NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of this more rational view of Christianity? Matthew Fox posted 95 Theses, ala Martin Luther, to the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Among his theses are:

87.

Authentic science can and must be one of humanity’s sources of wisdom for it is a source of sacred awe, of childlike wonder, and of truth.

73.

Homophobia in any form is a serious sin against love of neighbor, a sin of ignorance of the richness and diversity of God’s creation as well as a sin of exclusion.

72.

Since homosexuality is found among 464 species and in 8 percent of any given human population, it is altogether natural for those who are born that way and is a gift from God and nature to the greater community.

70.

Jesus said nothing about condoms, birth control or homosexuality.

68.

Pedophilia is a terrible wrong but its cover-up by hierarchy is even more despicable.

59.

Fourteen billion years of evolution and unfolding of the universe bespeak the intimate sacredness of all that is.

33.

The term “original wound” better describes the separation humans experience on leaving the womb and entering the world, a world that is often unjust and unwelcoming than does the term “original sin.”

26.

Empire-building is incompatible with Jesus’ life and teaching and with Paul’s life and teaching and with the teaching of holy religions.

23.

Sexuality is a sacred act and a spiritual experience, a theophany (revelation of the Divine), a mystical experience. It is holy and deserves to be honored as such.

18.

Ecojustice is a necessity for planetary survival and human ethics and without it we are crucifying the Christ all over again in the form of destruction of forests, waters, species, air and soil.

11.

Religion is not necessary but spirituality is.

6.

Theism (the idea that God is ‘out there’ or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things (panentheism).


1.

God is both Mother and Father.

Gott ist Mutter und Vater.

2.

At this time in history, God is more Mother than Father because the feminine is most missing and it is important to bring gender balance back.

In unserer Zeit ist Gott mehr Mutter als Vater, denn das Weibliche fehlt am meisten, und es ist wesentlich, das Gleichgewicht der Geschlechter wieder herzustellen.

3.

God is always new, always young and always “in the beginning.”

Gott ist immer neu, immer jung und immer „im Anfang“.

4.

God the Punitive Father is not a God worth honoring but a false god and an idol that serves empire-builders. The notion of a punitive, all-male God, is contrary to the full nature of the Godhead who is as much female and motherly as it is masculine and fatherly.

Gott als strafender Vater ist keine anbetungswürdige Gottheit, sondern ein Götze, der den Imperialisten dient. Die Vorstellung eines strafenden, männlichen Gottes widerspricht dem umfassenden Wesen der Gottheit, die ebenso weiblich und mütterlich wie männlich und väterlich ist.

5.

“All the names we give to God come from an understanding of ourselves.” (Eckhart) Thus people who worship a punitive father are themselves punitive.

The full list can be seen here:
http://matthewfoxcs.blogspot.com/2005/05/chapter-v-95-theses-or-articles-of.html

I'd like Christians much more if this is what was actually followed.

That's actually what I follow, believe it or not. I'm glad I'm not the only one! Except maybe #6... I'm sort of an inbetween thing... I believe in God as one, and yet, I also believe the panentheism bit too. It seems a bit contradictory, but I manage to get that to work. Otherwise, that IS what I follow. Now, I'm only referring to the ones here - for all 95, I'd have to take the time to review them...

That's actually what I follow, believe it or not. I'm glad I'm not the only one! Except maybe #6... I'm sort of an inbetween thing... I believe in God as one, and yet, I also believe the panentheism bit too. It seems a bit contradictory, but I manage to get that to work. Otherwise, that IS what I follow. Now, I'm only referring to the ones here - for all 95, I'd have to take the time to review them...

Im an Atheist.
I agree with this christianity. Any christians of this sort are OK by me :)
I wont burn these sorts when my regime comes along... any minute now...

This is also sort of what I follow too...

Im an Atheist.
I agree with this christianity. Any christians of this sort are OK by me :)
I wont burn these sorts when my regime comes along... any minute now...
I'm agnostic but this seems to be the most soul searching form of Chrisitianity I've seen. Options are not closed off and thought is allowed. I'm going to read the book, A New Reformation by Matthew Fox and see what else he has to say.


Oh, by the way: He was a member of the Dominican Order for thirty-four years before he was expelled by the former cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Or Pope Benedict XVI.

Unfortunately, Christianity is a religion that more or less evolves with each individual; there is no one set religion to follow, in any of the many various different sects. Personally, what is posted here mostly follows what I believe, with a few differences (coughecojusticecough).

With this, it makes it very difficult to say you hate Christians, etc...because each is different, with a different religious following. You may find one to be obnoxious, obtrusive, and an ass, whereas another might be pleasent to be around since the way he believes is through being a nice person, etc...

Unfortunately, Christianity is a religion that more or less evolves with each individual; there is no one set religion to follow, in any of the many various different sects. Personally, what is posted here mostly follows what I believe, with a few differences (coughecojusticecough).

With this, it makes it very difficult to say you hate Christians, etc...because each is different, with a different religious following. You may find one to be obnoxious, obtrusive, and an ass, whereas another might be pleasent to be around since the way he believes is through being a nice person, etc...
Most of my dissatisfaction is with American Fundamentalist Christians and whichever churches are used to convey those ideas. Mainly, anti-gay, apocolyptic, anti-woman, fire and brimstone Pat Robertson types.

Most of my dissatisfaction is with American Fundamentalist Christians and whichever churches are used to convey those ideas. Mainly, anti-gay, apocolyptic, anti-woman, fire and brimstone Pat Robertson types.

Or the Westburo Baptist Church?

Or the Westburo Baptist Church?
Oh no, I love that comedian. He should get a TV Sitcom.

You should see the new form of christianity I am building. It will blow you away ;)

Have the fundies renounced this as heresy yet?






Has the pope?

Have the fundies renounced this as heresy yet?






Has the pope?
Yes. Yes.

I'm not sure about the whole notion of God being both mother and father. After all, one of the central critiques of feminism on language is that men and manliness connote certain positive aspects, such as bravery, hardiness, and diligence that are not really gender-exclusive to men at all. As such, I'd be more inclined to say that rather than saying God is both mother and father, God is simply good and has all good attributes, irrespective of the gender they are traditionally associated with.

I'm also not entirely sold on the panentheism idea, either. I'm not sure that "godly" is a predicate you could really attach to a rock, for instance.

Other than that, I think he has some fairly good, if heretical by Pope Benedict's standards, ideas. I'm certainly in favor of removing the misogynistic impulses of the church.

Where are all the usual fundies?

If one were to think logically on the subject, you'd have to lavish all of creation with just as much respect and love as you would your diety....because after all, he created all of it. The rocks, roaches, and weeds all created by your supreme lord with a purpose. Who are you to assume the roaches purpose was to be squashed beneath your shoe?
So obviously this sounds a little extreme. But when dealing with something like an omnipotent being, it should be all or nothing, right? You either abide by the rules or you don't? Is there any fullfillment in abiding by some but not others? So logically speaking you would be bound to honor all of existence.
But speaking logically while assuming there is an omnipotent force is like ....well, stupid. Either there is an omnipotent being and you respect and honor all of existense or there is no god.

To be clear, I haven't put any real amount of thought into this...so I'm looking for feedback and polite challenges to my reasoning.

If one were to think logically on the subject, you'd have to lavish all of creation with just as much respect and love as you would your diety....because after all, he created all of it. The rocks, roaches, and weeds all created by your supreme lord with a purpose. Who are you to assume the roaches purpose was to be squashed beneath your shoe?
So obviously this sounds a little extreme. But when dealing with something like an omnipotent being, it should be all or nothing, right? You either abide by the rules or you don't? Is there any fullfillment in abiding by some but not others? So logically speaking you would be bound to honor all of existence.
But speaking logically while assuming there is an omnipotent force is like ....well, stupid. Either there is an omnipotent being and you respect and honor all of existense or there is no god.

To be clear, I haven't put any real amount of thought into this...so I'm looking for feedback and polite challenges to my reasoning.
Speaking in huge general terms, the people I've come across that respect all of existance largely believe that there is no or doubt the existance of God.

Aw. I was hoping this would be about Crowleyanity. :P

93s, y'all.

Aw. I was hoping this would be about Crowleyanity. :P

93s, y'all.
Wassat?

What do you think of this more rational view of Christianity? Matthew Fox posted 95 Theses, ala Martin Luther, to the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Among his theses are:

87.

Authentic science can and must be one of humanity’s sources of wisdom for it is a source of sacred awe, of childlike wonder, and of truth.

73.

Homophobia in any form is a serious sin against love of neighbor, a sin of ignorance of the richness and diversity of God’s creation as well as a sin of exclusion.

72.

Since homosexuality is found among 464 species and in 8 percent of any given human population, it is altogether natural for those who are born that way and is a gift from God and nature to the greater community.

70.

Jesus said nothing about condoms, birth control or homosexuality.

68.

Pedophilia is a terrible wrong but its cover-up by hierarchy is even more despicable.

59.

Fourteen billion years of evolution and unfolding of the universe bespeak the intimate sacredness of all that is.

33.

The term “original wound” better describes the separation humans experience on leaving the womb and entering the world, a world that is often unjust and unwelcoming than does the term “original sin.”

26.

Empire-building is incompatible with Jesus’ life and teaching and with Paul’s life and teaching and with the teaching of holy religions.

23.

Sexuality is a sacred act and a spiritual experience, a theophany (revelation of the Divine), a mystical experience. It is holy and deserves to be honored as such.

18.

Ecojustice is a necessity for planetary survival and human ethics and without it we are crucifying the Christ all over again in the form of destruction of forests, waters, species, air and soil.

11.

Religion is not necessary but spirituality is.

6.

Theism (the idea that God is ‘out there’ or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things (panentheism).


1.

God is both Mother and Father.

Gott ist Mutter und Vater.

2.

At this time in history, God is more Mother than Father because the feminine is most missing and it is important to bring gender balance back.

In unserer Zeit ist Gott mehr Mutter als Vater, denn das Weibliche fehlt am meisten, und es ist wesentlich, das Gleichgewicht der Geschlechter wieder herzustellen.

3.

God is always new, always young and always “in the beginning.”

Gott ist immer neu, immer jung und immer „im Anfang“.

4.

God the Punitive Father is not a God worth honoring but a false god and an idol that serves empire-builders. The notion of a punitive, all-male God, is contrary to the full nature of the Godhead who is as much female and motherly as it is masculine and fatherly.

Gott als strafender Vater ist keine anbetungswürdige Gottheit, sondern ein Götze, der den Imperialisten dient. Die Vorstellung eines strafenden, männlichen Gottes widerspricht dem umfassenden Wesen der Gottheit, die ebenso weiblich und mütterlich wie männlich und väterlich ist.

5.

“All the names we give to God come from an understanding of ourselves.” (Eckhart) Thus people who worship a punitive father are themselves punitive.

The full list can be seen here:
http://matthewfoxcs.blogspot.com/2005/05/chapter-v-95-theses-or-articles-of.html

I'd like Christians much more if this is what was actually followed.This is brilliant! See, the RR hasn't corrupted all of Christianity!

If one were to think logically on the subject, you'd have to lavish all of creation with just as much respect and love as you would your diety....because after all, he created all of it. The rocks, roaches, and weeds all created by your supreme lord with a purpose. Who are you to assume the roaches purpose was to be squashed beneath your shoe?
So obviously this sounds a little extreme. But when dealing with something like an omnipotent being, it should be all or nothing, right? You either abide by the rules or you don't? Is there any fullfillment in abiding by some but not others? So logically speaking you would be bound to honor all of existence.
But speaking logically while assuming there is an omnipotent force is like ....well, stupid. Either there is an omnipotent being and you respect and honor all of existense or there is no god.

To be clear, I haven't put any real amount of thought into this...so I'm looking for feedback and polite challenges to my reasoning.

Yes, exactly! We can't just go "oh, look tree to give me fire because I want it" without considering that God created this tree, and that this tree has life. Now, if the tree is willing to let you use it for fire, that's a little different, but even then, wouldn't it be better just to use a branch or two from a few trees than to outright kill one?

This is brilliant! See, the RR hasn't corrupted all of Christianity!
It'd be nice to see it having an effect. But I'm guessing effect usually goes where the money goes.

I'm mildly confused. Some of the stuff Matthew Fox writes in downright contradictory to either the Scripture (which orthodox Christianity teaches is inspired) or to Church tradition (which is at the very least to be consulted and pondered before doing something different. Some examples:

72.

Since homosexuality is found among 464 species and in 8 percent of any given human population, it is altogether natural for those who are born that way and is a gift from God and nature to the greater community.[quote]

St. Paul condemned homeosexuality; and scientifically, what is natural to one species is not necessarily natural to another. From a Christian viewpoint, an "unnatural act" is defacing the image of God, and therefore can't be a gift from God.

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]59.

Fourteen billion years of evolution and unfolding of the universe bespeak the intimate sacredness of all that is.

...Evolution doesn't pretend to bespeak sacredness for anything. If it's guided by God, then we are to be truly in awe of his power throughout the ages. Everything that exists is sacred in a sense because it exists, and is therefore sustained by God.

33.

The term “original wound” better describes the separation humans experience on leaving the womb and entering the world, a world that is often unjust and unwelcoming than does the term “original sin.”

The concept of "original sin" has nothing to do with the birth process. It's a confusion or lessening of the soul's purity and will (not stating this exactly in the catholic wording...). Agreed, however, that the new proposed term does convey a sense of what the doctrine implies about human nature.

26.

Empire-building is incompatible with Jesus’ life and teaching and with Paul’s life and teaching and with the teaching of holy religions.

"Holy religions"? Christianity teaches that only one religion is holy and right, though we usually would consider, at least unofficially, that any belief may be used by God to save a man - it's just a special instance of grace. And neither Jesus nor Paul really addressed politics at all. No, a Christian ruler should not practice aggressive warfare etc associated with impirialism. But we weren't given license to complain about what the rulers do either.

11.

Religion is not necessary but spirituality is.

So the supernatural has to be known to exist and effect us, but we don't have to believe anything about it? Right... quite compatible with "I" am the Way, the Truth..."

6.

Theism (the idea that God is ‘out there’ or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things (panentheism).

Um. Christianity is a theistic religion.

1.

God is both Mother and Father.

I'm about this close to thinking Mr. Fox hasn't ever read the Bible.

(Same comment applies to the next few ideas. God of the Scripture is a male God. The Spirit, it is true, is often regarded (especially by the mystic traditions) as somewhat female in attribute. But that's somewhat a point of theological trivia.)

5.

“All the names we give to God come from an understanding of ourselves.” (Eckhart) Thus people who worship a punitive father are themselves punitive.

Yes, people are like the god they worship. Christianity will not, however, admit that God is made in our image, as it were.

I hope I don't sound too bitter or accusing... I just wish people wouldn't call something Christian that... isn't.

I'm mildly confused. Some of the stuff Matthew Fox writes in downright contradictory to either the Scripture (which orthodox Christianity teaches is inspired) or to Church tradition (which is at the very least to be consulted and pondered before doing something different. Some examples:

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]72.

Since homosexuality is found among 464 species and in 8 percent of any given human population, it is altogether natural for those who are born that way and is a gift from God and nature to the greater community.[quote]

St. Paul condemned homeosexuality; and scientifically, what is natural to one species is not necessarily natural to another. From a Christian viewpoint, an "unnatural act" is defacing the image of God, and therefore can't be a gift from God.



...Evolution doesn't pretend to bespeak sacredness for anything. If it's guided by God, then we are to be truly in awe of his power throughout the ages. Everything that exists is sacred in a sense because it exists, and is therefore sustained by God.



The concept of "original sin" has nothing to do with the birth process. It's a confusion or lessening of the soul's purity and will (not stating this exactly in the catholic wording...). Agreed, however, that the new proposed term does convey a sense of what the doctrine implies about human nature.



"Holy religions"? Christianity teaches that only one religion is holy and right, though we usually would consider, at least unofficially, that any belief may be used by God to save a man - it's just a special instance of grace. And neither Jesus nor Paul really addressed politics at all. No, a Christian ruler should not practice aggressive warfare etc associated with impirialism. But we weren't given license to complain about what the rulers do either.



So the supernatural has to be known to exist and effect us, but we don't have to believe anything about it? Right... quite compatible with "I" am the Way, the Truth..."



Um. Christianity is a theistic religion.



I'm about this close to thinking Mr. Fox hasn't ever read the Bible.

(Same comment applies to the next few ideas. God of the Scripture is a male God. The Spirit, it is true, is often regarded (especially by the mystic traditions) as somewhat female in attribute. But that's somewhat a point of theological trivia.)



Yes, people are like the god they worship. Christianity will not, however, admit that God is made in our image, as it were.

I hope I don't sound too bitter or accusing... I just wish people wouldn't call something Christian that... isn't.
I really think that you're basing certain interpretations of the bible which have become popular rather than what the bible actually teaches. Or anyway, what Matthew Fox believes it teaches. As stated before, he was in the Dominican Order for thirty-four years.
I really need to read more about him though. Hopefully, someone more qualified than myself can answer your questions. If I had more time right now, I'd try to.

I consider myself an atheist, and I say that this vision of christianity is one I hold dear, and find completely acceptable, even while remaining an atheist. God as a symbol or as being, but not a being, is of course nontheistic, but then, so is much religion, such as some parts of Buddhism. Therefore, coming from the other way, instead of a Christian who grew into this non-theistic view of god, I'm an atheist who grew into this view of God which I find perfectly acceptable, without compromising who I am.

As for it being unchristian, all religions, especially ones as large and diverse as Christianity, have huge room for evolution and growth. To try to pin down one arbitrary view of the sacred as the final one, for all time, is the height of arrogance.

I consider myself an atheist, and I say that this vision of christianity is one I hold dear, and find completely acceptable, even while remaining an atheist. God as a symbol or as being, but not a being, is of course nontheistic, but then, so is much religion, such as some parts of Buddhism. Therefore, coming from the other way, instead of a Christian who grew into this non-theistic view of god, I'm an atheist who grew into this view of God which I find perfectly acceptable, without compromising who I am.

As for it being unchristian, all religions, especially ones as large and diverse as Christianity, have huge room for evolution and growth. To try to pin down one arbitrary view of the sacred as the final one, for all time, is the height of arrogance.


You should know that adding to the Bible or changing it is a sin. God is supposed to be forever the same. But Humans in there infinite stupidty and arrogance change his words and their meanings to fit their own politcal agendas. That leaves the Bible and all Religion almost worthless. This is no different, it just some changing the core beliefs of Christianity to fit their political agendas. But do as you will, just leave me out of it.

You should know that adding to the Bible or changing it is a sin. God is supposed to be forever the same. But Humans in there infinite stupidty and arrogance change his words and their meanings to fit their own politcal agendas. That leaves the Bible and all Religion almost worthless. This is no different, it just some changing the core beliefs of Christianity to fit their political agendas. But do as you will, just leave me out of it.
OK.

Those sound good to me - but let me ask: Doesn't that simply imply the use of good will and common sense?

[thought I had made a typo - "simply imply" looks weird!]

Those sound good to me - but let me ask: Doesn't that simply imply the use of good will and common sense?

[thought I had made a typo - "simply imply" looks weird!]

Pretty much!

As nature evolves, so should humanity. As humanity evolves, so should its societies. As society evolves, so should its religions.

I consider myself an atheist, and I say that this vision of christianity is one I hold dear, and find completely acceptable, even while remaining an atheist. God as a symbol or as being, but not a being, is of course nontheistic, but then, so is much religion, such as some parts of Buddhism. Therefore, coming from the other way, instead of a Christian who grew into this non-theistic view of god, I'm an atheist who grew into this view of God which I find perfectly acceptable, without compromising who I am.

As for it being unchristian, all religions, especially ones as large and diverse as Christianity, have huge room for evolution and growth. To try to pin down one arbitrary view of the sacred as the final one, for all time, is the height of arrogance.

I was trying to just point out the things that cause contradictions with the "accepted" texts of the entire church (tall order, I know): the 66 common books of the Bible, the two well-known creeds, and the "traditions" most Christians would recognize as traditionally Christian. To me, then, it seems that something that contradicts those things is non-Christian.

Personally, I believe not believing in Christ is a bad thing, and I'd like others to believe. But that wasn't actually my issue here. My issue here is that Matthew Fox is putting forth something as an amendment to Christianity which really isn't Christianity at all. Whether his opinions are right are wrong is not the issue right now (for me): I'm concerned about his misleading error in nomenclature.

(As a side note, if we assume for a moment that the, what I may call, "traditional" Christian God does exist, and he's told us to preach his love and forgiveness to the rold so that some may repent, then it is in fact the height of arrogance to refuse to acknowledge that, and to say his followers have no right to claim to speak truth.)

As nature evolves, so should humanity. As humanity evolves, so should its societies. As society evolves, so should its religions.
And I think most us of can agree christanity needs an update

And fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, but I think we all knew that.

And I think most us of can agree christanity needs an update

But suppose, just for the heck of the thing, that humanity didn't evolve and isn't evolving...

Wouldn't that rather render the whole thing invalid?

But suppose, just for the heck of the thing, that humanity didn't evolve and isn't evolving...

Wouldn't that rather render the whole thing invalid?

Humanity not be "evolving" at a rate we can perceive, but our societies are. Things are a lot different then they were even in the 80s.

But suppose, just for the heck of the thing, that humanity didn't evolve and isn't evolving...

Wouldn't that rather render the whole thing invalid?
Yes, Yes It would…
But if Humanity didn’t evolve socially we wouldn’t be having this discussion…

And fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, but I think we all knew that.

No. Fear leads to Hope.

Which (If fear doesn't leave) leads to dispair, leads to torment, leads to anger,
leads to hate, leads to suffering.

Good post, DM. I agree that as living philosophies with "christ"ian doctrine go, there's a lot of value in what you brought up in this thread. *bows*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1356.gif

Religion is not necessary but spirituality is.

This point is the only one I really object to.

Why is spirituality any more necessary than religion? What's the point?

What do you think of this more rational view of Christianity? Matthew Fox posted 95 Theses, ala Martin Luther, to the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Among his theses are:

87.

Authentic science can and must be one of humanity’s sources of wisdom for it is a source of sacred awe, of childlike wonder, and of truth.

73.

Homophobia in any form is a serious sin against love of neighbor, a sin of ignorance of the richness and diversity of God’s creation as well as a sin of exclusion.

72.

Since homosexuality is found among 464 species and in 8 percent of any given human population, it is altogether natural for those who are born that way and is a gift from God and nature to the greater community.

70.

Jesus said nothing about condoms, birth control or homosexuality.

68.

Pedophilia is a terrible wrong but its cover-up by hierarchy is even more despicable.

59.

Fourteen billion years of evolution and unfolding of the universe bespeak the intimate sacredness of all that is.

33.

The term “original wound” better describes the separation humans experience on leaving the womb and entering the world, a world that is often unjust and unwelcoming than does the term “original sin.”

26.

Empire-building is incompatible with Jesus’ life and teaching and with Paul’s life and teaching and with the teaching of holy religions.

23.

Sexuality is a sacred act and a spiritual experience, a theophany (revelation of the Divine), a mystical experience. It is holy and deserves to be honored as such.

18.

Ecojustice is a necessity for planetary survival and human ethics and without it we are crucifying the Christ all over again in the form of destruction of forests, waters, species, air and soil.

11.

Religion is not necessary but spirituality is.

6.

Theism (the idea that God is ‘out there’ or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things (panentheism).


1.

God is both Mother and Father.

Gott ist Mutter und Vater.

2.

At this time in history, God is more Mother than Father because the feminine is most missing and it is important to bring gender balance back.

In unserer Zeit ist Gott mehr Mutter als Vater, denn das Weibliche fehlt am meisten, und es ist wesentlich, das Gleichgewicht der Geschlechter wieder herzustellen.

3.

God is always new, always young and always “in the beginning.”

Gott ist immer neu, immer jung und immer „im Anfang“.

4.

God the Punitive Father is not a God worth honoring but a false god and an idol that serves empire-builders. The notion of a punitive, all-male God, is contrary to the full nature of the Godhead who is as much female and motherly as it is masculine and fatherly.

Gott als strafender Vater ist keine anbetungswürdige Gottheit, sondern ein Götze, der den Imperialisten dient. Die Vorstellung eines strafenden, männlichen Gottes widerspricht dem umfassenden Wesen der Gottheit, die ebenso weiblich und mütterlich wie männlich und väterlich ist.

5.

“All the names we give to God come from an understanding of ourselves.” (Eckhart) Thus people who worship a punitive father are themselves punitive.

The full list can be seen here:
http://matthewfoxcs.blogspot.com/2005/05/chapter-v-95-theses-or-articles-of.html

I'd like Christians much more if this is what was actually followed.

It won't work. Fundies would think it's non-religious and the non-religious would think it's suspicious.

This point is the only one I really object to.

Why is spirituality any more necessary than religion? What's the point?
Because the pursuit of christianity was not inherently church oriented, and the Lutherans came to terms with understanding what kind of bullsh*t was being directed by the so-called "authority" of the church? Perhaps that's the point of view here ...

From a person who doesn't really have to pursue anyone ELSE's idea of spirituality, it's fair to assess that either are equally irrelevant, but to these people, they still felt that there was enough worthwhile here to make the discernment, and it would be a strong amount of personal responsibility.

I am not saying personally that spirituality is more necessary than religion, even though my personal beliefs are quite a bit along those lines - for the record.

Because the pursuit of christianity was not inherently church oriented, and the Lutherans came to terms with understanding what kind of bullsh*t was being directed by the so-called "authority" of the church? Perhaps that's the point of view here ...

From a person who doesn't really have to pursue anyone ELSE's idea of spirituality, it's fair to assess that either are equally irrelevant, but to these people, they still felt that there was enough worthwhile here to make the discernment, and it would be a strong amount of personal responsibility.

I am not saying personally that spirituality is more necessary than religion, even though my personal beliefs are quite a bit along those lines - for the record.
That is basically where Fox is coming from. A church in it's strictest definition according to what I remember from my 13 year old Born Again days is a meeting of at least three people discussing God. Much different to the money making Mega Church of Middle America. Spirituality concerns the self, religion the group.

Humanity not be "evolving" at a rate we can perceive, but our societies are. Things are a lot different then they were even in the 80s.
Except, according to an article I read, in the art world. But I don't know shit about that.

That is basically where Fox is coming from. A church in it's strictest definition according to what I remember from my 13 year old Born Again days is a meeting of at least three people discussing God. Much different to the money making Mega Church of Middle America. Spirituality concerns the self, religion the group.
For which i respect them and yourself greatly.
*bows*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1356.gif