David, I am intrigued with your theme about finding God's new truths in the Advent 3 readings.

I have been attending a Jewish Reformed Temple on Fridays with a Jewish friend of mine, along with attending the Episcopal church on Sundays. It does not seem that Jews believe so much in a "fallen creation". That being the case, I wonder whether we could try on the notion that God created an 'evolving universe' in which there is room to make mistakes and learn from them, without a need for punishment from a just God, or the need for atonement by God's sacrificial Son.

If man is not 'fallen', but evolving spiritually on a time lines that takes hundreds of millenia, then could we see the Torah, and the Incarnation, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit all as building blocks of God's new truths? Would this take some of the fear of judgement and ****ation out of our spiritual progression ? Would we then be freer to grow and explore our evolving relationship with God in an evolving universe?

These are some of the questions I am asking myself about God's 'new truths' this third sunday in Advent.
ANyone care to share their thoughts about this?

Email: mhlandlbl@msn.com

Marion,
I've been thinking along these lines too. We are evolving, in some fields at lightning speed. Psychological diagnosis and treatment have replaced demon possession and exorcism. Fifty years ago one would have thought the only way to improve the status of women, gays and lesbians, and other marginalized groups was through intervention from a second universe. It seems that much progress has been made, whether due to divine intervention or not is speculation. I like to think that the Universe is evolving, as Spong says, there's a bias toward wholeness in the Universe.

The notion you've expressed also encourages us to see ourselves as active participants with God in the ongoing creation.

But, didn't the Social Gospelers of the 19th and early 20th century hold a similar view (albeit from a different starting point?) And didn't belief in the progression of human social evolution collapse in the face of the holocaust?

Is the creation of the Kingdom of God progressive, or does it require "quantum leaps" -- like the giving of Torah, the coming of the Christ? Is the next "leap" the apocalypse of the Evangelicals?

Email: revjmidjr@bellsouth.net

John, Thank you so much for your input to my ponderings. I don't know anything about the "Social Gospelers" so thank you for teaching me.

It seems to me that with any evolution, there is going to be regression and progression. Back and forth in spirals,always moving ,but not in a linear progression. So haulocost doesn't mean the end of any progress,just part of the back and forth of spirals.

Also, I see progression sometimes in terms of Quantum Leaps and sometimes just slow and steady and sometimes as jumping backward in order to leap further ahead. Right now with the fanatics of all stripes getting most of the world's attention, I think we are in a regressive modality due to pluralistic uncertainty. I hope we learn from it so we can move ahead again towards greater spiritual consciousness!!!

ANyway, thank you for joining in the discussion, John. Does anyone else like the idea of spiritual evolution,rather than seeing man suffering from "The Fall" Or does anyone have any further thoughts on New Learning from God during Advent?

Email: mhlandlbl@msn.com

Advent 4. The Annunciation, does it really mattter if it actually occurred in the manner described in yesterday's readings? Do angels really appear to l4 year old Jewish girls and announce embarrassing news like spermless pregnancies with miraculous causes in a world where such a situation could--and to this day still could--get said child stoned or otherwise be the victim of an "honor killing"?

How do one universe Christians assimilate such a preposterous story? Where and how does it fit into your spiritual universe? Or do you simply dismiss it out of hand?

Email: rclarsen@otponline.net

I guess I'll just answer my own rhetorical quesion, then. It really was rhetorical, since the whole Christmas story was in fact a later invention, extrapolated back from the Easter experience. Any Jewish carpenter and itinerant preacher who could rise from the dead must certainly have had an equally miraculous birth.

If, on the other hand, it was as miraculous as reported in Luke and Matthew, why do not Mark and John even mention it? Why does not contemporary historical commentary mention it or the incredible configuration of lights in the sky? And, just to be nit-picky about it, how can the infant be spirited away to Egypt but at the same time be present a week after his birth at Jerusalem for his "bris"?

It would seem that all the second universe happenings of Christmas are pure fantasy and fabrication. Pretty stories, but even the time of year had to be adjusted for competitive reasons.

What are your one universe thoughts on all this, you guys out there?

Email: rclarsen@otponline.net

Well, Bob, since the "one universe" believers aren't talking, I'll give you my response, though I'm not one.In Eastern literature, it is my understanding that it was "pro forma" to announce a very important personage to readers by the using a literary device of a "virgin birth". Readers were familiar with this device at the time the writer of Luke used it. But, over time, it was taken LITERALLY. And then all sorts of fancy theolical footwork was needed to explain this literal interpretation. A lot of the theology surrounding the 'virgin birth' reflects how difficult things become when a literary convention of one time is no longer understood as such by another time.

Email: mhlandlbl@msn.com