cunninglily Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 But Lily, I noticed you mentioned Tarot. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. Didn't Cynthia inquire about Tarot on another thread somewhere? I find the symbolism aspect of Tarot fascinating. And didn't Joseph Campbell right a book on it? Could start a new thread since this is off topic maybe? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Joseph Campbell collaborated on a book on Tarot entitled, "Tarot Revelations" with Richard Roberts. I would be interested in discussing Tarot symbolism etc. but would prefer to start that when things slow down a bit here and HERE (in my *real* life). Maybe in a few weeks? I have a feeling that Freds new discussion topic will be keeping us all busy at least until then. lily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmadilloUCC Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 This is a very interesting post thread. I think it's interesting the part about there not being anything in faith that backs up Bin Ladin's faith. I think it doesn't matter whether there is or not. The important thing is that Bin Laden believes there is. Lots of violent murderers justified their actions with religion. Like Jim Jones. Someone could give Jim Jones a whole stack of scripture telling him it's not Christian to poison people and it wouldn't do any good. Perhaps one of his followers would figure out it's not biblical, then maybe they'd get out of that craziness. Maybe. Although the pull of a charismatic leader can be more powerful that any text or commentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 Armadillo, I pretty much agree that Bin Laden "uses" Islam for his purposes. There might be isolated passages that "might" defend what Bin Laden does, but I doubt that the whole of Islam does. And I agree that it is the way the Bible that gets interpreted or that certain passages develop acendency. Someone in Harris' audience made a comment on Kamakaze pilots that shows that Buddhists could get into the same type of trap as theists do. (I believe Harris was more anti-theist than truly anti-religion.) He made a reply but suggested that it was an extreme reaction (of course one could say the same for Bin Laden, etc. etc.) --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachOfEden Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 des wrote: "Actually I haven't read this book "End of Faith" by Sam Harris. This is a very provocative (and provoking) book on religion and dangers therein. Anyway he is what I would describe (don't think he would) as a progressive Buddhist, not an athetist, but he is essentially saying that esp. theistic religion is the cause of much harm in the world and that reason and secularism are responsible for most of the good things that have taken place from public health measures, attempts to live peacefully with other groups, etc etc. I'm not sure that I agree with it all. For ex. he has pretty much said that you have to interpret the Bible literally (and he definitely does). Anyway, one thing he talks about is that moderates are too tolerant of what are essentially crazy ideas, due to a belief that everyone has the right to believe what they want. ( A right fundamentalists do not, by definition, accord to us, btw. for reasons we have discussed here.) He can't at all get around the concept of liberal/progressive as he was invited to speak at a group of Reform Jews and Congregationalists, the whole liberal/progressive thing was something he couldn't grasp at all, never thought of. HOWEVer, the point about tolerance is interesting. I think we are by belief system tolerant (I'm not saying we always ARE so tolerant), but his comment was that maybe this isn't so good. We live in a world with dangerous, fundamentalist ideologies that we can't really speak to as we believe they have the right to these views. Specifically he talked of Muslim fundamentalism and the "rapture beliefs" which he says do not support "sustainable life on this planet". (Why bother with conservation if you think the rapture will come in 50 years as something like 40% of the population believes?) No one says to them, basically "this is nuts". .." Well, what this writter does not point out is mnay times someone who feels that were burnt in a Judeo-Christian fundamental faith background..sometimes will join a Buddhist grouo or Humanist group or basically ANY belief group that is either non-theist or anti-theist in nature to simply get even with all of Judeo-Christianity, which they blaim as the cause to all their problems. And just as over confifent Born Agains will berate the person who embraces Dawin as a dumb ape,,,so too will the over confident Humanist berate ALL theist themed belief systems..even those that are liberal as being anti-intellecual Holyrollers. So in either case..it's a problem of extreme black and white thinking where both ends of the extremist scale can NOT realize or accept that there ARE moderate people in the middle. AletheiaRivers: "The one thought that popped into my head that I will share right now is that I'm NOT tolerant of beliefs that I consider to be dangerous to the person holding the belief or to other people or to the " Yeah, I guess I've have to agree with that. I mean it's not like I am going to march around a protest the opening of the next "Left behind" book signing...I am not gonna tell them what they should do..but I won;t say there beliefs are ok or not harmful. "For example: My mom is still a JW. I don't have issues with her preaching door to door or believing that 144,000 will go to heaven to rule with Jesus or her not celebrating what are essentially pagan holidays (Christmas, Easter, Etc). Pretty much the same here. My mom is also JW as is my older sister and I concure with AR, "I don't have issues with her preaching door to door or believing that 144,000 will go to heaven to rule with Jesus or her not celebrating what are essentially pagan holidays (Christmas, Easter, Etc)." AR also wrote: "However, I will call "CRAP!" when she brings up Armeggedon (which I still can't spell) or not accepting a blood transfusion even if she was gonna die without it. These beliefs come from what I consider to be misinterpretations or misunderstandings of Biblical passages and I'm not afraid to say it." We I take issue with is when JW's use Armageddon as a fear minipulation tool to make everything think they HAVE to be JW and agree with their religious "Organization" to get into paradise. Just like how I take issue with Evangelical right winged Protestants who use hellfire or the "Left behind" thing as a fear minipulation tool and that everyone MUST concure with the Fundamental branch of Protestantism and 'their' interpretations of the Scriptures to get into heaven. I also take issue with both faith groups sexism and the way they approuch gays. darby "This is exactly why evangelicals witness--we are EXTREMELY concerned about dangerous beliefs and the consequences. (I know this point has been made before). Not saying you have to buy into our beliefs, but understand it is precisely our concern over people that drives us to spread the gospel. I know many of you recognize this, but I also see many posts on this site that suggest that we have other intentions (usually selfish, hateful, close-minded, etc.)" Darb, don;t you think this is WHY JW's go door-to-door? Do you think their intentions are "selfish", "hateful"? The reason why Fundamental Protestants Wintesses in the form of Harvest Crusades or handing out pamplets to co-workers is the same reasons why JW's go door-to-door. And both your group and JW's are, "EXTREMELY concerned about dangerous beliefs." And what are "dangerous beliefs" what ever is opposite to your faith groups interpreations of Scripture,right? And what are the, "consequences" that both Fundamental Protestabts AND JW's are BOTH , "EXTREMELY concerned about"? Fundamental Protestants= hellfire and getting "Left Behind" Jehovah's Witnesses= Armageddon and ceasing to exist forever. QUOTE These beliefs come from what I consider to be misinterpretations or misunderstandings of Biblical passages and I'm not afraid to say it. "Alethia, this is not directed to you, since you are always pretty open to discussing the evangelical/conservative view. But again, progressives cannot use this standard for when to "say it," and then chastise evangelicals for speaking up when we feel there are "misinterpretations or misunderstandings." Again, not directed to you, Alethia, but just a general sense I get from postings on this board." Well do not Fundamental Protestants and JW's "chastise" us Progressives for not agreeing with their interpreations on such matters as Armageddon or denying that women should serve as pastors/elders? So why is only the right side allowed to "chastize...and NOT the left side? Cynthia : "I can say that there are many paths to God and try some, but an exclusivistic christian would feel that I was endangering my soul. Clearly a time to speak up to a friend or "neighbor". Can we agree? Probably not. Agree to disagree? I can, but I don't see any price to this... the other person sees a huge price. I think this is the fundamental problem." Yes, and the Home Style Buffet approuch to spirituality is what both fundamental Protestants and JW's excuse us of, do they not. They think that as Progressives that when left up to the Progressive minded individual to use their own perspection to choose spiritual food..they we WILL always choose the spiritual junk food, the spiritual tweenkies and cotton candy that has no real spiritual substance or value. Some far lefters are like this...but all? As Progressives we have learned to examine the types of meat and veggies we choose to eat..because we have experinced religious food poisioning so we not just simply going to eat whatever someone who claims to be a chief tells us is the best cunninglily I've read the Q&A and interview with Sam Harris concerning his book "The End of Faith" (i have not read the book). He says: "There is a pervasive piece of wishful thinking circulating among religious moderates, and it could get a lot of us killed. The idea is that all religions, at their core, teach the same thing. This is myth." First, I wish people would call beliefs simply that= "Beliefs" and not 'myths'. This word too closely is indentified with "fairy tales," in our society. And when people say this..they mean that all religion have a Golden Rule belief..this does not mean they think people actually follow it. "Anyone who says that there is no basis for (Osama bin Laden) his worldview in the doctrine of Islam is either dangerously ignorant or just dangerous." Well, just like in Star Wars there is both a Light and Dark side the Force. "Christianity is a target of much hatred in the world, and the challenge this book seems to make is that there are good reasons for that; that our own faith and Bible and doctrines support domination." It is not our "Own Bibles" but our own "INTERPRETATIONS" of those Bibles that is the problem. "I have a Pagan friend who once commented that "the problem with Christians is that even when they are moderate or liberal and genuinely interested and accepting of your religion, I can always see in their eyes that they believe deep down that theirs is the right way, the best way, the most true way." Well, but UNlike the Fundamentalist, do they TELL YOU THAT? And does not your pagen friend think the same? They admire your compassion to "help try neighbor" but he wonders how and why you feel a desire to coonect this to Jesus? darby: "I've always been fascinated about the whole discussion on "the right way." I believe Jesus is the right way to the Father, not in some arrogant, I'm better than you way, but because, among many other things, He said so" The fact that "Jesus said So." is NOT the problem in itself..rather, the problem lies in people's interpretations of what Jesus meant/means by this. "We're not supposed to lord that knowledge over people, but I dont' feel right staying silent about it either, because it is so important. I have to admit, I also don't understand why exclusivity offends so many." The Bible says to "season your words with salt," and not horseraddish..and yet with their zeal to witnesses..many fundamentalist pour too much horseraddish in their attempts to feed those they feel are spiritually hungry and this causes divisions. "I'm not offended that JWs don't think I'm going to heaven--I try to engage them in dialogue, etc. But at the end of the day, if JWs, or Pagans, or whatever decide they've got it right and I've got it wrong, where is the harm?" Where's the harm? Suppose you are the Fundamental Protestants, and this "JW" is sibling you grew up with and were very close. Now add to this a third beloved sibling that is devote Catholic. The three of you are each convience that you found the true version of Christianity, and each person believes the other two to be in a false religion or cult? Humm..do you see any big problems of divisions here? Each is going to try and convert the other because each believes the other's salvation is at stake. QUOTE(darby @ Mar 23 2005, 12:20 PM) I've always been fascinated about the whole discussion on "the right way." I believe Jesus is the right way to the Father, not in some arrogant, I'm better than you way, but because, among many other things, He said so. We're not supposed to lord that knowledge over people, but I dont' feel right staying silent about it either, because it is so important. I have to admit, I also don't understand why exclusivity offends so many. I'm not offended that JWs don't think I'm going to heaven--I try to engage them in dialogue, etc. But at the end of the day, if JWs, or Pagans, or whatever decide they've got it right and I've got it wrong, where is the harm? I'll vehemently disagree, but I'm not offended. They've got every right to believe what they want, don't they? Additionally, while Christians have done things over the years to bring hatred upon themselves (as have every other group who ever lived), we are also despised because of simply what we believe. Jesus promised we would be persecuted, much in the same way He was. Just for belief in Him, and His name, He said we would be despised. cunninglily : "You make good points Darby. But there is no getting around the fact that if you think Jesus is the *right* way to the Father, then you pretty much have to concede that any other way is wrong." Cuningliy, it's not so much that he thinks Jesus is THEE right way..but that his faith group has the right interpreation of Christ's way..and even if others from different faith groups claim the precise same statement is will be dismissed as false And this is a problem. This is where the trouble starts. cunninglily " Sam Harris is manning a position that could prove just as destructive as any position he challenges. In some way he seems to be saying that if we would all just get over this whole *God* business...then the world would be a better place. But this is not likely to happen, and so, what then? Does his intolerance of theism become a suppression and oppression of Theists; essentially replacing one *crazy* belief with another; from God to no-God?" Yes, that is precisley the point I was trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 What if we took panentheism seriously....??? Neither fundie nor pinko, neither medieval nor post-toastie.... We have found the enemy and it is us If we are all connected to/part of God.... then we are all connected to each other. Godliness will always bring us together; humanness will always divide into us and them. That's the way to tell if you're on the right path. It's so very easy to see us and them... especially in the U.S. right now. Just remember that most people, day to day, are trying to live their lives as best they can. Most spiritual people are trying to do what they perceive as right. The best thing we as progressives and/or liberals can do is to go into discussions with a full awareness of our existence within God. To work diligently at dialogue; to preach the gospel.... with and especially without words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darby Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 I agree with "seasoned with salt" and further, speaking the truth IN LOVE. The how is usually as important, if not more, than the what in our communication. Certainly we have lost, in a major way, the ability to civilly debate ideas. Where's the harm? Suppose you are the Fundamental Protestants, and this "JW" is sibling you grew up with and were very close. Now add to this a third beloved sibling that is devote Catholic. The three of you are each convience that you found the true version of Christianity, and each person believes the other two to be in a false religion or cult? Humm..do you see any big problems of divisions here? Each is going to try and convert the other because each believes the other's salvation is at stake. I understand the possible family tension, but again, I'm not offended by others' beliefs. I have a subcontractor who is a JW, and we have had several intense conversations. We both completely believe the other has missed it. Yet we work well together, and I'm not offended, nor do I think he is. On a deeper note, don't even Progressive Christians think some individuals or some groups (perhaps fundies ) have missed it? The title of that book is Ten Wrong Things I learned in a Fundie Church, right? That would imply there is right beliefs and wrong beliefs, and that guy that wrote the book thinks he's got it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunninglily Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 On a deeper note, don't even Progressive Christians think some individuals or some groups (perhaps fundies ) have missed it? The title of that book is Ten Wrong Things I learned in a Fundie Church, right? That would imply there is right beliefs and wrong beliefs, and that guy that wrote the book thinks he's got it right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe its not so much a matter of right or wrong, but where a belief leads. I think its important to expand a belief, even exaggerate it, to *see* how it may progress if commonly held. Do you see what I mean? Take euthanasia, just as an example. If we believe it is okay to end lives when its *usefullness* or *quality* decreases (or before it achieves depth or usefullness as in abortion) then what happens when you EXPAND this belief? What happens to our sense of life as sacred? Who then decides when life is viable or useful or not? There are beliefs that are destructive to life...if not evident immediately, evident upon expansion. The simple belief that Jesus is the Way to the Father has expanded to mean that ALL who DO NOT believe in Jesus are damned. I think it was Walter Wink that said that any god who does not love the people who serve another god is a false god and any prophet who preaches that God does not love ALL men whether they believe in Him or not is a false prophet. There are beliefs that are destructive to life and which do not expand in Love. It is our responsibility to speak out against such beliefs, no matter who holds them, or how authoritative the source from which the belief came. Or so I think. lily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darby Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 If Jesus IS the only way, then it is not destructive, but rather paramount, to spread such a belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Exactly Darby... that's where lily is right. Look at the history of forcing people to accept christianity for their own good... the JW's have a point about christmas trees, easter eggs, etc. Exclusive beliefs lead to superiority and a "God-given" mission (jihad perhaps?) to spread your beliefs. I don't mean this in a mean way, but to help you understand at least my thought processes... the idea that GOD - omnipotent, ever-present, etc GOD could choose one way... one culture and exclude the rest of his creation from Himself... seems indescribably ethnocentric and, well, basically, silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darby Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 I think it was Walter Wink that said that any god who does not love the people who serve another god is a false god Walter Wink must throw out huge portions of the Old Testament, then. The God represented in the OT is a very jealous God. That was His main issue with the Israelites, time and time again--that they were "adulterous," worshipping other gods and idols. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darby Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Cynthia, no offense taken. exclude the rest of his creation from Himself I would argue WE, through our sin, have excluded ourselves from Him, not the other way around. My main point is that all of us (including you progressive friends of mine) believe there are right/wrong beliefs and dangerous beliefs. And when you see what you feel are wrong/dangerous beliefs, you guys are pretty adamant about addressing them. So the difference is not so much in whether some groups are open minded and others not, but rather WHAT THINGS we are all open minded about. Most of you are every bit as opinionated as I am, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) It is true that I call "Crap!" based upon my own beliefs. However, I only do so regarding dogma that automatically seperates someone from God's love based solely on the fact that they are not CHRISTIAN. Different Christian groups have varying levels of exclusivity and salvation teachings. JW's, for example, basically say that if you are not a JW and armeggedon comes, you're gonna die. That means babies too, simply because their parents are not JW's. I appreciate that that is one motivating factor for preaching. My issue is not with that. My issue is with the DOGMA that leads to such negative thinking in the first place. I guess it comes down to conservatives and liberals being (hopefully) able to meet in the middle regarding dogma and Biblical interpretation. From reading Generous Orthodoxy, I believe that is possible. A post-liberal, post-conservative theology that will eventually transcend the need for labels. Edited March 31, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Opinionated, me????? Oh my!!! All too true Darby! I would say that I see that as a human failing... to not be able to see the other side or the points in common. I think that being able to really hear what another thinks/believes and to value it as such is much more Godly than I am at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantaRhea Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) I'm figuring out (slowly because of my fundamentalist background) that the issue is not really whether one belief is right and another is wrong, the issue is how complete or inclusive one belief is in comparison to another. The problem is not that Walter Wink has thrown out huge portions of the Old Testament, it's that huge portions of the Old Testament have a very undeveloped understanding of God. We find this understood by the New Testament writers who saw a more complete picture of God in Jesus than the Old Testament prophets had available to them. I think one of the things which divide the "conservatives" and the "progressives" is our understanding of the work of the Spirit of Christ. Does the Bible complete God's revelation of Himself? Is the Spirit of Christ sitting on his spiritual ass in heaven waiting for everyone to finish reading the Book? Or do we have the "mind of Christ" actively engaged in history, further revealing the nature of God for our understanding? Do we see evidence of the Spirit of Christ at work in Feminist, Liberation, and Process Theologies, for instance? Or is this evidence that Satan is still deceiving the hearts and minds of people who fail to recognize that the Bible = the Word of God? Edited March 31, 2005 by PantaRhea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 If Jesus IS the only way, then it is not destructive, but rather paramount, to spread such a belief. You're absolutely right. There is a point here where the dialogue about "exclusive" and "inclusive" meanings of "I AM the Way" hits a wall, and this is it. At the end of the day, you either believe that Christianity is the only way to God, or you believe (as I discussed more fully in another post somewhere) that Christianity is a faithful disclosure of the Universal Way. Both meanings take very seriously the statement "I AM the Way" (as opposed to a shallow pluralism that says any way to God is as valid as any other), but the two approaches are, ultimately, incommensurable. I think we can deeply respect that we each take this claim seriously in different ways, and even put forth our best reasons for beliving the ways we do, but we may have to be content with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) LOL! We all posted within 1 minute of each other (or less). Panta and I basically said the same thing. Hi Darby! I swear it wasn't a conspiracy! Edited March 31, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darby Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Panta, I agree the Holy Spirit is alive and well and revealing new things to us...just not anything that would contradict scripture. Enhance, or explain deeper, yes, but not contradict. Fred, I agree this is where finding agreement probably hits a wall. Finally, let me ask all of you....are there beliefs that you think could lead a person to hell/hades/eternal separation from God? (for the sake of arguement, not worrying about the different interpretations of hell/hellfire/separation). I mean, are there some people/groups, whose beliefs are so wacked out and sinful, that they are damned (again, using whatever your interpretation of damned is). Or is every path valid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Finally, let me ask all of you....are there beliefs that you think could lead a person to hell/hades/eternal separation from God? (for the sake of arguement, not worrying about the different interpretations of hell/hellfire/separation). I mean, are there some people/groups, whose beliefs are so wacked out and sinful, that they are damned (again, using whatever your interpretation of damned is). Or is every path valid? Well, if I may take issue with your words, how is a belief sinful? It seems to me that a belief can be incorrect, but I'm not sure how it could be sinful. But given what I think you're asking: No, I do not believe every path is equally valid; Yes, I do believe that one can have incorrect beliefs, and that those beliefs can influence one's will, and one's desires, away from the love of God, and hence to lead one into sin. For example, the belief that it's alright to torture another person -- or maybe closer to the issue at hand, the belief that the universe is nothing but a cold, random, inhospitable place with no purpose whatsoever; or that God exists but is a cruel, sadistic being who delights in making people's lives miserable. Believing in these things would certainly keep you off anything resembling a spiritual path, at the very least. I suppose they could lead one to Eternal separation from God; but as I think we would all want to say, only God knows the heart. Is the person living in these beliefs out of willful rejection of God's gift, or out of ignorance? I think that makes quite a bit of difference. I think it's important to keep in mind that Hell is a destiny we choose, so there must be a real sense in which we can't be there against our will. The amazing thing is that God loves us so much, that he respects even our choice to Eternally reject him. (And yes, inclusive language folk, I know that God is not male, but our language currently lacks any better prounoun choices.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantaRhea Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Finally, let me ask all of you....are there beliefs that you think could lead a person to hell/hades/eternal separation from God? (for the sake of arguement, not worrying about the different interpretations of hell/hellfire/separation). I mean, are there some people/groups, whose beliefs are so wacked out and sinful, that they are damned (again, using whatever your interpretation of damned is). Or is every path valid? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Darby, Is your name possibly a pseudonym for John Nelson Darby? It would be interesting if it was, because my background is in the "Plymouth Brethren". Anyway, my answer to your question is that not all paths are equally valuable or meaningful, as not all lives are equally valuable and meaningful. Value depends upon how much of God we incarnate. The more inclusive our love is (which is how I interpret the verse, "Be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.") the greater the amount of beauty that we add to the Whole. Our lives can make God more beautiful! Some lives are just plain ugly. Ugliness comes in the comparison to "what could have been" and "what happened". However, I don't believe there is any form of existence that is without value. I love the way Whitehead puts it: "The revolts of destructive evil, purely self-regarding, are dismissed into their triviality of merely individual facts; and yet the good they did achieve in individual joy, in individual sorrow, in the introduction of needed contrast, is yet saved by its relation to the completed whole.... The consequent nature of God is his judgment on the world. He saves the world as it passes into the immediacy of his own life. It is the judgment of a tenderness which loses nothing that can be saved. It is also the judgment of a wisdom which uses what in the temporal world is mere wreckage." - Process and Reality, p. 346. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) On a deeper note, don't even Progressive Christians think some individuals or some groups (perhaps fundies ) have missed it? The title of that book is Ten Wrong Things I learned in a Fundie Church, right? That would imply there is right beliefs and wrong beliefs, and that guy that wrote the book thinks he's got it right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Darby (hey maybe this is his name and not based on the guy who invented the rapture?)-- of course, I'm not really des either. :-) (Of course, I would comment that a certain amt. of des is included in me, speaking non-literally. :-)) Now on to your question. Do I personally like or prefer one set of beliefs to another? Yes, most certainly. But do I really believe that fundies, say, have gotten everything totally wrong? No, I do not. For one thing, I would argue that such beliefs work in the lives of those who live them. They don't work for me. I could not easily give up such things as the age of the universe according to science; evolutionary science (not necessarily strictly Darwinism). NOr could I take in such concepts as a literal heaven or hell; the rapture; etc. But do I think these are always "wrong" for all people? No. In an inclusive sense, I dislike the title of "Ten things wrong...". Maybe they are wrong for him. I really think M.Borg is a much better intro to progress. Christianity than that book. Taken another way, I don't think that progress. thought has gotten everything right either. But I would prefer not to use the terms right or wrong but more towards the Truth or not. But there is a big question of "What is truth?" and Pilate (if he said it) wasn't the first or last to wonder this. As for dangerous beliefs. I would guess that I put the number of dangerous beliefs at a very much lower no. than, say, Darby would. But I think they are out there in terms of preventing medical treatment for children, handling snakes, drinking cyanide Kool Ade, and true Satanism, say. I don't consider things like Eastern thought, witchcraft, paganism, etc. dangerous. (In some ways I think they have captured essenses fo Truth. There might be other forms of belief that would lead one so astray as to do one harm. I'd place "hard core" atheism, say, in that catagory. Soft core (for example *tending* not to believe in a God or some mystery larger than oneself how ever you word it) might tend to lead you to question yourself, but once it gets to almost a religious status, I don't know how you could come to feel that Mystery in your life. This is the way it is harmful, it would cut you out of something that is part of us/the universe. (You could still lead an ethical life though). So maybe in that sense I think it is leads to the sin of separation (not that OTHER people can be there too). There are also individuals and groups, nothing to do with "religious" belief, who hold beliefs that are profoundly self-centered, cynical, greedy, as PantaR says. Also as PantaR says, it's really more what you "do" with your beliefs. But say the belief that you can walk on as many people as you want to get ahead, is often followed by behaviors that show no regard for others. That isn't a major wisdom tradition so I wasn't really including that in my original post. I think sometimes believing in the rapture is dangerous, if it lead to *behavior* that was wasteful or didn't allow for a sustainable environment (course you could behave that way and NOT believe in the rapture). Some beliefs I might consider foolish, you know things like New Age grasping onto various traditions in a haphazard way. But I do recognize that some people NEED to go thru these types of experiences to discover what it is that they believe. So in that way they can be the way towards truth. But drinking cyanide just doesn't get you anywhere. :-) I also dislike the exclusive nature of some faith backgrounds. YOu know taking Indians and converting them to Christianity and losing the Indians own wisdom traditions, which might be very deep. We can only learn from them if they aren't destroyed. And that's particulary why I don't like the type of "hard" evangelism that tries to convert people. (The trouble is, if you think that those who aren't literalists Christians will go to hell in a handbag, then I suppose trying to convert them is a sign of love, not disrespect. But I still dislike the belief systems that would require the destruction of other wisdom traditions. Are all wisdom traditions "equally" valid. I would agree with Fred they prob. not. I'd have trouble naming names or traditions here though. So I prob should have said "why just *about* everyone's religious belief systems (such as he major wisdom traditions) leads towards the truth. :-) It just isn't as catchy. --des Edited March 31, 2005 by des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunninglily Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 I think it was Walter Wink that said that any god who does not love the people who serve another god is a false god Walter Wink must throw out huge portions of the Old Testament, then. The God represented in the OT is a very jealous God. That was His main issue with the Israelites, time and time again--that they were "adulterous," worshipping other gods and idols. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. The Israelites were pagan polytheists, and much of the Old Testament tells the story of the on-going battle to wrench the Israelites away from their belief in the "many gods"...this is true. And being pagan, these were a tribal people (something we are not any more btw) and so unity under one god was of utmost importance. For centuries, the Israelites were not interested in converting people from other tribes into their fold (and still are not)...quite the contrary....*other* people from other tribes were unclean and mixing in any way was not encouraged. Jesus, in fact, changed this basic Israelite tribal tendency toward elitism and exclusivity...this is one of the most revolutionary things that He did...circumcision was no longer of the flesh, but of the heart (as Paul put it). more later lily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachOfEden Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 darby wrote: "I understand the possible family tension, but again, I'm not offended by others' beliefs. I have a subcontractor who is a JW, and we have had several intense conversations. We both completely believe the other has missed it. Yet we work well together, and I'm not offended, nor do I think he is. First, maybe neither you nor your devote JW co-worker is "offended" by your intense theolgy disagreement. But is it not true that both you and your JW co-worker FEAR for the other's salvation? Do YOU not think to yourself that you are concerned for your JW friend that his views on the trinity are wrong and because of this he may not be truely saved? And your JW firend FEARS the same for you except in reverse? "On a deeper note, don't even Progressive Christians think some individuals or some groups (perhaps fundies ) have missed it? The title of that book is Ten Wrong Things I learned in a Fundie Church, right? That would imply there is right beliefs and wrong beliefs, and that guy that wrote the book thinks he's got it right." The difference is while me and AR may may disagree with our fundamental JW family members...and indeed they may experate us...we do NOT 'FEAR' nor worry about their salvation and they would for US. so-called "Correct doctrines" is NOT what concerns on for we don;t believe that truely is such a thing in this life as unsullied interpretations because humanity IS IMperfect. What does concern us..is that fundamental faith groups are not treating women equally, that they may be acting emotionally unkind to gays, or that because of their end of the world interpretations..they may disregard preserving our earth's natural enviroment..and that is for starters the issues that we as progressive Christians have with Fundamentalists. We each of us as progressive Christians may hold our own views on whether we believe God is trinatarian in nature or not...we do not FEAR that is another claiming to be Christian holds the opposite view..that they may not be saved..where as I don;t if the same could be said of a JW or Evangelical Protestant debating this very same topic. Say one Progressive Christian came from Bapists background and is pro-trinity and another came from JW background but is non-trinity..whteherever their view on this in the past or the present..'if' BOTh are truely Progressive then they will not FEAR or WORRY about the other holding a different view. Can the same be said of your view, Derb towards your JW co-worker? And can the the same be said of your JW co-worker's view towards you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachOfEden Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 "But, the fundamentalist might protest, if slalation is at risk then is it not our duty to warn other's that their interpretations are wrong?" You see..both the fundamental Protestant, the fundamental JW, the Fundamental Catholic all are convinced that THEY HAVE the "orthodox" interpretation of the Bible and thus they believe that have accepted the REAL Jesus and the other guy's false has accpeted a FALSE Jesus and therefore is not really saved. In contast..Progressive Christians do NOT presume nor asume that THEY 'HAVE' discovered all the unsullied interpretations of the Bible and on doctrines...nor that one HAS to be be saved. They do NOT claim to understand this all now in this life. rather what they DO claim that we CAN ALL understand in this life, NOW is the Golden Rule. I mean, JW's Mormons and Fundamental Protestants can continue their heated debates on the trinity..but does fighting over the trinity has ANYTHING to do with if we treat all races and both sexes as we ourselves would like to be treated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darby Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Can the same be said of your view, Derb towards your JW co-worker No....but again, how does my fear harm him?? Or his fear for me? Doesn't affect me at all, I might add. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunninglily Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 First, maybe neither you nor your devote JW co-worker is "offended" by your intense theolgy disagreement. But is it not true that both you and your JW co-worker FEAR for the other's salvation? Do YOU not think to yourself that you are concerned for your JW friend that his views on the trinity are wrong and because of this he may not be truely saved? And your JW firend FEARS the same for you except in reverse? "On a deeper note, don't even Progressive Christians think some individuals or some groups (perhaps fundies ) have missed it? The title of that book is Ten Wrong Things I learned in a Fundie Church, right? That would imply there is right beliefs and wrong beliefs, and that guy that wrote the book thinks he's got it right." The difference is while me and AR may may disagree with our fundamental JW family members...and indeed they may experate us...we do NOT 'FEAR' nor worry about their salvation and they would for US. so-called "Correct doctrines" is NOT what concerns on for we don;t believe that truely is such a thing in this life as unsullied interpretations because humanity IS IMperfect. What does concern us..is that fundamental faith groups are not treating women equally, that they may be acting emotionally unkind to gays, or that because of their end of the world interpretations..they may disregard preserving our earth's natural enviroment..and that is for starters the issues that we as progressive Christians have with Fundamentalists. We each of us as progressive Christians may hold our own views on whether we believe God is trinatarian in nature or not...we do not FEAR that is another claiming to be Christian holds the opposite view..that they may not be saved..where as I don;t if the same could be said of a JW or Evangelical Protestant debating this very same topic. Say one Progressive Christian came from Bapists background and is pro-trinity and another came from JW background but is non-trinity..whteherever their view on this in the past or the present..'if' BOTh are truely Progressive then they will not FEAR or WORRY about the other holding a different view. Can the same be said of your view, Derb towards your JW co-worker? And can the the same be said of your JW co-worker's view towards you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This discussion brings up some interesting points. Is it anywhere written that our beliefs save us or condemn us? It is true and observable that our beliefs can harm us and others...but is this a condemnation that issues from God? Or is this the fruits of our own sowing? I honestly don't believe that differences in interpretation of doctrine factor in as regards salvation. In other words, I don't believe that the literalist is more or less saved than the metaphorical interpreter of doctrine. Beliefs, just like anything else, are to be judged according to the fruits they produce. There are Christian sects out there who believe, as an example, that you must be baptised in the Name of Jesus, NOT in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be truly saved. This is just silly. But it demonstrates how endless this wrangling over words can get in Christian circles, and how tenaciously people hang on to a need to be "right" while making otherst wrong. Have we forgotten that it is written that God looks upon the heart and not what you say you are or how you say you are. Have we become more clever than God? lily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.