. However, what the Church has done in the past, has been done by Christians, in whom were planted the same seeds as every other Christian. To be honest, I haven't seen any real regret from Christians for their history - just as I haven't seen any real regret in the Muslim Community for what Terrorists are doing around the world. There are good people and their are bad people - it is not a religion that makes you one or the other, but it may be one or the other that draws you to a religion, or if that is unfair to say, then it may be one or the other that draws you to a religious paradigm (obviously not all Christians share the same religious paradigm, but most do).

[arctic splash]

Then am I responsible for the European mentality that led to the conquest and genocide of the American continent?

[Athene]

But I believe the Bible and Koran both encourage fear, insecurity and a rejection of nature. It is extremely difficult to produce peaceful, loving people from fear, insecurity and a mistrust, hatred, rejection of nature...even if it is only the nature of man that they believe is evil.

I believe the Bible and the Qu'ran encourage peace, love and a respect of nature.


It is an entire religious paradigm that I reject - but it is only because of the harm that the paradigm has caused in the world.

It is the harm of the interpretation of the paradigm.

This is the crux of what I've been saying, it's an individual thing. For me, the problems have partly stemmed from church dogma overriding Christ's teachings found in the Bible.
and partly from the human survival instinct: competition is part of our most mundane lives.

As moonstone dreams alluded to, put the Pagans in power and they will destroy us just as easily.
I'm not American, so forgive the crude analysis, but I see the 'religious right' tend to dominate politics over there. This religion is Christianity. I, and millions of other Christians, have little affiliation with that type of Christianity. It is the conservative, hard line interpretation.

Morning star, you say that you don't, "buy into turning the other cheek", but doesn't it seem a reasonable assumption that a group that truly believes and follows that creed is less likely to make a mess of the world?


paradigm reenforced the mindset that allowed the Church to do what it did

The paradigm reinforces in me to be patient, loving, tolerant, healing, caring...

It's not Christians who have caused the problem, it's the negative side to human nature that has, through fate or whatever, been contained in Christianity. If it wasn't Christianity it would be another religion. And this negative side was/is reinforced by becoming church dogma.

The core of Islam is also peace and love. My muslim friends tell me of their sadness of the corruption of their religion. Again, negative side of human nature has twisted bits to suit their needs.

The core of Christianity (Christ-centred spirituality) is about peace, love and tolerance. Why would a person living their life this way 'deserve' some awful fate/suffering simply because of the name of their religion?

If everybody accepted the separation between church dogma/history and individual Christian beliefs, there would be much less hatred, intolerance and misunderstanding towards Christianity.

blessings

[Morning Star]

Pagans are only dangerous insofar as they have bought into the Slave Morality and Herd Instincts of the Larger Religious Culture. I'm not going to argue interpretation of any Scripture because you can say anything you wish about what you think it means and there is no objective way to argue against you. However, what I do have is two thousand years of Christian History. 1500 years of Islam (half of which was extremely violent and dedicated to war). The religious scriptures talk about love and peace (there is no reverence for human nature in the Bible or the Koran...none), but their idea of love and peace are not my idea of love and peace - so again, we are left without an objective way to argue these points. To argue that it is Man's evil nature that corrupts him and not his "beliefs" is, again, a matter of opinion, one I disagree with, but one which I cannot argue against with objectivity I suppose. All I know, is that the world created by Christians and Muslims, the worldview of the mainstream religious culture of our day, is very opposite to the world I desire and the world I try to create. Now - when all is said and done, my life will have meant very little and will have no meaningful effect, because I am just one of an extremely small minority of people who reject the worlds' entire Religious & Political way of thinking all together. It is rather sad however, I see a world of people who operate with the same good intentions, but the same corrupt beliefs, and they continue to repeat their mistakes, over and over and over again. They cannot get along, even with all their talk of love and peace. Their mistake? They blame human nature and not the flaws of their beliefs.

Look at the effect of Jesus Christ - a man of so-called love and peace - a man who failed to change anything at all, he just created a new monster, because he was an idealist. We need as much cruelty as we have love, as much violence as is needed to keep the world moving forward. This is a world of nature, of facts, of reasons; not of ideals. It is not enough to talk of love and peace and goodwill toward men, but fail to make these things manifest. For Three Thousand years, the people of Abraham have fashioned mammoth religions out of this idealistic and totally unnatural (supernatural) view of Divinity and for Three Thousand years they have come no closer to the realization of their ideals, nor have they become any more able to deal with reality, with the reality of their own nature. For three thousand years people have tried to hide from theirselves, to beg forgiveness for themselves, to reach higher plains of consciousness; but they have never learned themselves. They have never understood themselves. They have not made themselves better. They chase ideals and grow weak in the process. They call weakness peace. When no one is strong enough to fight, there is peace. That is not real peace.

I know, I know, maybe I'm unrealistic too, in that I believe Man would be better off by worshiping their own nature and the nature of everything around them, but I'll never get to see a pagan world, that is, a classically pagan world, so I'll never know. :(

[arctic splash]

I have to agree with Athene. The paradigm you're talking about is indeed one that the Church has used, and much of society has been based on it, but this is not necessarily the paradigm of an individual Christian with beliefs about love, peace, and forgiveness. When you read about religious history, you're reading the history of the major sects -- the ones who became so big because they were power-hungry -- and they're the ones that framed and interpreted Christianity in a way that suited their own materialistic goals. The desire for power and the willingness to hate and kill people to get it goes beyond the history of Christianity. However, Christianity became powerful, so it gets the rap.


Pagans are only dangerous insofar as they have bought into the Slave Morality and Herd Instincts of the Larger Religious Culture.

Any belief system that has deep significance for a great number of people is bound to be warped and taken advantage of by those who desire power. I do not think this is a Christian thing. Would you agree that the Roman pagans could be pretty dangerous? The Celts weren't exactly the most peaceful pagans. What about oppression of the Egyptian elite? And... if you're referring to modern pagans... you can't categorise us. We're all different. We're all influenced by this culture to a greater or lesser extent. The elite could certainly find a way to frame paganism in such a way that it supported their goals of conquest. Hitler did it. It's all about framing. Christianity can be framed as a peaceful, loving, forgiving, life-affirming faith, or it can be framed as something else. Same with paganism.

As you yourself implied in another thread, we're kidding ourselves if we think we're not influenced by this culture in very profound ways, every day, and perhaps every moment of our lives. This culture is even built into our language, the words we use to think and communicate. It's going to be *very* difficult to erase this -- more difficult than creating a pagan elite, I think -- because it involves a restructuring of our entire language and way of thinking.... but I'm all for trying. My point is that a pagan world would likely be just as dangerous as a Christian world because the essence of our culture is still there.

By the way, I don't think it's a "Larger Religious Culture." I think it was a power culture that became religious culture and is now, once again, quite secular. All of civilisation is based on it, regardless of religion.

[SacredWithin]

:cool: I want to be able to frame Christianity as peaceful and loving. A cousin of mine goes to a wonderful loving church where all kinds of people go. Whenever I go there, I can enjoy the spirit of loving Christians and feel welcome there. Some are aware of my faith and they don't try to cream me with the bible. :)

[arctic splash]

What kind of church is this, SacredWithin?

[Morning Star]

The paradigm is Biblical & philosophical, so I doubt you can separate Christians from their beliefs. I'm happy that people have anecdotal evidence of decent Christians, but it is unconvincing as far as making a broader argument. History, History, History. :) History tells a different story & the beliefs aren't changing over time - it is the same fundamental paradigm today as it was with the Jews as they left Africa. The masks of kindness and the pretense of love are often illusions for something much more dangerous.

[Athene]

The paradigm is Biblical & philosophical, so I doubt you can separate Christians from their beliefs.

Blessings again,

I'm understanding your stance a little more Morning Star, thank you for being so clear about things.

It seems that fundamentally, we disagree because you see social upheaval as a product of people's beliefs while I see it as a product of human nature.

To be clear, I never said 'evil' nature, but negative side to our nature.

For instance, I think it's reasonable to accept that there are bad Christians and good Christians. However, what I see is bad person - good person. You see the religion as the key.

OK, so what we have now is me, a 'good' Christian and Mr X a 'bad' Christian. We share the exact same faith but we share different interpretations resulting in different beliefs.

I believe we should act in love by feeding the hungry, while Mr X uses the word 'love' to mean we should kill the nation that bombs us because this is self-defense.

So it isn't a matter of seperating Christians from their beliefs, but of seperating Christian beliefs.


Christ didn't create a monster, people did.

You accuse Christ of being an idealist, and I would agree and add that every 'good' Christian is an idealist. While you may see that as weak, I see that as strong. To be an idealist and keep your eyes to The Divine in a world of hatred and war is unbelievably difficult and takes fortitude and courage.

You see the problem in this world as idealism that rejects human nature. Yet a world that reveled in human nature would be a world exactly the same as now!

The problem of the world is that we do worship human nature and ignore the Divine and the true message of the great sages of history.


I'll never get to see a pagan world

Don't you see, you have your world! This isn't Godde's world at all. The accusations you place on a religion are really the failings of people and their human nature. The religions are a convenient target for hatred, so is political affiliation and ethnicity.

I don't know anyone, Christian or Pagan that has a close connection to a Creator/s and fails to add to the beauty of this world.

But I'm not sure what your own desires for this world are.

You say the problem with Christians is that they're idealists that reject human nature and that's why the world's a mess so let's have a classically pagan world that accepted all aspects of human nature. Which would mean accepting the world being a mess.

Christ's Christianity is NOT powerful at all, it is a minority. Christ's Christianity did not create the Inquisition, ethnic cleansing, wars, murder, abuse, and so on. Just because a group of people slapped the name 'Christian' to their religion doesn't mean it's a way of life for them. It's just a label.

To hate or be angered by Christians is equivalent to hating or being angered by Americans. It's illogical.

My father-in-law hates the English. He reiterates the stories of the war when the Brits did this and that. For him, history is reality, now and for ever. And the Brits are one homogenous entity. I know there are hundreds who hate the Germans for what Hitler and his people did. Many other examples. It's nuts, how else can I put it?

My Islamic friends believe the Qu'ran teaches peace, I believe Christ taught peace. But if that's not what you want, if what you want is a world that accepted peace and war, kindness and cruelty, then you have it. What are you complaining about? :loveduv:
lololololol

[SacredWithin]

What kind of church is this, SacredWithin?

I'm not sure yet. It didn't have any sort of affiliation. I can go see the next time I go... but that might take a while.

*remembers* It's jsut a Christian church. They have the name of the church followed by the word Christian. So I'm guessing it's non-denominiational b/c it doesn't show any sort of affiliation.:)

[SacredWithin]

The problem of the world is that we do worship human nature and ignore the Divine and the true message of the great sages of history.



Don't you see, you have your world! This isn't Godde's world at all. The accusations you place on a religion are really the failings of people and their human nature. The religions are a convenient target for hatred, so is political affiliation and ethnicity.

Yes, this is what I agree on. :)



You say the problem with Christians is that they're idealists that reject human nature and that's why the world's a mess so let's have a classically pagan world that accepted all aspects of human nature. Which would mean accepting the world being a mess.

Well, wherever she said that or implied that, I disagree with that view. In my experience, many Christians I've met are just the opposite but put on the Polly-Anna facad. This is not to say that all Christians are like that.


Christ's Christianity is NOT powerful at all, it is a minority. Christ's Christianity did not create the Inquisition, ethnic cleansing, wars, murder, abuse, and so on. Just because a group of people slapped the name 'Christian' to their religion doesn't mean it's a way of life for them. It's just a label.

Amen! lol I too truly believe that what you consider "Christ's Christianity" is not very powerful. However something strange and mutated from what may have been true in the begining has formed. There is a biblical passage that says "Few will enter the gates of heaven". This may be true for their faith. And it's interesting that you brought this up because today I was thinking... how can the Christians feel threatened by other faiths when they make up 1/3 of the world's population?


But if that's not what you want, if what you want is a world that accepted peace and war, kindness and cruelty, then you have it. What are you complaining about? :loveduv:
lololololol

"Believe and it shall be given"

"God helps those who help themselves"

I need to work on my scirpture quoting, but what's important is that I rememberd the message.

Good post Athene. Lot's of good observations and positive messages. :)

[Morning Star]

I couldn't disagree more with the posts above, but I understand where you are coming from - I do not think I can get you to look at things through a different paradigm than your own, or quite possibly I'm inept at making myself understood. Either way I obviously haven't made myself clear.

Again, I have no hope for any kind of change and I am perfectly fine with accepting the power and domination of the Abrahamic religions, insofar as there are mainly non-violent in the Western World. Therefore, so long as no one tries to harm me personally, I don't care what they believe - I don't necessarily respect the beliefs of others, but things are what they are. I'm not looking to convert anyone here. :smoke:

[arctic splash]

Morning Star... maybe it would be easier for us to understand if you outlined exactly what this paradigm is to you, exactly how it has been dangerous, and why this paradigm is Christian in origin.

I'd also appreciate a direct, quoted response to my last (long) post, because I don't have any idea how you would respond to my arguments there... and you haven't. Especially what I said about pre-Christian pagans... and the reference to Hitler and framing religions.

When I think of 'the paradigm,' and what's been dangerous in our world, I think of a paradigm that has been accepted by athiests and pagans and Hindus and everyone else -- simply because they buy into this thing we call *civilisation*. It has become a philosophy built into civilisation; it is no longer merely religious in nature; although, yes, mainstream Christianity definitely does support it... and may be a major reason why it doesn't crumble to pieces. I don't know where it came from, but I see it in the Romans, pre-Christianity. Christianity was warped and manipulated to promote this sort of paradigm, but that's not what it is, in its essence. Christianity itself did not promote this sort of dangerous worldview until, through the Council of Nicea, and other councils and meetings, those in power chose and edited the Bible to suit their desires. I have no idea why you choose to blame Jesus, his idealism, his philosophy of love, peace, and forgiveness... that just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever... Do you think this might just be your knee-jerk emotional response, or can you rationally defend this?

I do think we'd understand each other much better, and get further in this discussion, if we quoted each other, and responded directly to each other. Right now I feel like I made some good points that haven't been responded to...

[Morning Star]

OK, well, that will take quite a bit of time to explain. It requires me to trace two thousand years of philosophy, to show how and when Christian Theologians integrated such philosophy into their dogma, how such teachings correspond to the teachings of Jesus Christ; then I have to go through and distinguish the beliefs of Christ and the beliefs of Paul - get the Christians to distinguish between which ones they believe and which ones they do not... you know. For all the trouble it would take to outline an entire paradigm (something that philosophers write volumes of books on), I fear that the only response I will get is, "No that isn't what I believe". In order to prove that someone's beliefs correspond to a particular paradigm, I have to write a broad enough description to cover all the various interpretations of the language I choose to use in such a description.

I'm not sure I can give you an adequate explaination without literally writting a book. But I am content to drop it. I would be perfectly fine with you going back and reading the words of Christ and assuming that I disagree with the fundamental antecedants of his thought. If you think me evil, cruel, stupid etc, that is fine with me.

I've failed at being clear or understood thus far and I've been trying my best - I should probably try to simplify my ideas and come back to this later. It's too frustrating to not be understood. :)

[Ben Trismegistus]

I've failed at being clear or understood thus far and I've been trying my best - I should probably try to simplify my ideas and come back to this later. It's too frustrating to not be understood. :)
I understand. There's just not much of a response to what you have to say. You believe that there is an inherent divisiveness built into the philosophies of both Christianity and Islam, philosophies which have become the dominant paradigm of the modern world. Your basis for this (as far as I can tell) is all the horrific atrocities committed over the past 2000 years in the names of those two religions. I can't find fault with that argument, even though it is not an opinion I share.

I believe, rather, that it is the nature (or should be the nature) of humanity to learn from our mistakes - to examine our history and attempt to avoid the pitfalls we succumbed to in the past. Now, as a species, we haven't done especially well at that. But there are exceptions. There are pockets, ever-growing pockets, of progressives with the Christian and Muslim communities who have reframed their religions - who have subverted the paradigm - in order to create a just society in which their faiths truly fit and belong. Rather than the inevitable product of history, as you see it, today's Abrahamic faiths are (in certain subsets) growing adapting far beyond their history, and striving to influence their more traditional brethren.

That's why I think it's of paramount importance to support the progressive Christians and Muslims, rather than attempting to tell them that they shouldn't use those labels. Perhaps, with more influences, these communities can *reinvent* the religious communities at large. It's worth a try.

[arctic splash]

If you could simply explain (or even give a couple reasons) why you think an idealist who preached love and peace is responsible for everyone that felt or behaved *contrary* to those philosophies, that'd be great.

If we all thought that our sincerest beliefs would be taken advantage of and manipulated by the power-elite to cause exactly the opposite of what we believed in, I don't know if any of us would be so eager to share our opinions. It doesn't seem reasonable that anyone would expect that.

It almost sounds like you believe this paradigm is built into the word 'Christian' itself.

[Morning Star]

1. I do not believe that Jesus Christ is responsible for any action other than his own, nor do I believe that Christianity is actually about Jesus Christ. Most of the New Testiment was written by Paul. Peter and Paul were responsible for establishing the Church and setting forth the dogma. Christian Dogma became completely organized and established in the 4th and 5th centuries. When I refer to Christianity, I am refering to the Major Themes of the Bible. The Gospels are a Theme - but Jesus wasn't trying to create a Church, he was trying to free people from a Church. He was trying to turn people into Pagans, to remove the easily corrupted Church as an obsticle standing in between Man and God. Jesus Christ was also Politically Relevent. His politics were terrible (Pacifism, except the authority of the Romans, blah blah blah. The Jews were a part of a caste - the Jewish Church used this to gain complete authority over the Jews and force religious law onto them. All this with the understanding that so long as the Church kept the People in Line, the Romans would stay out of the way). Anyway - Paul was much different. Paul was creating a religion! Jesus was not. Jesus was trying to free men from religion, which I think is good, and he was sharing his own personal spirituality (which I think was naive, a little too idealistic, too jewish, but hey, what could he do? He was a Jew). Paul on the other hand, can be argued to be the real founder of the Christian Church and of Christianity. His books were used to establish the Religion. A "Christian" is a "Christian" because they belong to the "Christian" church, in my opinion. Now - there are tons of people who call themselves Christians who have broken away from the Christian Church who believe various interpretations of the Bible. These are the Heretics, but still they are fundamentally Christian in the sense that they view God in the same way Jesus and Paul did - in other words, they viewed God the same way as the Jews. The God of Abraham.

2. Who is this God of Abraham? Well, he is a supernatural god - but he is also an non-natural God. He is the creator of the universe and the master of the universe. He has a Divinie Plan. Now - this view of God is the seed of the Paradigm of which I've been failing to explain.

a. Do you believe that Belief can have an effect on the way an individual feels about the world and the way the behave? If so, what of this idea of God as being outside of Nature? What of this God who created man - but now condemns man? What of this God that says, "Your nature is evil" "Humble yourself before Me and you shall be saved"? This is a "Loving" God, that created this world? It is not only Human Society that is violent and it is not only people that suffer. There are whole forests that have been destroyed by vines, because the vines sucked all the moisture out of the ground, which not only made the trees not have enough water - but because nuts and fruits and such were less, there were less insect eaters and more insects moved into the forests and essentially ate the forest to death as the vines sufficated them. A whole forest destroyed! But this isn't evil. Bad things don't happen because of "evil" - Good vs. Evil is a dangerous paradigm! Christians, of all breeds, have defined themselves as The Good (at least once they've been saved), and everything that isn't them - necessarily becomes evil. This is dangerous and this is why it is so easy for Christians to be lead into committing all kinds of horrors. Sure, the Bible says not to Murder - but that doesn't apply to war does it? That doesn't apply to doing gods will and defeating evil does it? Of course not! Kill the infidel! Thats where the Muslims are.

b. Who is this God? This is a God who controls. He does not want things to be free - He wants to be worshiped and obeyed. Why? Is his ego in need of fulfillment? Of course not! This belief is merely the result of another. The desire of most people to be worshiped and obeyed isn't fulfilled, so the desire is transfered onto their image of God - but the religion is centered around control, around worship and obediance. Whoever controls the Church, controls the dogma and whoever controls the dogma, controls the people. This makes their religion dangerous. But where did this come from? Where did this religious structure arise? It arose with the Jews. Now, without getting into an argument over these points and their history, my point is simply that Christians hold a belief of God that is dangerous and it not only subjects them to being easily controlled, but they are rarely satisfied with being the only ones to be controlled - they want others to be controlled too. Again, witness fanatical Islam. Islam today is where Judiasm was 2300 hundred years ago. Why? Because of their Ideal of God! It changes people.

3. So the paradigm begins with the Abrahamic view of God (which is really all these three religions share in the first place) and then it creates a few fundamental errors.

1. The One True Way and the One True God
2. The Authority of the Church on Earth
3. God's Nature is Good ; Man's Nature is Bad
4. Believers Go to Heaven ; Non-Believers Go to Hell
5. God has a Divine Plan - You are either for God and follow his will or you are against God by being against his will.
6. Human Nature is Moral. That is, the nature of human nature is a moral nature. We have a "good" side and a "bad" side. The "good" side desires peace and love and happiness and the "bad" side is selfish, violent and unhappy. (This may need some explaination as to why I think it is bad - but that is for another post)
7. God as the Creator and therefore Author of the Universe (I should have put this first - most other errors come from this one)
8. People who worship other Gods are not worshiping the one true God and therefore are worshipping the opposite of the one true god, which is an evil demon. (this belongs to all three Abrahamaic Traditions) - may not apply to every single believer, but history will back me up on this one. The Bible and Koran will also support me on this.
9. Money & Knowledge are evil - A message very much woven into nearly all Abrahamic Scripture. This error goes back to #6.
10. All you need is Love. Idealism. Idealized God. Idealized Man. Idealized Universe. This is simply not true and it prevents progress. Sometimes you need cruelty to stop cruelty. Sometimes you have to kill. Sometimes you have to lie and destroy and cause harm. You shouldn't always turn the other cheak. You shouldn't always love your enemies. Sometimes Love isn't Good, sometimes it is a great evil! For example, A mother hides her muderous son, because she loves him. Love is not an innately good motivation. It has its' uses, but it is not the end all be all of moral goodness and it certainly is not God. God is not Love. To claim that God is love is to make God unbelievable. It really does require faith to believe that God is Love, because the world doesn't make this clear. Once you step outside of Nature and you idealize the Divine, there is no telling how outrageous and dangerous beliefs can become.

I am a Pagan because I look to Nature to tell me who God is. I don't have faith. I simply have ideas, that are neither true nor false, they are merely conceptions I use to visualize divinity in the best way that I can, but divinity is never seperated from Nature, it is never moral. It is not good or evil. There is no harmony in divinity. There is Balance. Nature is neither good or evil, it is balanced. And we need to be balanced and the Abrahamic religious paradigms make the world unbalanced, and the gateway to making this so is the simple idea that God is Love.

My fingers are getting tired. :) More to come later.

Also - I should add, Ben - Yes, I suppose it is worth a try. But it seems a bit naive to be optimistic. This is not the first time Christians have become progressive or have even embraced nature, witchcraft or magic. They've done this in the past and always returned to their pagan roots. (Freemasons and nearly all Occultists are excellent examples of Christians and Jews whose search for a more progressive and natural Way merely leads to paganism). There is nothing that says that Progressive Christianity can't work. There is no reason to believe that it can't work. But there is pleanty of reason to believe that it won't work. To ignore that reason is to be placing your faith in "progressive Christians" and faith, like respect, must be earned.

[arctic splash]

Very good explanation, Morning Star.

It seems like you have a pretty good idea the difference between Jesus and Paul. Some people who practise Christianity today also understand that difference, and when they call themselves Christian, they're following the spirit of Jesus, not Paul. Paul was surely the founder of mainstream Christianity, but there were other sects at the time, which don't seem to have much 'Paulean' influence. There are also interpretations of Jesus that are not based on the four accepted gospels (or which interpret them differently, and do not claim them to be the direct and only Word of God). I think it's unfair to call these people heretics -- by doing so, you're only supporting the cause of the mainstream you dislike so much. The Bible doesn't have to be the only (or even most the most important) source of the Word of God. The Bible itself is problematic -- too many words with meanings that are no longer the same as when they were written; too much editing; one need not necessarily accept that the Bible is Good and Divine in order to be a Christian.

You say that a Christian is defined as someone who belongs to the Christian church (there are thousands of different ones, BTW)... and then you say that the 'Heretics' are also Christian. I don't understand.


2. Who is this God of Abraham? Well, he is a supernatural god - but he is also an non-natural God. He is the creator of the universe and the master of the universe. He has a Divinie Plan. Now - this view of God is the seed of the Paradigm of which I've been failing to explain.

He/She (and YES, the feminine Hebrew word for God is used in the Torah) can also be thought of as immanent and transcendent. This view of the Divine is one I'm sure many pagans here subscribe to as well, and it is a Kabbalistic understanding of Divine. It can be panentheistic: God/dess is in everything, and everything is in God/dess. The Bible isn't the final word for all Christians. Many Christians base their spirituality on personal experience, and to them, experience is more important than a book. Aquinas said that Creation was the second Word of God.


Do you believe that Belief can have an effect on the way an individual feels about the world and the way the behave? If so, what of this idea of God as being outside of Nature? What of this God who created man - but now condemns man?

Sin is overemphasised in the Christian tradition. Blessing is underemphasised. Original sin is not even a Biblical concept -- it originates with Augustine. It is possible to emphasise blessing over sin, and at the same time, redefine sin. So much of our idea of what sin is comes from theological commentaries anyway. Sin doesn't mean the same thing as it used to, and we need not accept someone else's conception of sin. We can think about it ourselves and come to our own conclusions. That's one of the great things about Judaism that I wish Christianity had kept -- encouraging rational and even critical thought about the tradition.

The idea of God being outside nature is not essential to Christianity or Abrahamic religions. It is something that has, of course, been perpetrated by St. Augustine and many others who were afraid of their own bodies. Not all Jewish and Christian mystics share this view of Nature vs. God... although sadly... their views have been largely ignored. It is true, a relationship with nature is something I find lacking in the Abrahamic traditions, but this is not to say that this can't be (and it has been, in some circles) changed.

The Kabbalistic story purports that God Him/Herself made the seeming mistake, by channelling too much energy into the Sefirot, and it is now up to humanity to correct this through Tikkun Olam -- we are actually repairers of the world, not to be condemned.



...you post a list...

Most of the items on your list, IMO, are not NECESSARY to Christianity. There are universalists who believe that theirs is just one of many paths and no better than the others. There are also those who believe that anyone who hasn't been baptised is going to hell.

I think it's just that we both had very different first impressions, and that will affect how we think about these issues for the rest of our lives.


I am a Pagan because I look to Nature to tell me who God is.

Do you know how much Aquinas emphasised this? The Word of God is all around us, in the natural world, we need only look there to learn about God.

You'd find many 'pagan' ideas in these traditions, if you looked for them. They're there; they're just neglected. Again I think it's all about framing.



Christians, of all breeds, have defined themselves as The Good (at least once they've been saved), and everything that isn't them - necessarily becomes evil.

It simply isn't true that all Christians share this view. Many do, but not all.

And now I wish I knew more about this stuff so I could really respond. :)

[SacredWithin]

Do you know how much Aquinas emphasised this? The Word of God is all around us, in the natural world, we need only look there to learn about God.

Wasn't Aquinas a Gnostic Christian (http://gnosticchristianity.com)?


It simply isn't true that all Christians share this view. Many do, but not all.

I think the more Puritan type Christians may feel this way. :)

[arctic splash]

Wasn't Aquinas a Gnostic Christian (http://gnosticchristianity.com)?]

He was a Catholic of the Dominican Order. He was condemned by the Catholics and later declared a Saint. Maybe that's not what you're asking? He certainly wasn't a Gnostic in the sense of following the Gnostic teachings... If that were true, the Catholics would never have made him a saint. ;)


I think the more Puritan type Christians may feel this way. :)

I'm sure.

[charmedkisses1]

This looks really nice... thank you!

[charmedkisses1]

My own experience has been that progressive "Christians" typically use the label "Christian" (because of the moral authority and weight it carries in the Western imagination) to promote a progressive social agenda without actually adhering the the traditions and historical beliefs of Christianity. They may be more palatable to those who have chosen paths other than Christianity, but they aren't Christians in any legitimate, historical sense.

This is not necessarily a criticism of progressive "Christians," but Christianity is a creedal faith (something those of us without creeds often overlook) that is defined by a corporate and historically continuous body of belief.

"legitimate, historical sense?"
????? what kind of Christians are you talking about? The only kind you could be referring to are the Catholics, as all other followers and believers of Christ (that's what a Christian is, you see) have no problem applying a never changing spirituality to their lives. The ones I know don't, at least.