surattius

Hello Althea and others, Two things occur to me after reading the forgoing posts. One is: Jesus didn't like writing, or was a bad writer, although he was a great orator. Either he told his Disciples things like "Luke, did you get that thing I did up on the Mount? I thought it was quite good." OR his disciples buried Jesus's writing because it dídn't do credit to Jesus' teachings. "This is awful, it will ruin the whole message; let's get rid of it for His own good!" Another thought that occured to me, as an editor, is wouldn't it be cool to redo the Bible, to lose some of the OT, to remove some nonessential passages? You could end up with something like "The Holy Bible for Dummies" or the Reader's Digest Bible. For those of you who have studied more broadly, this may already have been done. Still, I bet that we would all choose different Books that were essential or nonessential.

Isn't it interesting that we had such different reactions! Oh well, I am looking forward to the next instalment too.

Hi all, It took only two weeks for my library to find a copy. Up here in Vancouver, Canada... I guess there weren't many who wanted to read it OR I waited until the rush had died down. Now, to start with I should explain that I am a fan of Anne's vampire chronicles, but my least favourite character is Lestat. I like Louis and... not Armand... one of the old guys featured in "Blood and Gold". But anyway, I picked up CHRIST THE LORD expecting something out of this world, considering the topic, but it was quite ordinary as books go. If it wasn't for the topic, I would never have finished it. When it ended, I wondered if there would be more because the first instalment never really felt like it got going. I don't know Ms. Rice as a person, but she could have decided to play it safe with the characters. Alternately, she may have focused on historical accuracy rather than vibrant characters. Another possibility is that I just didn't appreciate the novel, because I know it was carefully crafted. So, I didn't HATE the book, and I don't think many would. I just didn't love it as much as I wanted to.

More likely you are close to perfectly balanced, which I'm sure is very evolved. It makes me think of another topic: does the attainment of spiritual enlightenment make one boring?

Thanks for that summary/newspaper article. It was an interesting read and catalyst for contemplation.

I know I don't post much, but I have a lot of experience with this test. I am an INTP. Many university professors (which I am not!) are INTJ. Most of the population is supposed to be extrovert, but I can't find evidence that this is true on the web in the five minutes I have. At any rate, my point is that people who use the internet for discussion are likely to be introverts, and are attracted to progressive, less structured matters are liable to be P. Arty stuff like religion and God, and there you've got your N. The T and F scale isn't supposed to be as reliable, but from the posts you can see that there are "feelers" and "thinkers" here both.

Hi Cynthia, Speaking of the American Catholic church, it does seem strange to me that the Pope(s) are so adamant when the north American church is being depopulated as 'thoughtful' followers are forced to leave or live a lie. This is, however, the way a top-down faith system works. But the top is losing its legs. As a tangible sign that the RC church here is losing touch, at my current RC church, the two priests are both quite old. In fact it is always surprising to meet a younger priest. I found this article in the Notre Dame Magazine with stats on American priests to support my observation that the clergy is a dying breed here. http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/au2002/priests.html Surely these are signs for men of understanding... I waited for many years, hoping that Mother Church would heed the words of the progressive faithful, but as you identify, this does not seem to be the way that the Church is going. Instead there will be a rift, perhaps a new schism, and even that schism will not likely be as progressive as I would want because there are many conservatives here who will only want small modifications.

Hi all, The only progressive Christian churches I've found to explore here in Vancouver, Canada are the Unitarian one on 49th and the United Church on 16th near Burrard. I have tried both once, and I am going to keep trying the second. I posted a while ago asking if one could be a progressive Christian, which I have evolved into (and maybe always was) at the same time as being Roman Catholic. My recent conclusion is that for me, it was not possible to be both. The amazing thing was how long it took me to come to terms with that. I have struggled to remain with the RC church for years out of loyalty to the good priests I have encountered. Anyway, if anyone reads this (it's an old thread but I didn't think it worth starting a new topic) and feels like commenting, please do.

Turning to some of the original questions, I have to say I agree with the need for a supposition that Jesus is more than just a great guy who lived a long time ago and who, by some stroke of luck, was so influential that he inspired several of his colleagues to write about him and quote his parables and sermons. I have myself struggled with the problem of "once I've freed myself from the shackles of off-the-shelf Christianity, where do I draw the line? How do I define myself as a "Christian". I lack Jen's certainty, as well as her ability to channel Jesus. I do not even know what the God Team uniform looks like. I come to this Board to hear what others who have thought more and deeply have to say. I like FredIP's suggstion that Jesus is Divine son of the Father. I'll vote for that. S

iveseenthings.wav This is a very good topic for debate. Like Curlytop, I am a Catholic woman. I am blessed with two children, and after having the first one, and holding him, my whole life suddenly made sense, and my whole life was in the past as I was now living only for my son. And this was good. However, I am a mature woman, and it is easy for me to accept the loss of my own life as an independent individual. I had many years of 'freedom' and 'selfishness'. I have established my career. I am powerful. At a younger age, I was terrified of becoming pregnant with either my husband, or after my divorce, with my boyfriend. Terrified. If I had become pregnant during those uncertain years, where I was not in a 'safe' place to have a child and raise him/her, I might have considered an abortion. Okay, to the arguments presented: The idea of a reproductively responsible civilization, wherein we avoid sex until we want children, is possibly more appealing to women than men. However, let us examine our record as human beings. Are we ever perfect? Realistically, can we achieve the high goals that we can ideate? I do not believe it possible, while still having a 'free' society where everyone makes his own choices. When does life begin? Mine began with the birth of my children, to some extent! LOL. Seriously. I have always, and I admit that this is simplistic, identified suffering as worse than death. For this reason, I would favour an abortion over birth to a life of suffering. For this reason, I can accept that before a new human's nervous system has developed and he can feel pain, that putting an end to that life should be legal. I suppose that I do not see a 4 week old fetus as the same as a 27 week old fetus. When is abortion okay? This talk about abortions should only be in the first trimester.. am I being naive? I thought you only COULD have an abortion in the first trimester except in the case of massive birth defects or chromosomal abnormalities? I don't know about rape or incest, but I think that there's a point of no return. Finally, my kids are both a little wonky in the spinal area but they're okay once they're braced or surgically fixed. When the doctors asked me if I was going to become pregnant again, implying that they could look for this disorder and offer me a chance to abort if the same thing were to happen again, the thought sent chills through me. I guess this means that knowing what I know, and how I love my sons, scoliosis and all, I value life much more than I did when I was younger.

Wow, you guys are reminding me of when I was younger, and when I used to hear a song, and think OH YES, that's IT. And I tried to share it with someone, and back then, there was no one who felt like I did about things. Here you are! I'm only going to quote a snippet, from the same Barenaked Ladies album that Altheia quoted from above. I always like the songs I can think of as being about God. "When you call, I will answer. When you fall, I'll pick you up. And when you court Some disaster, I'll point you home I'll point you home."

The MEANING of the Cross... the meaning of the Cross. Hm. Well, I had a pretty strong response to this "challenge" and despite the fact that I am quite ignorant and uneducated in religious matters compared to most of you who post, I felt strongly enought that I wanted to say my bit. The Cross, to me, is symbolic. I don't doubt that Jesus died on one, and that the gruesome manner of his death was intended to send a message, but to me personally, in the here and now, the cross is symbolic of the suffering that a good person must endure to keep his faith, and to remain a good person, throughout the course of life. Continuing to love, to think well of the human race, to have hope for it... despite the incredible cruelty of ourselves and of our brothers in Rwanda, in the Sudan, in Iraq, in Israel, in Canada, and everywhere. The cross is life. Can we endure, die on it and rise again in love and hopefulness? It seems impossible, but we do it. THIS is the miracle of the cross, for me. Susan

Thanks for the ideas, both of you. I will explore them. The Pax Christi site is very cool, Brother Roq, thanks. An inspiration. Susan

Hello fellow seekers, I have been surfing around the web looking for information and found this site. I checked out the debate regarding the Passion movie by Mel Gibson and felt that I was "home". People who think, and are not afraid of dissent and discussion! Here's my problem: I was raised as a Catholic up to a point. My husband too. However we've both gone away from being practicing Catholics for many years. We married in a civil ceremony and have two lovely sons. The first son was baptized in the Catholic church at my insistance. The second son was born while we lived in our present, different parish. I know have to reenter the parish, convince them I'm sincere, etc. Yet there are some things about the organized church that bother me. It seems exclusionary. It seems stuffy. I am afraid of going astray. I have never been to confession as my mother pulled us out of Sunday school before I was old enough to be introduced. Now I have a chain of sins so prodigious that in comparison, Marley's ghost (granted, he's a fictional character but bear with me) would look like he was carrying a thread. If I just walk into a confessional and lay things on the line, will the confessional burst into flame? Will the Priest chide me and drive me away for another five years? What? Also, it is likely that the presiding priest will ask that we have our marriage blessed before we had our son baptized, and to qualify for that we would have to go through training and indoctrination which I worry will make hypocrites of my husband and I. Especially my husband, who in terribly aspiritual. I love the precepts of the Christian faith, and the symbolism has great meaning for me in my life. However, where do I turn to get my second son baptized? Am I silly to insist that they both be baptized in the church? Am I worrying too much? I can't quite bring myself to turn away from Mother Church. Suggestions are welcome. Please don't chew me out, 'though. surattius