Jump to content

Raven

Members
  • Posts

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Raven

  1. Watching people get their knickers in a twist and try to out-offend each other is just exhausting. I really, really don't understand why it gets complicated for people. Religion might be complicated, but faith shouldn't be - hence my love of faith more than religion. To me, it seems simple: - Be kind to others - even those who don't deserve it. If that's too hard, stay away from them. - Don't waste our natural resources. - Take care of others - your family members, your friends, your tribe/community, and so on, to the best of your ability. - Have compassion for other people's hurdles and pains; celebrate their achievements. - Don't worry so much about what other people are doing; what are YOU doing? - Let your actions speak for themselves. - Listen more. - Think twice before speaking. Words spoken can't be taken back. - Lead by example, instead of pointing fingers. Some might say, "easier said than done," but I have to wonder - is it? Is it really so hard to not talk garbage about people? Is it really so incredibly challenging to engage with others in a meaningful way, understanding that everything is not all about you? Is it so hard to just simply CARE about other people, and their lives? I don't get it. I was thinking today about "the least of these" (from Matthew 25) and the basics - what I believe some may refer to as the Acts of Mercy (is that correct?) and it seems to me that these concepts are what I would use to help define faith in action - in my case, Christianity in action. Not complicated Scripture and dogma, not worrying about this tiny detail or that odd, mistranslated sentence - just simply finding God in the moment-to-moment experience, and have faith by doing. The older I get, the sadder I get at how people will willingly expend energy on hate, prejudice, and arrogance, instead of simply living a life that is purposeful and leaves something good behind. Is it human nature? Is that what makes it hard? I have a tough time believing that selfishness and arrogance is human nature, but maybe I'm wrong.
  2. Thanks for your insights, Paul. I haven't found anything offensive in it at this point, just things that I'm not sure I agree with - mainly his ideas about being accidental creatures....there's something about that idea that bothers me, though I haven't figured out exactly why, yet. I've just finished chapter 2, so I'm not that far into it yet. I find his writing style easy to follow, and quite relaxed and friendly.
  3. I started reading this yesterday, as my chuch's book group will be studying this book starting in two weeks. (Haven't decided about attending the book group, but might as well prepare!) So far it's quite good, though I'm not sure I agree with everything he's saying - I've decided that, at this point, that's not important. What is important is that it's making my brain work and getting me to consider different sides of things. Has anyone else read this?
  4. Thanks everyone for the links! It's always good to see what else is out there. Cheers!
  5. Good point, George. I wonder if he thought of that before making it? To be clear, I don't think the world should be held hostage out of fear of wild reprisals from extremists. In an ideal world, people would be capable of having a discussion without flipping over cars and beheading people. In an ideal world, everyone would be able to deal with dissent gracefully. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Part of me says, in an ideal world, this "filmmaker" would be able to make whatever kind of film s/he wants, and people would find non-violent ways to respond. The other part of me says, in an ideal world, this "filmmaker" would find a much more intelligent way of stating his/her opinion.
  6. I think "Progressive" is a great choice, personally. I think it's a word that's clear enough in meaning not to be confusing or misleading to people. When you use the word "progressive," people get an idea of what you're talking about. "Progressive" to me doesn't mean finished; we haven't completed our journey yet. It just means we're on the way - looking ahead, asking questions. Open hearts and open minds; open doors, too. I don't think there's anything arrogant about "progressive" unless a person goes out of their way to spin it like that. The word "traditional" could also have a hue of arrogance to it, depending how you use it. Liberal, humanist ... it's all in the way its applied.
  7. I find it impossible to believe that Jesus would prefer a person stay with an abusive partner. I just don't see it. As for the issue of remarrying, do you think the argument would be about sexual purity? Women (and men? I'm not sure about that) were expected to be virgins when they married - so would it be some sort of sexual no-no to remarry, as she wouldn't be a virgin? Or is to do with the idea of being married for always - so to marry someone else, even after a divorce, is spiritual adultery? Hm.
  8. I like your ideas, Dutch. I think these Affirmations were designed to be a bit flexible to allow for inclusion. Very nice.
  9. Watching this conversation evolve has been really interesting. I don't think Freedom of Speech is limitless. I don't know if it truly can be, in a civilized society. We have laws that protect people from slander, for example. We expect people to watch their language in front of children, the elderly, in the work place. (And I wish people would do so in more places, but perhaps that tramples on their rights?) While it may not be outright illegal to use words like f****t, people around you will likely speak up against you if you do. What does the Bible say about Freedom of Speech? Like PaulS says, it seems to play to both sides of the issue. The Bible does mention, right in the 10 Commandments, that no one is to bear false witness and say things that are not true. I suppose it might be a slippery slope from there, to exaggeration and mockery. I'm not sure. In my mind though, if you go out of your way to provoke people, part of the responsibility for their reaction lies with you. The person(s) who made the video on question, for example, could not have expected a different kind of reaction - it's no secret what type of reaction(s) radical, extremist Muslims have to what they perceive as insults to their faith. From where I'm standing, the intent of the person making the video is pretty clear, and so some responsibility is theirs. Of course, those who riot in the streets and kill still ultimately own their own actions, and bear the brunt of the responsibility. That goes without saying. I find hiding behind presumption of "Freedom of Speech" to be a bit immature. People often want the right to say whatever comes into their mind, but they don't want to bear any responsibility for it. You may have the right, I guess, to call someone a stupid sack of garbage, but what's the purpose? To what end? And don't forget - if you have the freedom to say what you want, so does everyone else, regardless of what you may think about it. A lot of people forget that part.
  10. Hard to say. I mean, the dude was homeschooled by a pro, so ... haha I joke, I joke. I've been up too longand have had too much wine. The separation of the saved and unsaved is something that's always bothered me. My fundy relatives tell us that we "won't see each other in Heaven" because (in their eyes) we're a bunch of heathens. My feeling is usually, "Thank goodness - who'd want to spend eternity with you lot?!" but I do find it quite rude. I don't know what happens in the afterlife. I will say, quite truthfully, that I hope there is a hell, because there are some people I feel very strongly belong there - and if there isn't a hell, I'll feel kind of ripped off about the whole thing. However, I have no idea what it would or would not look like. Pitchforks and bbqs seems a little cliche.
  11. All excellent points, George. It would be better if people would be more willing to engage in dialogue and mutual respect. Interfaith groups and services come to mind, for example - not an attempt to convert, but an attempt to achieve mutual understanding and exist in a way that "they" become part of "us." That's not to say, of course, that "they" shouldn't exist. There are people out there that I certainly don't want in my tribe.
  12. Interesting, Neon. Thanks for providing that information. I know after the video was out there and everything started, what I'd mentioned was the proposed theory at the time. The bottom line is, people will do ignorant, arrogant, violent things, and it's really unfortunate. It's too bad that more people can't adopt a "live and let live" philosophy, instead of trying to control what other people believe. It breaks my heart every time someone uses faith as a reason to do something evil.
  13. I can quite easily believe that this film exists. Unfortunately, there are hateful, angry people out there who do stupid, ignorant things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain I read that one of the masterminds behind thing was the same pastor beind "Burn a Koran Day" - ? It's also possible that the terrorists had something planned for the anniversary of 9/11 - why wouldn't they? Perhaps this idiotic film was a nice bonus for them. The whole thing is very, very sad. I'm so tired of people using religion to hate and be violent, while preaching that theirs is the religion of love and peace. Enough already. Extremist Muslims and extremist Christians are like those two kids you always see in the sandbox, throwing sand and crying they've got sand in their eyes. I'd like to hose them both off and send them to their rooms.
  14. People love to talk about pedophilia when they talk about homosexuality. It always makes me sad. Are some gay men pedophiles? Of course - as are some straight men. Being gay does not make one a pedophile any more than being straight does. The United Church of Canada has made some great strides in this battle, and I hope we will continue to do so. I believe that, almost always, our sexual orientation is as much a part of us as our eye colour or our height. It's in our wiring. I don't believe people can "choose" to be gay or straight, or anything else. And I don't believe that God would create people just to condemn them. On the other hand, let's say that sexual orientation IS a choice - what does it matter? As long as everyone is consenting (both literally and legally), then I don't care who does what to whom. Do your thing. Just don't harm anyone.
  15. As society changes, so (often) do our laws. If not, imagine the world we'd be living in! This is why I struggle when people take the Bible too literally. If you read through all the shalls and shalt nots in there, there's a lot going on that probably doesn't apply to you today. (Cutting hair, mixing fabrics, all the rules relating to sex and menstruation - it's a lot to take in!) Many people claim to live "Biblically," but I don't think they too often mean literally. "Living Biblically," at least for me, means being inspired by scripture and living as life as closely to Jesus' teachings as I am able. It probably means something different to everyone else. Are there parts of the Bible that are negative? Of course. Violent, too. It doesn't mean we have to be negative and violent. We live in a different world, and we as people have changed in many, many ways. Some things simply don't apply anymore. IMHO, anyone who uses the Bible to support a violent, hateful action is not reading it with a good intent. We see what we want to see and we take what we want to take.
  16. Raven

    Election 2012

    Romney seems like he's from another planet - his wife, too. I don't mean to be rude; I mean they really, truly, don't seem totally human. It's like they're made of plastic or something.
  17. Hi all, I used to enjoy receiving daily Bible verses via email (as a nice addition to daily meditation and prayer) but I'm having trouble finding one that doesn't have really conservative commentary. Does anyone know of a sort of "progressive" or "liberal" daily Bible verse service?
  18. Neon, the Bible isn't to blame for people taking it and twisting it to their personal viewpoints. The Bible is open to a lot of interpretation, and people see what they want to see. Yes, parts of it are bloody and violent - but I don't think it constitutes hate speech. Historical documents offer us glimpses of the past. What was said, done etc in the past does not always carry over into the future. As a Christian, I hate that right-wing evangelists use a Holy book to support their views - but it's their right to do so. The preacher who prayed for the death of Obama was/is likely guilty of hate speech (I don't know the details, as I never heard about it), but to say the Bible is responsible is ridiculous. Scriptures and Holy texts from all different faiths have been used by different people at different times to support their beliefs.
  19. Here is an interesting follow-up opinion column... http://www.thegridto.com/life/parenting/separation-of-church-and-school/
  20. Great story, Soma! It's amazing what you can miss out on with other people. Judging someone based on their sexuality, their gender, their faith, their ethnicity... it can leave a big hole in your life where someone amazing might have been. I feel very sad that the public education system has put so much restraint on what they can and can't teach. I really do feel that parents and school boards have way too much control over what goes on in the classroom. It makes me so glad I went into adult ed.
  21. I'd never heard of these before, but they are wonderful. To me, this sums up very well my idea of true faith. If more Christians would walk this way, the path might not seem so daunting to others. Thanks for sharing.
  22. A couple of points: Re - the Bible as "hate speech" - have to disagree. As we have discussed here at length, many times over, the Bible was written in an entirely different time. Society does not exist in a vacuum; the framework changed, and many people's views have therefore changed. Slavery, child marriage, and polygamy are examples of things that were the norm then, but are not now. In my mind, for something to count as "hate speech" or "hate literature," there has to be an actual point to it. As in, trying to create violence, or be actively discriminatory. If someone says, "I disagree with homosexuality," I don't find that to be "hate speech." If they say, "F----ts should be killed," then that's absolutely hate speech, both by using a derogatory expression, and advancing an idea of hatred. If you wrote something like the Bible today, with everything the same, it would be seen as hate, because we would be looking at it through today's lens. It's a totally different perspective. I think that's where a lot of us enjoy the "progressive" part of Christianity, where we can maintain spirituality but also move forward. ** Regarding this ongoing out-stupiding battle... when will enough be enough? Here in Toronto, recently, people tried to organize a dog walk outside of a mosque, in response to a Muslim man being upset (supposedly) because someone had brought a dog to *another* protest/rally/event, and some Muslims consider dogs to be extremely unclean animals. Soooo... some people came out, and walked their dogs outside the mosque. Members of the mosque came out, and of course the police were called, and insults and xenophobic comments were thrown back and forth. What did that accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Making the video, if it's what people say it is, was a stupid idea geared toward getting people upset. Surprise, people got upset. And the reactions and counter-reactions are just going to continue. I will say though, in the interest of being completely honest, I do find myself very upset that the extremist folks in the Muslim community react the way they do. There's nothing wrong with disliking, or even hating, something someone has said about you and your community, but to riot and kill every time someone steps out of line (in your opinion) is really, really awful. Say what you will about the Tea Party - at least they haven't bombed anyone...
  23. The trouble with trying to criminalize the "offensive" is that absolutely anything can be offensive, depending on the person and the context. What makes something "hate speech"? (I don't mean the legal term - I mean individually -- what's "hate speech"?) I think the Tea Party says some things that are unkind, uncivil, and untrue. I don't think they should go to jail for it. Mudslinging, from the basic and harmless to the outright volatile, is part of politics. Anyone who goes into politics has to have a thicker skin than that. (And the mudslinging usually goes both ways. I have never seen a campaign, ever, that didn't.) I don't think people should go to jail just for saying things - to me, that's dangerously close to engaging the Thought Police, and I want no part of that. People have a right to their opinions, and they have a right to express them. What people DO, on the other hand, and how it effects other people - that's a different story. If people come to actual harm (or have reasonable cause to believe it may happen), that's a problem. If people get irritated by the things people say, well that's a shame of course, but it's not in the same league. For the record, I do my very best not to say things that are hurtful/offensive to other people. (Eph. 4:29 comes to mind) The truth is, though, that these days, there is absolutely always someone willing to be offended by something, to the point that it's reached the ridiculous. I refuse to be afraid to express my opinions and ideas simply because it might bother someone, somewhere. I haven't seen the video (returning to OP) or even the trailer, but I've read a bit about it here and there. It sounds awful, and rude, and probably really ill-informed. It sounds like a stupid idea. But if humans don't have the right to be stupid, there are an awful lot of people going to jail. Truthfully, I think some people just look for things to get mad about. (Living in a litigious society helps fuel that flame, I think.)
  24. I attended public school in the mid 80s-mid 90s, and I remember it being kind of glossed over, but definitely not an issue. It was basically, "There are lots of types of families...." and that was sort of that. There were a lot of kids with single parents at home, and lots of kids in multi-generational or multi-branch families, so it wasn't exactly Leave It to Beaver anyway. The father in this article keeps saying how he's not extreme or fundy or anything else, but it does seem extreme to me. It also seems really rude to expect a public system to bow to religious demands. The other aspect of this article brings to light some of the religious issues we're experiencing in our society. It's basically, "you bend over for Muslim kids, why not Christian kids?" There is a part of me that gets that as a theory, but not in this reality.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service