This interview with Gretta Vosper is fascinating. She is a Canadian Christian Minister who rejects the Bible, the Lord's Prayer and God.

I agree with Vosper that conventional religion has a basic ethical failing in its acceptance of claims based on traditional authority rather than evidence and logic. But I think she goes too far in removing the supernatural from her sense of religion, because the agenda should be to see the deeper meaning behind the literal errors.

The point should be to recognise that traditional myths about Jesus and God in the Bible reflect some deep moral truths, even if they do so in symbolic rather than literal terms. It should be possible to reform Christianity on a scientific basis to retain its valuable content while understanding that some of its literal traditions need to be understood in non-literal ways.

For example we should not think of God as an entity, in the traditional way that imagines God as a personal intentional being with will.

God as a nonentity - that would really help to explain the idea of Jesus that the meek will inherit the earth!

http://torontolife.com/city/life/gretta ... -minister/

Q&A: Gretta Vosper, the United Church minister who doesn’t believe in God

Gretta Vosper is a United Church minister, an avowed atheist and a natural-born agitator. Some of her superiors want to kick her out of the church. She refuses to go quietly.
BY MALCOLM JOHNSTON | NOVEMBER 25, 2015

I guess if she wants to try to undermine her church's doctrine, that's fine, but I find it strange that she wants to continue to call herself a Christian preacher for a particular organization. It seems perfectly understandable for that group to want to kick her out.

Robert Tulip wrote:But I think she goes too far in removing the supernatural from her sense of religion, because the agenda should be to see the deeper meaning behind the literal errors.

The point should be to recognise that traditional myths about Jesus and God in the Bible reflect some deep moral truths, even if they do so in symbolic rather than literal terms. It should be possible to reform Christianity on a scientific basis to retain its valuable content while understanding that some of its literal traditions need to be understood in non-literal ways.

But how is that "supernatural"? You are abusing terms here.

Your "reform" of Christianity sounds the same as killing it. Just embrace the killing.

If this is what a Sunday service is, then it doesn't sound like there's anything Christian about it:

You’ve been minister at the east-end West Hill United for 19 years. What does your Sunday service entail?

We stand up and sing songs, sit down and listen, interact with people. But we don’t use the word God and we have no Bibles. Instead, we read whatever edifies and challenges us to think about love and lifting each other up. That might include poetry, plays, novels or movie scripts. We’ve read from Doctor Who.

Robert Tulip wrote:This interview with Gretta Vosper is fascinating. She is a Canadian Christian Minister who rejects the Bible, the Lord's Prayer and God.

It sounds like Gretta Vosper would agree with your 7 commandments of atheist religion Robert. One of them is to "place the highest value on evolutionary scientific discussion of how to achieve abundant sustained human flourishing on planet earth."

Dexter wrote:Quote:
You’ve been minister at the east-end West Hill United for 19 years. What does your Sunday service entail?

We stand up and sing songs, sit down and listen, interact with people. But we don’t use the word God and we have no Bibles. Instead, we read whatever edifies and challenges us to think about love and lifting each other up. That might include poetry, plays, novels or movie scripts. We’ve read from Doctor Who.

So Vosper's vespers could include readings from Doctor Who. If the Daleks want to take over planet earth for their flourishing, what's wrong with that in competitive evolutionary terms?
Let's all chant together; Ex-ter-min-ate! E-lim-in-ate!

I posited similar things--to find your own bible or to even find several. I personally like "Moby Dick".

Dexter, you seem to be as stuck in the old traditions as the fundies are. She calls herself a Christian because she's looking for a complete redefinition of both the term and the religion itself. The idea that we're going to "kill" Christianity is a ridiculous pipe-dream. It will always be here and the more you try to "kill" it, the more stalwart and obstinate it becomes. The best thing to do is to subvert it from the inside. Change it gradually. If these new types of churches catch on and gain adherents, the more traditional churches will be forced to change little by little to keep up. Trying to kill it only throws gasoline on the fire of "We are under persecution!"

Rather, we should work to redefine the Christian religion, to offer something people can live with and not feel stupid for it. I base this on the testimony of an ex-fundie who stated that intellectually she knew fundamentalist Christianity was a pile of shit but emotionally she couldn't do without it. This demonstrates not only how psychologically fragile the fundies are but for America as a whole. Why should most Americans still feel that religion is important when they should know that it isn't? Because emotionally they can't do without it. So give them something but give them something real. Hand them a security blanket and tell them it's a security blanket and not something that absolves them of sin which they know deep in their hearts is impossible no matter how much they want to believe it.

A security blanket isn't just a placebo. If you're chilly, you wrap around you and you warm up. You can wrap things in it and sling it over your shoulder and carry them around with you. You have have a picnic on it. It serves a purpose, it's practical. But it's not miraculous and it doesn't promise anything. You either use it or you don't.

After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the United Church posted a message seeking God’s “gift of transformation” for the aggrieved. You posted a scathing rebuttal about an interventionist God. Tell us what happened next.

Lots of backlash. Now, the general secretary has created a process to review my suitability, wherein the ordination questions will be put to me again.

So after 19 years there's the problem. Her local congregation is OK with her message, but the church hierarchy doesn't like the implications or the backlash. Here's Vosper's open letter.

Vosper has written several books including With Or Without God Why The Way We Live Is More Important Than What We Believe and Amen: What Prayer Can Mean In A World Beyond Belief. Here are other books she has written.

Gretta Vosper is also founder of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity. Here's an interesting statement We Believe, an excerpt from her speech titled Re-growing the corpus christi’s corpus callosum.

http://www.grettavosper.ca/

DB Roy wrote: Dexter, you seem to be as stuck in the old traditions as the fundies are. She calls herself a Christian because she's looking for a complete redefinition of both the term and the religion itself. The idea that we're going to "kill" Christianity is a ridiculous pipe-dream. It will always be here and the more you try to "kill" it, the more stalwart and obstinate it becomes. The best thing to do is to subvert it from the inside. Change it gradually. If these new types of churches catch on and gain adherents, the more traditional churches will be forced to change little by little to keep up. Trying to kill it only throws gasoline on the fire of "We are under persecution!"

Fair enough, but if Christianity is not going away anytime soon, which I agree with, you're also not going to satisfy religious people -- let alone radical religious people -- with singing and reading Doctor Who without mention of the God and the Bible.

She's got 100 people in her "congregation," it has about as much relevance as interviewing a group of people in their basement who like to hang out and sing songs.

DB Roy wrote:Why should most Americans still feel that religion is important when they should know that it isn't? Because emotionally they can't do without it. So give them something but give them something real. Hand them a security blanket and tell them it's a security blanket and not something that absolves them of sin which they know deep in their hearts is impossible no matter how much they want to believe it.

What's your "something real" D.B.? Discussions of Moby Dick? Good luck with that. The psychological argument cuts both ways as you should know.
If you or Greta Vosper want to start their own churches that's fine. As far as the politics of being part of a denomination which presumably has tenets goes,it inevitably leads to conflict when a minister rejects them while seeking to remain within it.
But that's a matter for them to sort out between them.
In any case it's just wishful thinking if you think Vosper's model or your Moby Dick church is going to make any real dent.
The evangelical churches have always been more successful as they actually have a gospel that addresses the reality of the human condition.

Dexter wrote:
Fair enough, but if Christianity is not going away anytime soon, which I agree with, you're also not going to satisfy religious people -- let alone radical religious people -- with singing and reading Doctor Who without mention of the God and the Bible.

As I said, this won't happen overnight. And it starts with young people being the key. They are the future and once the future starts to go in a certain direction, institutions have to make adjustments and stay relevant. If Vosper's style of Christianity appeals to younger people (and I find it hard to believe otherwise), then other churches will resort to the same tactics to bring younger people into the church because they are essential to its survival. Let the old cranky bastards die off. If this be progress then it will win out in the end. You can't stop progress no matter what you do.

She's got 100 people in her "congregation," it has about as much relevance as interviewing a group of people in their basement who like to hang out and sing songs.

That's how Christianity started.

Flann 5 wrote:What's your "something real" D.B.? Discussions of Moby Dick? Good luck with that. The psychological argument cuts both ways as you should know.

The ocean is starting point of everything. Sophia in Christianity was named Mary or Maria which means “sea” or “ocean.” Jesus as the fish or ichthys the denizen of the ocean, the one who navigates through the sea. In Japan, the female wisdom figure is called Benzaiten and she is the goddess of flow—water, electricity, speech, music, knowledge, wisdom, etc. She governs the flow of things and so the ocean, whom the Japanese people are very connected to, is associated with her. Her messenger is the snake which undulates. She carries on her head the image of Ugajin, a kami with the head of a bearded man and the body of a snake. Ugajin is associated with fertility. Benzaiten is often shown holding a musical stringed instrument and so is the same the Hindu goddess, Svarasvati. Each is the goddess of music because music flows and is made up of vibrations that produce the audible notes or tones. The vibrations are snake-like undulations of air. So, it’s a fractal thing—vibrations within vibrations. In China, she is called Kwannon--the One Who Hears Everything--and the open line of Moby Dick is "Call me Ishmael" and Ishmael means "God listens." In Ancient Egypt, she was called Isis. The Greeks called her Demeter or Diana or Ceres.

Matter is derived from the Latin mater or mother and is likened to a raging sea—its waves being vibrations. Jesus walking on water was a metaphor for the enlightened human transcending the raging sea of matter. The pope is called pontifex which means “bridge-builder” which allows us to pass unscathed over the raging sea of matter. Instead of the cross, we use the fouled golden anchor. Its meaning is that the golden anchor is our “soul” if you want to call it that, which is entangled in matter—the flesh. A vessel with a fouled anchor is a vessel in distress because it cannot dock and is subject to the fickle whims of the winds and currents. This describes the human condition. We are vessels adrift because our golden anchors are fouled or entangled in matter. So our goal is to untangle our anchors and free ourselves to gain some stability.

Marine symbolism was rampant in early Christianity. The ship was, in fact, an early Christian symbol and the church, especially a cathedral, is designed to look like a ship. Above the area where people sit, the ceiling is deliberately arched into a vault that resembles the ribs and keel of a ship and this area is called a nave which is derived from the Latin navis or ship where we get words as navy, nautical and navigate. In some churches, the pulpits are even built to resemble the prow of a ship and Melville made the pulpit of his Whalemen’s Chapel in Moby Dick to resemble a ship’s prow. It was based on the Seamen’s Bethel in New Bedford which has a prow-shaped pulpit. All this ties into the Old Norse word for roof which was hrof which actually meant "boat shed." And also the Polynesian habit of living under their boats when they first make land somewhere. When they finally got around to building permanent dwellings, they were elongated lodges that resembled inverted boats. R. Buckminster Fuller stated that the Japanese ideogram for roof was an abstract depiction of an inverted boat and the word for roof--presumably yane--actually originally meant "bottom of boat." I haven't been able to verify this but it wouldn't surprise me. The pitched gable roof seen on so many barns also known as a gambrel roof is also known as a "ship's bottom roof."

Everything that goes on in Moby Dick has a symbolic meaning that properly interpreted holds a great many truths. But I won't go into them here.

If you or Greta Vosper want to start their own churches that's fine. As far as the politics of being part of a denomination which presumably has tenets goes,it inevitably leads to conflict when a minister rejects them while seeking to remain within it.
But that's a matter for them to sort out between them.

It is a lot of work which I am not prepared to invest at this time. But maybe after I retire, I might give it a shot.

In any case it's just wishful thinking if you think Vosper's model or your Moby Dick church is going to make any real dent.
The evangelical churches have always been more successful as they actually have a gospel that addresses the reality of the human condition.

Any religion can claim that. It's garbage. It boils down to culture and geographical location. We live in an area that is predominantly Christian and so that is the game that will have to be played. But, as of now, there is no better time for someone like Vosper to flourish. There are more Christians in the US than anywhere else in world and they are in fluctuation--unsatisfied with the same old. Nobody want to be a bible-thumper anymore. Kim Davis is a stupid clown and everybody knows it. Offer them a new outlook. Even the evangelicals are sick of it, they overwhelmingly support Trump who can't name a single bible verse. The bible is falling by the wayside along with the traditional church. It's time for all the Vospers out there to cast their nets while the fishing is good.

DB Roy wrote:The ocean is starting point of everything. Sophia in Christianity was named Mary or Maria which means “sea” or “ocean.”

Where do you get Sophia was named Mary from? Mary was from the Hebrew name Miryam which significantly predates gnosticism. It does not mean sea as a matter of fact. And the gnostic so called gospels are later than the Christian gospels which came first.

You may have a conspiracy theory to explain this away.

http://www.biblehub.com/hebrew/4813.htm

DB Roy wrote:Jesus as the fish or ichthys the denizen of the ocean, the one who navigates through the sea.

Again you are factually wrong. The name Jesus means Yahweh saves or Yahweh is salvation. The point being blindingly obvious that it is God who saves.
The acronym ichthys did use a fish symbol but the acronym itself stands for Jesus Christ of God son saviour. An entirely orthodox message in keeping with the gospel.
http://www.ichthys.com/ichthys-explanation.htm
You can bang your head against the overwhelming view of historians and scholars on the historicity Of Jesus. Another good conspiracy theory or two might do the trick.

DB Roy wrote:Jesus walking on water was a metaphor for the enlightened human transcending the raging sea of matter.

Well Christians do understand that the accounts of Jesus walking on the stormy lake and stilling the storm have a significance to do with life and it's troubles and having faith.
But most of Jesus' miracles were done on land. That's the trouble with this whole mythicist approach to interpretation in selecting whatever might fit their thinking as if it was a universal principle of some kind.

DB Roy wrote:It boils down to culture and geographical location. We live in an area that is predominantly Christian and so that is the game that will have to be played.

Certainly there are many factors involved in relation to religions worldwide.

DB Roy wrote:The bible is falling by the wayside along with the traditional church. It's time for all the Vospers out there to cast their nets while the fishing is good.

You hope so D.B. There is a decline in the U.S. but there is a massive rise in China for example.I guess they weren't impressed with the state 'religion' they had endured for so long.
http://www.cfr.org/china/christianity-china/p36503

In one poll in the U.S. on these things that I saw,of those self described as atheists 62 percent were male. That's an interesting gender imbalance. Any theories about that?