pacigoth13

And the reason why such people can't be arrested for disturbing the peace is...?

I'm writing this because I feel sad and melancholy every single year at this time, because I know what took place 60 years ago on August 6th and 9th respectively. So I want to say a few things and make a few stands... 1. All war is hell, all war is sin. 2. The very existence (let alone usage) of atomic bombs is a slap in God's face - it is also a bigger threat to the idea of creationism and/or intelligent design than anything Darwin related. 3. Anyone who would justify atomic bombs for any reason believes in and worships a different god than I do. 4. By being the first nation to use nuclear weapons, the USA set a precedent it should not have set. The bombs targetted civilians, an act that we happen to define as "terrorism". In 1945, the USA lost its to combat "terrorism". The plank is still in our own eye... 5. George Bush is an evil person and is himself a "terrorist". Bush is in favour of the a-bomb and the h-bomb. Furthermore, he wishes to develop Bunker Blasters, a newer form using nuclear technology. It is complete ignorance and stupidity to underestimate the threat that such "weapons of mass destruction" still pose. 6. We owe apologies not only to the people who have suffered in all wars and all acts of mass violence - but also to the land. This includes not only Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also New Mexico and the Nevada test site, and Chernobyl and the list goes on. We can only hope and pray that the earth can forgive us. 7. Following Jesus means following ways that lead to peace and opposing wars like the war in Iraq. Flower power to the people - ban the army. Make love not war. Listen to music that exists for the ideological purpose of educating people about war and violence so that peace may sought - both old hippie antiwar songs from the 60s and 70s but also modern bands that are relevant to current issues, like Funkervogt, an awesome German antiwar protest movement. Live, love, be, believe paxigoth

Wreath of Barbs by :wumpscut: holy burning hand of wrath piercing forever through the heart and this flaming orbit of shame ravages and splits the path grinding binding taking away needles above the prey wreath of barbs the injection of religion has a comalike effect and bodies lay in decay dreaming of a greener day grinding binding taking away needles above the prey wreath of barbs open eyes reading nothing a sky harsh blue grins black and i bleed and bleed in this wreath of barbs and i run and run but i don't get far www.wumpscut.com

I take the preterist option out of the three. I also think there is rich symbolism that has meaning for the Church in any age, but in terms of 'literal' future happenings, I don't believe in any. With one exception... A de-mythed understanding of the 'second coming'. I believe that we have to have hope that the gospel will be successful, that someday God will be 'all in all' and that Jesus' presence will be felt everywhere. That's really all I have to say on this entire issue.

There is much about NT Wright that I like and agree with. I have read most of his books and have been to lectures that he has given. Of course, I don't agree with him on everything, but then again I don't agree with any scholar 100% (not a bad thing). Honestly, I think Wright's positions are unique. There are some liberals who may say that he is a fundie/evangelical, but I don't think that is accurate. Then there are fundies who say he is a liberal, and I don't think that is true either. He gets the conservative label because he seriously believes in the historicity of the resurrection, the virgin birth and the miracles. However, he gets the liberal label because of what he says about atonement theology and more specifically the second coming. I was very much into 'Jesus and the Victory of God'. If only his view on eschatology and apocalypticism was accepted by conservatives, we wouldn't have to deal with all this 'left behind' hysteria. I also liked The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. Wright is not a traditionalist, he totally challenges the evangelical concept of hell on more than one occasion. At one level, Wright is in entire disagreement with other scholars like Crossan and Borg... in the sense of how historically parts of the gospels are understood. However, that seems to me to be primarily an academic dispute. The implications of what one believes matter more to me, and (in my opinion) the book Wright and Borg co wrote reflects this very well. In regarding what it means to be a Christian and follow Jesus, it seems to me like Wright and Borg are in basic agreement. And I get the same impression when reading Crossan. We can argue over whether or not the resurrection is literal, symbolic or both but what does it mean? That is, ultimately, where I think progressive Christianity has to take the issue. There has been much discussion about 2 different ways of seeing Christianity, and sometimes it is drawn on the line of literal vs metaphorical debates, and, while the debate is not entirely unavoidable, that is not ultimately where I draw the line. I would agree very much with Borg who draws the line between a lens of purity issues and a lens of Christlike compassion. Is Christianity mainly about a culture of dos and donts, of heretic and orthodox beliefs, and using things like war to force ourselves on the world? Or is it about becoming Christ like through transformation and love? Since I take the latter option, that shapes how I view everything. And that alone is enough for a true fundamentalist to fork me over into the 'liberal heretic' camp. If you asked my old fundie church about where I went 'wrong' it was when I started going to Tony Campolo seminars. It was there that Christianity became real for me. And ultimately, meaning is found in praxis not theory. Therefore, I can read Tony Campolo and NT Wright and Mother Theresa and St Francis of Assisi and John Crossan and Marc Borg and Henri Nouwen and John Spong and Jim Wallis and (etc etc) and when I do, I find agreement and unity not division and disagreement.

I loved that book, by Bruce Bauer. I lent it to a friend and they loved it so much they haven't returned it... :-)

Ok... I'm fine with the whole being a progressive who sees Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Jesus is God. Sure, we're sinners, redemption is found thru Jesus, that is heaven and the alternative is hell. We have to be reborn. Fine. Now, that being said, I interpret this existentially and not fundamentalist...

I certainly would agree that one can be a born again progressive. I consider myself one. Of course, there is an issue over terminology, and fundamentalism has over used the term. The biblical reference they back up the doctrine with, from Jesus and Nicodemus, I would translate as meaning 'born from above' which is, entirely, metaphorically. But true. We do need to be born from above to see the kingdom of heaven. If I remember right, in Marc Borg's the Heart of Christianity, there is an entire section on understanding the metaphor of being born from above thru a progressive lens. So yes, I'm fine with that. And people really do have experiences of renewal and experiences with God.

Well, if Canada isn't a likely scenario... Europe?

I can't believe we're stupid enough to re-elect Bush. This is all just so stupid and ridiculous and infuriating. Maybe some people have a higher tolerance level than I do and can take this crap for four more years. But I can't. My family supports me 100%. We all want to spend the next four years somewhere else than America. Bush won't have to use the Patriot Act to stip me of citisenship for speaking out against the government, I'll strip myself of citisenship. Not only did we re-elect Bush, but we also gave the Republicans a stronger majority in both houses, and all 11 hate laws against gay people got passed. The next thing I know they'll be bringing back the pink triangle and making gays wear it so that they can put them in gulags. Everyone say hello to World War III and Neo-Nazism. I can't believe people are so stupid. This is all f*ck*d up beyond any repair. Ok, so maybe I'm being an extremist. Or maybe I'm just doing what most people here aren't doing... thinking. In either case, 2004 is the last year my family is American. We're not exactly sure how to go about it. I'm kinda here fishing for suggestions. I know a lot of people have gone to Canada, noteably during Vietnam. And that the religious right keeps saying people like me and Michael Moore and Tony Campolo and John Spong should go to Canada, or France. But the question is this: how? Any ideas?

Well I definately agree with those who say the gnostic writings are an important find, relevant to historical search and personal devotion. I'm not so optimistic about the content of the gnostic writings. When I first read John Dominic Crossan's 'The Historical Jesus' (1991) one of the things that I remembered the most was him saying that he could understand the transition from 'Jesus to Christ' but not the transition from 'Christ to Constantine'. I agree. The transition from 'Christ to Constantine' is/was unwarranted. In fact, I agree with people like Campolo who say the transition did more to damage Christianity than help it. Most of this talk over 'alternative Christianity' and re-discovering lost faith seems to me to circulate around aspects of Christendom that seem to be obviously... well, unChristlike. I think the theological arguments (though some things are real issues of faith and doubt for people) tend to go hand and hand with the practical arguments. In other words, it may very well be true that some have a hard time imagining a literal resurrection of Jesus, but what fault can be found in those who believe in it? Unless they are viewed as also believing in such things as... Bashing and subordinating women, tormenting gay people, going to war against people/ violenting forcing faith on others, etc. These (social) issues seem to me to be the real issues. Of course it is reasonable why some are attracted to versions of Christianity that seem more affiliated with bieng humane than inhumane. Karen Jo Torjeson's book, 'When women were priests' is a great example. However, we can't exchange one type of blind acceptance for another. Let's be honest, people are fed up with 'traditional creedal Christianity' and in many ways, for good reason. There are many who blindly accepted whatever version of Christianity they were given without realising that they were not necessarily delivered 'the' Christian faith. So I guess it all re-opens certain questions, doesn't it? I return back to what I said about understanding the move from 'Jesus to Christ'. As a Christian, who sees Jesus as the Christ, this move is not only understandable but desirable. We are trying to learn and discover Jesus because we know that our ability to be transformed into Christians depends on it. However, we can't blindly accepted something like the gnostic gospels. Sometimes they can hardly be called 'gospel' at all. We have to be consistent with how we treat ancient sources. Crossan says that our four gospels are a 'lamination of history and faith'. I would agree. So is something like the gospel of Thomas. I'm not (personally) convinced any of the Jesus sayings are exact quotes. I tend to lean more towards the pink vote for them, that the meaning of Jesus is expressed through the voice of the community. Furthermore, every source developed in layers. Crossan sees Thomas as having at least two layers. It is the first layer (which is very Q-ish) which pre-dates Mark. I'm just saying... we can't let an emotional reaction against something like a male-dominated church to skew our thinking. I'm sure we have much to learn from Thomas and the Nag Hammadi library, but let's not learn more than is there.

I'm trying to collect as many statements/letters/etc. made by prominent clergy, in any denomination, who have voiced their opposition to the war and/or Bush. I've already come across the Pope's statements, as well as what Rowan Williams has said. The presiding bishop of the ELCA has spoken out against the war and Tony Campolo (a Baptist) has made his views well known. I'm still searching for voices from other mainline denominations, but if there are voices from evangelical/non-denom places, I'd like to know about those as well... Can anyone help me out?

You mean all the ex-gays who go off and hang with the fundies for a few years and then later come back admit that their orientation has really been gay all along?

Biblical... no question about it...

The Cross... However did such a symbol of violence and death come to be seen as redemptive? Maybe the question answers itself... To say the cross is redemptive is to take the symbolism of violence and hate out of it. The early church concluded, rather quickly, that Jesus 'died for the sin of the world'. But what did that mean? The statement used temple oriented language and put Jesus in place of the temple. It isn't going to be animals that die for sin now... it is Jesus who died for our sin. In the post-easter community of followers who came from a Jewish background -- it was the only meaning they could give 'the cross'. The conclusion: If it is Jesus who died for our sin, the image of the cross as gruesome can be replaced with one of redemption. Thus, it would make no sense to kill animals and/or other humans because of our sin. Furthermore, Jesus did, politically, take the place of his own people in that death. His way of peace, and self sacrifice, 'saved' them. But Judaism always had a world wide outlook. If Jesus died for their sins - he died for everyone's sins. The gospel is the good news that there is a better way to live life and that death has been overcome. The early church did have an 'atonement theology' but it wasn't cast in the terms of what 'atonement theology' would become. Jesus, God, was martyred for God's kingdom, showing us the way to be saved from this world and from ourselves. The way of life that Jesus lived is the life more abundant, the life eternal. We learn this from the resurrection. We can be saved through the power of the death and resurrection of Christ just like they could back then. It isn't so much about escaping hell as it is being invited to becoming human. The problem? Somehow the symbol of cross reverted back into vengeance and violence. If you look at Constantine slaying people under the cross or Hitler gassing Jews or the Crusaders slaughtering Muslims: the cross is what it always was - a symbol of violence and hate. Perhaps we should all wear crucifixes. A crucifix makes a statement about Jesus. But it is up to us to understand - and relate - the meaning of the cross as being truly redemptive. Later 'atonement theology' that boils down human cruelty as appealing God is kind of sick. In Jesus' parable about his own death upcoming, the one about the vineyard, this is not at all the picture you find. In Jesus' parable God sends the prophets and the people kill them. Finally, God sends his own son, Jesus, and he is rejected and killed as well. Jesus did forecast his own death as taking place because of the 'sin of the world'. He, Jesus, was innocent. The sin of the world killed him. By recognising this, we can see the death of Christ as atoning when we choose to respond and live in its meaning without giving way to morose forms of 'atonement theology'.