Jump to content

murmsk

Members
  • Posts

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by murmsk

  1. In my view both. People can be very impressionable . A good example is Germany in the 30's. Certainly the Nazi's couldn't have done what they did without the support of many many Germans But the government did a masterful job praying on the plight of the people and whipping up a very high percentage of otherwise good people to a point where they lost thier point of reference. Certainly worldview offers a soft spot. steve
  2. Congregational (NACCC) have no set liturgy. It is a construct of each congregation/pastor. Some might fit your desires. steve
  3. The example you site suggests that Christianity does indeed cause homophobia unless you are willing to separate Christianity from the church. My experience suggests that the "church " is often one of the most bigoted institutions on the face of the earth. bigoted= not limited to race. I think certain congregations go out of their way to foster homophobia as well as secularphobia , islamaphobia and ChristianViewsOtherThanOurOwnphobia. Even churches that don't actively spout hateful rhetoric often have hateful undercurrents that are every bit as damaging. steve
  4. Why is there a need to attach gender to God? steve
  5. intuition is what drives the scientific process , really it drives all intelectual progress. steve
  6. Yvonne, I agree and I think it is happening. My only comment is that often especially conservative Christianity refuses to climb the mountain. That is a frustration of science. Religion on the other hand gets frustrated because science refuses to look sideways and also has a habit of belittling those who are behind and on a different path. I am close to running out of my allotment of posts for the day so I bid you adew . Apparently it is assumed after 10 or 12 posts I might offend someone. steve
  7. It doesn't. The word belief has a very negative connotation and a very narrow definition for those in science. My definition of belief is an unquestioned idea or view of reality without basis. Perhaps this may in part explain the problems in communication between science and religion.All should agree on a dictionary before the discussion begins. steve
  8. That is an interesting article that shows the struggles thinking people have trying to balance science with religion. What is interesting about that article is that it shows his conflict as he is able to recognize when he is being inconsistent. He is an amazing man. steve
  9. Dutch, What you say is correct, This is why may of the truly see changing discoveries are made by scientists in their early years. When their mind is unencumbered by status quo. Einstein is a perfect example virtually all of his meaningful discoveries were made in his early to mid 20's while working as a patent clerk. As he aged he lost that mental flexibility as he struggled to accept the concept of quanta-mechanics. Einstein took the scientific process to another level by imagining data as opposed to collecting it. This takes a very clear and unbiased mind. Data is observation(s) whether collected or imagined. steve
  10. Most in science would not accept being considered confessional in that for science in its purest form has no room for belief. A question is posed, ALL the data is considered. the data leads one to a conclusion. the conclusion is based only on the data. If one has a belief before or while the data is being considered the process is flawed and the conclusion is worthless whether it is correct or not. steve
  11. In a very real way this is the real problem science has with religion. In science there is no such thing as absolute proof at least absolute proof. There are concepts that are accepted, concepts that are highly implausable even thing like the shape of the earth where all the evidence points to round to a point where 100% of people accept it as a given. The difference is IF someone offered evidence that the earth is flat it would be considered on its own merit . Just because it doesn't fit todays understanding would have no bearing whether it is accepted or dismissed. Evidence always stands on it own merit. The divide began when the scientific method began. It began when science began to follow the evidence and it lead away from accepted church truths and the church dug in its heals. I am not sure I understand this comment so my comments might be way off base..... It is as relevant and necessary today as it has ever been. Without science progress stops dead in its tracks. With out religion society would have to find other ways of dealing with the social ramifications of this progress. steve
  12. This may be as much a revisionist story or revisionist explination as anything. Maybe he really was betrayed by Judas with the revisionist using the excuse that the betrayal was foretold by the OT. It seems to me that if one assumes the general story line is somewhat historical that Jesus purposely worked to follow the OT predictions ie, how he entered town. Maybe Judas's betrail was another step to fulfil prophacy. Even if it isn't historical in any way , prophacy fulfilment might explain why it was included in canon. why it was included in canon is a more important question than did it happen. steve
  13. Kinda the same way progressives view fundamentalists.
  14. A couple more comments My Dad ,who is a chemist and is who I based most of my remarks on, listened to a Milt Rosenberg radio program on "Historical Jesus" and was shocked at their open mindedness. This is inspite of our many conversations about my views. My point is he, and I think most people of science ,view all people of faith as fundamentalists. This is due to having lived their lives being actively viewed and spoken to as if they were the devil himself. The answer to the original question ...... They view us as fundamentalist, closeminded, non-thinking, territorial, nuts and quite frankly avoid conversations at all costs. I remember and interview/debate between Carl Sagan and Jerry Falwell in the late 70's. The two couldn't converse ... they were speaking different languages. steve
  15. Then the question becomes "Is there any reason we should consider this as historical?" I think the answer is no then the question is why did 1st century followers of Jesus feel it was important enough to want to remember. steve
  16. I have a couple of comments When one is talking about conflict between science and religion you have to make a distinction between progressive's and fundi's Science has a very big fundamental problem problem with conservative religious thought. There is no room in science for "belief"! Belief is the bastard child of prejudice. When a researcher is looking into an issue 1st a question is posed ... then observations lead the researcher to possible solutions based only on the observations . If the researcher has a bias (belief) then the solution is always flawed. It is no an accident that a very large percentage of sea-changing discoveries are made by very young scientists before the inevitably bias sets in. Einstein was in his early 20's when he began thinking of relativity. Any religious thought that has belief as it's basis is going to be a problem for science . Example: the statement "I believe God answers prayers." There is no statistical difference in the health, wealth, age span or success on the football field ... between those who believe that God will answer their prayers and atheists. What does the evidence tell you? These are the kinds of things that science struggles with. On the other hand Science has no problem with concepts that just are. example, the laws of thermodynamics just are ......, who set the laws of thermodynamic?? God? Where did all the energy that makes up the universe come from? It just is. GOD just is( for some of us anyway) and science is OK with that as long as if evidence come to light that suggests a different conclusion we have an open mind. The past is littered with concepts that were once considered as being correct that have been dis-proven and replaced by another thought that more closely fits observations. The big problem between Funi religion and science lies in the fundi's unwillingness to consider other possibilities when the evidence points away from their beliefs. Progressive's of all faith traditions have walked hand in hand with science. Always looking for truth even when it contradicts the past. What the fundi's look at as blasphemous, progressives look at as progress in understanding. The issues science has with religion is because they view everyone who follows Jesus as a fundamentalist. Crackpots who refuse to look at the evidence and revise their thought patterns. True followers walk hand in hand with science along the same path of enlightenment. steve
  17. It seems to me several questions have to be asked before one begins to answer this question. Is the Bible story historically reliable? If it isn't then the discussion is mute. If it isn't 100% historically reliable the how much is reliable? IMO there is nothing in the Bible that is 100% historic. And there is no real way to definitively determine what is historic and what isn't. Its all a guess, educated guess , but a guess non the less. Deb, this is one of the most liberating concepts of Christian Progressiveness is moving away from did it happen to what does it mean. As you have pointed out, it makes no sense for Jesus to choose Judas as a disciple if he knew Judas would turn him in. It also makes no sense for Jesus to go to Jerusalem in the first place unless he knew this was his destiny and accepted it (which makes the whole story of Judas unnecessary) or didn't have a clue which calls into question his divinity. The better question is, why did early followers of Jesus feel this story was important enough to repeat and write down? Where is the wisdom? For me it shows everyone makes mistakes but making mistakes doesn't remove us from the love of God. steve
  18. It seems to me that thinking of God as only feminine is just as wrong as thinking of God as only masculine. Spong is right that we tend to view divine through our own eyes. Steve
  19. I am not sure God evolves but our understanding of God certainly does. steve
  20. Being in the medical field I run into folks like this off and on. Looking back over my career, my dealings with these kinds of folks were my greatest successes. A colleague of mine very early on told me anyone can deal with the nice people only the truly compassionate can love the PIA. The hardest thing for me was to not take the abuse personally.... knowing that it was their problem not mine removed the personal toxicity and allowed a clearer thought process of how the move this person toward a more normal interaction. It is worth it. steve
  21. I am not convinced there is a destination ...... just a journey
  22. I would recommend reading a couple of books by Marcus Borg "Reading the Bible Again For The First Time" This is a primer on how to read the Bible from a historic metaphoric view. Marcus does not believe that the bible is the word of God but rather is written for and is a snap shot of some early Jewish and Christian communities. If one considers who the bible was written for and what they were going through then the bible tends to make more sense. The other book is Marcus Borgs book "Heart of Christianity" This book discusses how to live a life of faith without being tied to a bunch of beliefs that don't make any sense. I think these books will help you answer the questions you ask. good luck on your journey. I am actually sort of envious as I remember the liberation I felt when I realized my faith wasn't dependent on believing anything. And that all the angst I felt about what my traditional church was trying to teach was nothing more than my subconscious (Heart) being able to recognize crap when it sees it. steve
  23. There was an excellent show on the historical Jesus last week that is now a podcast. http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/wgn-x720-historical-jesus,0,770652.mp3file "Who was Jesus? How should we interpret his teachings & stories? New Testament scholars Klyne Snodgrass & Barbara Reid help answer these questions." The interviewer is a University of Chicago retired Prof. Milt Rosenberg A good listen steve
  24. I really struggle with labels and it kinda rubs me the wrong way for a couple of reasons. First, seldom does any fit any stereotype completely. Second , there is assumption that anything that isn't "us" is bad and ignores the possibility that maybe there is another perspective that is worth considering. Third , Generally the label is attached using a very narrow set of facts and supported by , often, unfair down right wrong assumptions. For the record I could never support someone like Santorum. I feel that it is a big mistake to judge ones adherence to PC theology based on ones politics. I personally am fairly conservative in many ways. Not Rick Santorum conservative but Steve Murmann conservative and I don't think it removes me from considering myself to be a fairly progressive Christian. I like to think my conservatism comes from my compassion for others. I just think parts of Johnson's Great Society initiative of the 60's has lead the very people they claimed to be helping to a life of dependence. I also fully understand the selfish nature of the conservationism movement of late. So am I out of the club? I think it is also a mistake to include all those who have a passion for social justice as PC'ers. Interestingly Santorum may be the most socially active of all the candidates in helping the disadvantaged all while his theology demands support of some of the institutions that put them there.... Jim Wallis is the poster child of this!!! in that he certainly has a passion for social justice but his lack of support for the rights of GLBT raises interesting questions . Neither can see the conflict between their theology and their social justice ideology. Both would struggle supporting all of the 8 points. So how can Jim Wallis be considered PC and Santorum and not PC? There are some that sort of define the label of PC .... Markus Borg comes to mind and most of the rest of us ???? Can't we all just be dudes and dudettes trying to be the best we can be and leave the labels to those less thoughtful. steve
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service