BeachOfEden

Follow This Advice to be "Orthodox"...

By the way, if the editors of this forum conclude indeed that this discussion has become a debate (which is ovbiously has) and thus think it would be best to MOVE this intire thread onto the debate forum instead..hey, that's fine by me. jamesAMDG: " I seem to have touched several nerves for BeachofEden." Humm..try this intire TCPC community. "I'm a fundamentalist because I believe what the Church teaches? It's like I'm talking to the entire MSM (mainstream media)." Yes, that is basically it. You could say this forum is kinda like the Daily Show with John Steward. "I think it's very telling that you would equate authentic Catholicism with Evangelical Protestantism and the Watchtwoer group. It shows how little you actually understand the argument you're supporting. There are very large differences between these groups in organisation, authority, and theology. I hope you don't really think that we would all fit nicely into your cookie-cutter." Let me cut to the chase here to save time. Cause lord knows I have been down this road more than once with all 3 of you. Whenever I draw attention to these social justices, such as FULL equality for women and a fundamental faith group claiming to have aquired all the copy rights to the REAL Jesus....it always seem to be the case that these '3' fundamental groups will respond by switching the subject to the theological debate of the trinity...the #1 topic that fundamental catholics, far right Protestants and devote JW's love to debate, and usually this is their prime debate issue to fight a point over why one of these faith groups are THEE true unsullied version of Christianity, while the others are false, cults,ect... So let me address this by replying..I don't give a damn about your trinatiatian verses unitarian theology debate..and that this has NOTHING to do with these social justice issues I am talking about...so please, you 3 fundamental faith groups, don;t do a switch and bait with me. I am talking about social justice issues and it you wish to talk about the trinitarian verses unitarian debate, then please, start a new thrad devoted to THAT topic. "The OLD WHITE MEN scream, what could be less exiciting than an argument based on the age of the person's involved and the colour fo their skin. I hope you don't mind me saying this, but your attitude is incredibly ageist, racist and sexist. As if somehow the only people who can represent other people are young (by your definition) non-white women." In STARK contrast to YOUR FAITH...as with these other 2 fundamental faith groups...Progressive Christianity does NOT limit one from being a priest/elder based on their gender or age. Has there EVER been a Pope that was black? Or female? Neither has there been a president of the watchtower society that has been black or female. Humm... Besides, I did not know that for me or anyone to simply state this obvious FACT made them sexist or racist. If I ignored this FACT than would that make me tolerant? "And I'm sure you have some statistics about the number of cardinals who aren't white to back this up right? And the number of non-whites who are in Roman Curia (the Church's beaurocracy) is equally small I'm sure, but I'd still like to see some statistics." How about YOU show us YOUR statisics? Show US WHEN a Pope has ever been black or female. "You fail to notice that the colour of a person's skin isn' necesarily a reflection of their holiness, and I don't know about you but I would rather of a holy Pope before any other adjectives get added on." Really? Is their gender a reflection of their "holiness"? And how do you define "holiness"? That they walk on water? Or that a halo appear over their head? "Nothing like one more ad hominem attack just to make sure I got the point right?" Or the pictures. They say a picture worth a 1,000 words. "I really appreciate your argument being based on one man's physical resemblance to a fictional character and I'm struck by how much it reminds me of a child throwing a tantrum an finally screaming "Well, you're..... UGLY! So there!" Awesome." Or how about, "Well, you Unorthodox!" Or "You're A Cult!" Or "My God bigger than your God!" "If you discount the heresy, blasphemy and constant thumbing of his nose at the Vatican." Well, if you if you think Mathhew Fox is a heathen..then you would not like us any better either because we question religious authority here. We constanly "thumb our nose" at fundamental faith group leaders by following Paul's advice given to the Boreans to "Check and see if what we are being told is really so or not." Acts 17:11. Please give a reference. http://www.cbeinternational.org "Thank God it wasn't" Yeah, thank God! Just think of all those poor people in Mexico not having one child after another. They might actually rise out of poverty! "there is all kinds of space in the Church for differences of opinon, but only on the things that there can be a difference on. Dogmas and doctrines are right out, disiplines and small-t traditions are all up for grabs (well discussion anyways)" Is fobidding birth controll and allowing women to be priests doctines or merely diferneces of opion or are both one and the same? "I disagree, and the MSM is a classic example, if there is so much conservatism why has Pope Benedict been so roundly attacked by mainstream papers, television, etc. before he has even acted on anything as Pope? The MSM is already screaming about how conservative he is and how people will be driven from the Church, but he hasn't done anything yet." The evening is yet young. And as sleep sings me her siren song, I'm out for tonight, Cynthia : " Beach - Oh girl... . I too am tolerant of anything but intolerance. Which puts me in the intolerant camp with the people I am intolerant of and drives away the tolerant people because I, in the cause of tolerance, am quite intolerant... BUT, being tolerant of intolerance seems wrong... it's a conundrum. I personally would appreciate knowing what others here do with this!!!!" Me too, I guess we are both hopelesy intolerant of intolerance, and don;t forget if you happened to see sexism or racism happening then simply the mere act of admitting that you SAW this makes you also racist or sexist..But if we see all this and pretend we did not and don;t say anything then this when mean we are tolerant. SeeNoEvil.bmp

"Beach, I'm curious, if you don't think you've found the truth," You have ears but you do not hear. Did you not read my previous replies here to this Catholic guy? I just got through telling him that as PROGRESSIVES WE do NOT claim to have foundTHE TRUTH and that Progs do not believe that one CAN find all the so-called unsullied TRUTH in this imperfect world and thus IS WHY,we do NOT makes such claims as fundamentalists do. "why are you expending so much energy trying to convince james that you're right and he's wrong?" First, D,he came HERE first to tell US Progs how he believed US to wrong and to explain to US what HE 'thinks' is orthodox. I am merely stated that as a Prog i refute this and why. "BTW, you're commiting the either/or fallacy." Let me get this straight. A fundamentalist comes here and preaches to US how we are all wrong cause when are simply NOt in agreement with HIs fundamental views and because I dare to disagree with this then you charge cause i dare challenge this then by so doing this makes me a fundie? "Just because the JW's err when they claim to have the truth, doesn't mean everyone else who claims the truth is wrong." So you believe it IS wrong for JW's to claim that their only leader and meditor to God is Christ..then turn right around and contridict themselves the next by claiming that 'their' organization of old white men is the channel to God...but..that it may NOt be wrong for the Catholics to likewise 'claim' that Jesus Christ is their only leader and meditor to God..but then turn around and claim their old white man aka the Pope? Why do you think it may be wrong of JW's to do this but that it may NOt be wrong for Catholics/..or Fundamental Protestants? So, it is OK for 'some' Juedo-christian themed faith groups to creature worship either a man or a bord of men...but it is wrong for others? How do you figure this? I believe it is des, on here, who came from Christian science background, would you say it was wrong of SC to follow Mary Eddy Baker...but NOt wrong for the Catholics to follow the Pope?

You know, I really don;t know why your fundamental Catholic Church, the extremist far right Protestants, and the JW org are not good buddies cause you all claim to have aquired all the copy rights to God...oh that's right...have could all three of you have THE TRUTH? That's why each claim the other is a fake. Let me recount HOW MUCH ALIKE the 3 of you are: 1. You ALL claim to have 'THEE TRUTH' and everyone else is on the highway to hell or Armageddon or (D) all of the above. 2. You ALL claim that your imperfect old white men are the bull. horn for God. Catholics Fundies= The Pope & Vatican JW's= The JW Organization Protestant fundies= Billy Graham Gee and what do these all have in commom? OLD< WHITE MEN. 3. The nuns in Catholics do most of the work of teaching the kids and helping the poor but only the men giet all the glory of being priests and bishops. Likewise in JW they admit that the women do the vast majority of the preaching work but again ONLY MEN can be elders and overseers. Same with Southern Baptists and all 3 of you claim to praise women yet treat them as second class citzens. Whether you're hard$#@ Catholic church approves or not..whether the hard%$# JW organization approves or not and finally whethjer the extremists far right branch of Proetstants like it or not...all three have individuals in their faith groups who DO question your religious authority..and when these non-dark-aged minded individuals get over their fear of OLD, WHITE MEN "lording it over the people" like the pharisees of Jesus' day... we heathen non-Orthodox "Progressive Christians" will be here to welcome them and throw them a lifesafer and help them out of this hell hole we call fundamentalism. Why don't you go back to your Death Star and plan how you'll crush this rebellion known as the 21st century.

"On "fundamentalism" - As Pope Benedict XVI said about orthodoxy becoming seen as fundamentalism in our day, that'S defaintely whats happening in this conversation." That IS correct. And THIS IS what our issues (Progressive Christians) IS and has always been with conservative/Fundamental religions..be they Catholic or Protestant or other. It's this issue that fundamental faith groups deem 'their' interpretations of the Bible as "Orthodox" or "The Truth" and everyone else is "unorthodox", "UNChristian", "cult",ect..you get the idea. It's that they claim to hold the flawless understanding on Christianity..and the the rest of us who dare voice that we think women should treated equal and that all other faiths are not cults..and considered the "heathens." "If you stop calling Truth true, then you're in a whole mess of trouble. After all, Isaiah said (5.20) Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." Umm. me and Ath leard ALOT about claiming to have found all "The TRUTH" when we were in JW. Funny thing is..Progressive christians don;t claim to have aquired the flawless interpretations of the TRUTH" cause we understand that all human beings are imperfect. Somehow, fundamentalists speak and ask as if they have already gotten into the prefect Kingdom of God and have become perfect. "It is therfore necessary to protect the core and foundational truths of the Faith (the doctrine and dogma which cannot change but is sometimes clarified and more deeply understood: for example, the Immacualte conception as an idea dates back to at least the 3rd century, it just wasn't confirmed as being true until Pius IX declared it in 1854) and that was his job in a proxy way as the Prefect fot the COngregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and in a direct way as Pope. After all, he is now responsible for EVERY soul on earth. this means fo course that he can't say homosexuality is anything other than a "grave cross to bear" (from the Catechism) and that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disorderd". Further, he has to say that the wholeness of Christ's truth subsists in the Catholic Church because it was the Church founded by Christ on the Apostles and propagated by their successors (the Bishops of today)." Yeah, in JW they called this "New Light." "On "democracy in the Church": As I noted above there are things that cannot change, for example, there haven't been and there will not be women priests, thre is NO precedent for it in Tradition..-" In tradition..you are right there is not. "and none in Scripture." On this you are VERY WRONG. Disciples of Christ pastor John Temple Bristow wrote a book called, "What Paul Really Said>" and in it he PROVES by SCRIPTURES that there WERE INDEED '3' women pastors/elders/priest who served SIDE BY SIDE WITH PAUL, and '2' of them ARE mentioned in the BIBLE BY NAME. "Pope John Paul II was very clear on this in his writings about the the sacrament of Holy Orders." Woopy-do. We don;t give a damn about what Pope this or that said. Or what Billy Graham says, Jerry Felwell, Bob Jones or the JW organization says...We only care about what Jesus said. "Matt Fox left the Catholic Church because he realized he was no longer a Catholic and couldn't therfore continue what he was doing. His writings continaully exalt Nature while debasing Christ, and reducing Him, essentially, to a nice guy. Nothing could be clearer heresy, as Catholics we are required to believe that Christ is THE Saviour of humanity and that there are no roads (that we can seek) to Heaven other than Him (I don't really want to get into invincible ignorance right now)." You forgot about the Pope. "on "tenability" : fatherman was right, things won't change because the world wants them to, frankly the world needs to realise that anyone who doesn't want to be a Ctholic isnt being forced to stay, however, if there consceinces are being picked about leaving, that could be some actual grace trying to get you into a confessionnal and back on the straight and narrow as it were. " Oh HOW RICH! If I had a buck for everytime a JW said that to me! "on "people beign too supid to decide for themselves and wanting someone to tell them what to do" : Humbug! is listening to a teacher weak?" Teacher? Is that all your pope is to you? Besides Jesus said that he would leave us with a HELPER. And WHAT did Jesus say this HELPER was? A "POPE"? BILLY GRAHAM? No He siad it was THE HOLY SPIRIT. "When the teacher is teaching you listen, when hes right you agree, not because he said it, but because his argument is strong and true. Thats what the Pope does, he informs consciences , then we have to act on that." " I guess I'll never be a moderate or a progressive." So it would seem. So why are YOU HERE? To educate all of us heathen Progressives that we'd better become fundamental catholics or ELSE? We have all been there and done that and left. Sexism against women? Hatred towards gays? Ban on birth controll? Man seuxally attacking boys because they can't marry? Sorry, I am not one over with this religion. I guess I must be Unorthodox. QUESTION AUTHORITY...

Here Aletheia, I made this for you. "Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design."

There's also an evil Pope in LadyHawk who is the villian in the movie.

Yeah, I am But doesn;t he?

Does anyone think this new pope reminds them of the Chancler Palitine? (The Emperor of Star Wars)???

Oh yes! Brother moon, sister Sun is a MUST I mean this IS Progressive Christianity. It's about Saint Francis doing a Progressive alternative to the morbid rigid religion of his day! St.Francis starts a church where women CAN be priests and people are encouarged even to bring their pets to church with them! He is also is against war! It rocks! BTW, are you excited to see the next star Wars movie? I am!

curlytop: " Since the Catholic church doesn't define itself as solely fundamentalist, conservative, moderate, liberal, or progressive, I think that people might desire moderation because it helps avoid the excesses of the extremes at either end." Whether they like it or not. The Pope is the speaker for The Catholic church and he, in his own words has made it quite clear that believes Catholicsm IS conservative and fundamental and he voiced that he iS very much against any reform leaning in a liberal direction. It like this....Billy Graham has been crowned (figuritively ..that is) as the spokesman for evangelical Protestantism. He belives in the rapture and believe that everyone must choose Christ now or be eternally lost. Now, granted there could be many Protestants who embrace the term "Evangelical" but..like it or not..unless they voice that they DO NOT concure with Graham's views..all will asume that they AGREE with Graham on all these points. Another example..I have come to know a number of JW individuals who embaced the restored earth belief and the non-trinity belief held by JW...but...they voice..at least in private that they do NOT agree with the JW organization's stated views on forbidding women to be elders (pastors) or their views agaibst birthday celebrations or against voting or the view that all non-JWs will not be saved. But they will NOT voice these views publically..for the same reasons that the Progressive Catholic will not publically voice disagreement with the Pope or how the Liberal Evangelical with not publically voice disagreement with Billy graham...cause none of these want to be labled "UnChristian" by the leadres of their faith group. Personally, myself I don;t give a damn if my former JW /too liberal/New Age. If I cared I'd by in the organization bending over backwards to kiss their @#$ in order to oppese them.

I see your point, curlytop, in observation of many conversations on the web/beliefnet and have heard from many individuals from Catholic backgrounds as well as Southern Baptists, JW and Mormon who deeply desire that there be a Progressive alternative to each of these faith backgrounds..and I do understand. There DOES seem to be a Liberal Catholic Church and Liberal Baptist churches and even a Liberal Mormon church...and I don;t know if these alternatives meets the desires of these Progressives...it would be interesting to ask and see...but I realize many feel they are Progressive but there churches are NOT and that is why the web is a blessing. I have created a MySpace group for Liberal catholics so that they may simply have a place to talk..since I noted there really is not one. I also made one for Progressive Christians who are XSouthern Baptists and well as another one for Progressive christians who came from JW background. BTW, any of you ever remebering watching that progressive show a few years back called "Nothing Sacred"? It was GREAT! It was about this young liberal Catholic priest and a liberal catholic young nun who were Progressive minded but the church leadership and bishops were constantly ruining their progressive efforts. One episode, which was my favorite was one in which the young liberal Catholic nun runs across a childhood friend. in conversation the nun's friend excitedly explains how she had become ordained as a minister in the Episcopalian church. The Catholic nun is glad for her friend but this also inspires annoyance towards her own Catholic faith that forbids her to preach. She voices this to her friend and he friend suggests she come give a sermon at her liberal church. The Catholic gal smiles and thanks her but politely passes on the offer stating that she felt she would simply wait and hope for changed in her own church. My best friend, a gay guy and a JW ( I did not know he was gay then and either did he)was watching this with me and I voiced my annoyance with the Catholic nun's decision and that i thought she was wind-fell dreaming that her church would simply comes to its senses and chance. At this, my friend became annoyed at my opinion and sided with the Catholic nun, basically exaplianing he, being like the nun in this story, was also waiting and hoping our JW faith we were riased in would come to its senses and stop being sexist to women and become more liberal.

I say this because Lutherns, Episcopains and Catholics have said themselves that their rituals are very much alike and thus is why they say that if Catholic was/is too fundamental for them or if their Luthern Church was/is..they say Episcopalains is enough like the rituals they are acostumed to. Inlight of this, it makes sense to me that the liberals/progressives of these '3' faith groups combine and that the '3' non-ritual Protestant churches Progressive/liberal UMC and Presbyterians combine. Cause some people who are Progressive/Liberal still like ritual just not the fundamentalism attatched to it..and then others like UMC and Presbyterians don;t like ritual. Some find ritual inspiring and others find it boring...so different strokes for different folks.

Sorry!!! I made a MAJOR typeo ERROR dyslexia!!! I meant to type EDITORS .NOT ediots!!!! Please forgive me!!! What the hell's matter with me anyways?!

I realize this idea make be time consuming...but might ediots of this site search through the achieves of the forum threads and selct certian interesting topics and turn them into TCPC online subject articles? Cause the posters on the forum have written some outstanding pieces that are well researched, inresting and informative. You could edit them down, if you like and arange them into subjects such: Conservative Faith Groups Christian Science Southern Baptists Jehovah's Witnesses Catholicsm Progressive/Liberal Faith Groups United Methodists Presbyterians Disciples of Christ Episopalians Progressive/Liberal Catholics Women's Equality Homosexuality Racial Relations A Living Wage Helping The Poor Politics Ect. Let us know if you decide to do this sometime. Thanks:) BeachOfEden:)

People are strange..they want someone else to think for them. Many would perfer an abusive spouse to none at all..and weirdly and think many apply the same views on belonging to a religious group. I think the logical idea is sooner or later the Progressive UMCs, Presbyterians will have to break off from their roots combined together and start a new non-denominational and contemporary Progressive church and that the progressive Catholics, Pro Lutherns and Episcoplains should do the same. Cause like someone here said, the older people have the money and they rule all these churches, both Protestants and Catholic,ect alike..and they tolerate us Progressives and liberals..(sometimes just barley) but we'd like to be more than just tolerated..we'd like to be accepted..and I think that's why we all need to break away from our conservative roots and form our own churches....

And here's more from Beliefnet... Why Liberals Are Disguisted With Cardinal Ratzinger German Inquisition meister. Prince of the New Dark Ages. Torquemada of the 21st century. God's Rottweiler. And Pope. By Deborah Caldwell Since 1981, Ratzinger has served as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—the Vatican department once called the Office of Inquisition. In that job Ratzinger maintained strict discipline on church doctrine, excommunicating and silencing dissenters. He's been the driving force behind the Vatican's crackdowns on liberation theology, religious pluralism, challenges to issues such as homosexuality, and dissent on women's ordination. Conservatives are thrilled. Yet the the idea of a "Papa Ratzinger" makes many other American Catholics cringe, particularly Progressives who see a Ratzinger papacy in apocalyptic terms. "What this says to American Catholics is quite striking: it's not just a disagreement, it's a full-scale assault," writes Andrew Sullivan. "There is simply no other figure more extreme than the new Pope on the issues that divide the Church. No one." Beliefnet members also weighed in: "I am so terrified for the future of the church. I'll just have to wait and see with the rest, but this makes me as black as can be." There are also accusations afloat that Ratzinger was a Nazi. (In fact, he was a reluctant member of the Hitler Youth.) Why are liberals diguisted him so? Here are some reasons: 1. When he arrived at the Vatican in 1981, he first turned his attention to "liberation theology" popular in Latin America, ordering the one-year silencing in 1985 of Brazilian friar Leonardo Boff, whose writings were attacked for using Marxist ideas. 2. In 1986 he issued a denunciation of homosexuality and gay marriage, calling it an "intrinsic moral evil." 3. In the 1990s he brought pressure against theologians, mostly in Asia, who saw non-Christian religions as part of God's plan for humanity. 4. In 1998, Liturgical Press in Collegeville, Minn., destroyed 1,300 copies of 'Women at the Altar' on orders from Ratzinger due to objection of book's encouragement of women as Catholic priests. 5. In 2000, his office issued Dominus Iesus, aimed at restating the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church against the more inclusive views in Asia. The document seemed to brand non-Catholic Christian denominations as deficient, leading to an outcry among liberal Catholics and many Protestants. 6. In 2002, he excommunicated seven women who underwent an illegal ordination ceremony. 7. In a 2004 document he denounced "radical feminism" as an ideology that undermined the family and obscured the natural differences between men and women. 8. Last summer, he told American bishops that Communion must be denied to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion. While never mentioning Sen. John Kerry by name, the memo implicitly aimed at the pro-choice Catholic presidential candidate. So on Tuesday, when Pope Benedict came to the window at St. Peter's Square after the announcement, many interpreted the less-than fulsome response in St. Peter's Square—at least, compared to that of John Paul II--as muted shock. He clasped his hands and smiled--barely. Warm applause followed but was not sustained. Why would the cardinals pick this guy—and so quickly? Why not go with a friendly Italian, or a trendy African or Latin American, as many people had speculated? Father Charles Curran, one of the theologians silenced by then-Cardinal Ratzinger for questioning church doctrine on contraception, homosexuality, and divorce, said Pope Benedict is "obviously just an interim." Curran, who now teaches Christian ethics at Southern Methodist University after he was forced to leave Catholic University in 1986, says "many people in the Catholic Church were overly optimistic. There were expectations that were very unrealistic." And, Curran argues, it's not as if any new pope would have waved a wand and made the changes—optional celibate priesthood, relaxation of rules on divorce, permission to use birth control, for instance--that Progressive Americans want. Naturally, conservative Catholics are thrilled with the choice; they can now relax, content that the church will remain relatively unchanged for the foreseeable future. In his Monday homily before the opening of the conclave Pope Benedict said: "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism.." All is not happiness between Ratzinger and Protestants, however. The Rev. Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, has major concerns. "This new pope is known as the guardian of the church's doctrine," he says. "And of course we evangelicals are Protestants, so we celebrate areas where the Catholic Church upholds Bible-based doctrine--but our reservation is with the Catholic theologies that aren't Bible-based." Chief among those theologies for many Protestants was Dominus Iesus, ("Jesus is Lord") issued by Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document caused immediate controversy among many Protestants because it declared that Christianity "subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." Ratzinger defended the document, countering that it restated the traditional Catholic position that Christ's church is a visible entity, in contrast with the Protestant position that it is an invisible ideal in which communities of believers participate. Bishop John Shelby Spong, the liberal author and retired leader of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark was so angry at the way Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger behaved toward theologian Hans Kung—a rising star theologian whom they exiled in 1979—that Spong publicly broke off relations with the Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, then headed by Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. Soon after, Spong retaliated further by inviting Kung—whose sin was to question the idea of papal infallibility--to speak in his diocese. Today, McCarrick is the Cardinal of Washington—one of the men who sat in the Sistine Chapel conclave that elected Joseph Ratzinger the new pope. Spong is retired, though still a popular and influential author. He's still annoyed with conservatives. And he still keeps a picture of Hans Kung on his desk. Deborah Caldwell is Senior Editor and National Correspondent at Beliefnet.

Pope Benedict XVI. NBC News and news services Updated: 9:02 p.m. ET April 19, 2005As a Roman Catholic cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI warned American voters against departing from church teaching at the ballot box, drew criticism from victims of clerical sex abuse and opposed married or women priests. advertisement U.S. Catholics may come to admire the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger for his intellect, spirituality and consistent support for the traditions of their faith — qualities he’s shown in 24 years as the head of the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog agency. But as with John Paul II, the majority of American Catholics seem certain to diverge from him on numerous policy issues. “In America, he has many avid supporters, but many who are not so keen on the power he has wielded,” says Chester Gillis, theology chairman at Georgetown University. His elevation “is not going to be received unequivocally with great admiration by all American Catholics — no question about that.” Anguish, joy and concern The majority of American Catholics told pollsters in recent weeks that they favored married clergy and a greater voice for the laity in the church — and it was clear Tuesday that liberals were anguished, conservatives delighted and others wary about Ratzinger’s election. Ric Francis / AP Catholics pray Monday at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, in anticipation of the naming of a new pope. Mixed reactions For American Catholics — often called “cafeteria Catholics” for picking and choosing appealing parts of the faith — the reaction to the new pontiff was mixed. In the words of one, this is not a step forward, but a step to the side. BeachOfEden: Aaaahh.. I hate that term, "cafetria" approuch to faith..that's the same BS that the fundamental JW org always say As cardinal, Pope Benedict first blamed the scandal on the media. Visiting the cathedral in Los Angeles, Mary Ellen Phillips of Michigan wanted a younger, more liberal pope. “I'm hoping that maybe there will be married priests, because we need them,” she said.

My favorites: 1. the first original 3 Star Wars 2. Indiana Jones 1 and 3 but NOT 2. 3. LadyHawk 4. Pirates of the Carribean 5. Brides of Christ 6. Brother Moon, Sister Sun

So people, what's the lowdown on this new Pope? They say he's a real right winged fundamentalist. I tried to read the review on Bleifnet but it was SO long-winded..so what's the basics?

"yet the Bible any sex but missionary heterosexuality for producing offspring it seems." WHAT?!?!?! sexual researchers have VERIFIED through studies that the "missionary" style of intercourse....89% of the time is NOT satisifying to women..only men. Inlight of this fact, churches/religions that teaches that ONLY this type of sex is to be practiced is ovbiously is pro-male ONLy and does not give consideration to women and what they get of out of sex. Such statements sound like fundamental Catholicsm in nature. It not surprising to find that Mormons and also JW's as well as the fundamental branches of Protestnatism also promote this..after all...all these fundamental faith groups are ran by old white men.

I appreicate the owner of the G0ys site comming here to explains his views and with the exception of that one page (How Do You Know If He's St8?..) I find the G0y's page the best at explaining homosexuality & Progressive Christianity, AIDS awareness and the harm of hate towards Gays. I think it does the best job of warning both str8's and gays of AIDS education and prevention..while at the same time..balancing out Christianity while being fair. The owner of this page once expressed that while it is good that the Liberal Christian churches reach out to gays and understanding that to turn a blind eye to the most dangerous ways to be expressed to AIDS...is really not loving because by turning a blind eye is to reframe from notifying the gay community as well as the str8 from important information regarding their health. And still hope my one gay friend who is a guy pratcices the safe sex advised by this Go0y site.

There's a Unity Church bookstore in Santa Barbara at the end of State Street. A gal friend of mine and I stubled across a few years ago when we found some free parking behind the church to go to the Earth Day fest. Both of us being very interested in comparative religious research, we went in and examine their books and tracts and basically what everyone has said here is right...Unity and Religious Science are both the liberal alternatives to the fundamental Christian Science and I recken it could qualify as "New Age"....since it combines Jude0Christianity with eastern beliefs of reincarnation and many, many Unity and Religious science churches advertise in all the free New Age mags.

"Do you want a God who truly loves you, or do you want a God who controls you? You can't have it both ways. There is no such thing as unconditional love filled with conditions. This is the obvious truth." Well, can we not compare God to our human mother and father? Just because our mother and father are our perents does this oddamtically and inescapably mean they willcontroll freaks? "Do you want to be encouraged in learning how to be your best self, or is it just plain easier for you to follow a whole bunch of rules written thousands of years ago that make life temporarily easier, but which remove from you a real sense of personal responsibility for the choices you make?" First, we must define what these "rules' are. I mean, are we talking about like Holy Pentecostals forbidding women from wearing make-up and having to wear long dresses or like how Southern Baptist forbid women to be preachers? These are all added man-made intepretations and are NOT really about Christianity or the Bible. And by this comment, "from you a real sense of personal responsibility for the choices you make," I assume you mean how the fundies just pre-occupie their minds with thoughts of flying away to heaven while saying to hell with the earth? I understand this, but Progressive Christian is obviously all onto helping the earth+animals, and social justice..so I don;t think simply believing in Jesus as a Savior for ALL erases this..and if it does for the fundies it is because they ARE fundies not because they simply believe in jesus as Savior...besides, contrary to what the fundies 'claim' they really don not believe Jesus is the Savior for ALL..but instead only them..and that IS a major difference. "Do you want a Jesus who's bigger than you, better than you, more divine than you, who will take charge of your life so you don't have to?" When we were all children ovbiously our mother and father were physically biiger than us...does this fact mean they MUST be controll freaks? As far as Jesus being divine in that he is the highest refelction of God and thus we view as the relm to God...why is this threatening to us? 'Or do you want a Jesus who will tell you the truth about how courageous you really are, how trusting you really are, how devoted you really are, how grateful you can really be? Because, again, you can't have it both ways. " Why not? Shall Progressives and Liberals be the flip side of the fundies on the right and concure with them in saying that one can not be Progressive AND Christian? "Someone -- anyone -- whether that someone be human or angel, either believes in you right to the core, in which case that someone believes in unconditional divine love, OR that someone places so many conditions on your suitability to be accepted by God that you always feel awful inside, no matter what you do." But what does this have to do with the concept of Jesus being a Savior for all and the highest reflection of God? "Do you want a loving God and a loving Jesus, or do you want a judgmental God and a judgmental Jesus?" I don;t see the judging coming from neither Jesus or God..I see it coming from the fundamental right that claims to have all the orthodox interpretations of them. "You will have to make that choice for yourself. As for me, I, the angel Jesus, am only capable of loving you as you really are as a soul. I am only capable of loving you unconditionally." I don't really understand all this..but as for myself I do not claim to be an angel or prophet. I am just one of your fellow human beings trying to be a Progressive Christian.

Ok, back to this thread's orginal poster and his or her's question: Let me start by migrating from another post re: Spong, which underlines the importance of the topic: QUOTE "Where I have really diverged from Spong is not so much regarding his approach to the Bible, i.e. rejecting the literal/factual interpretation of creation, fall, virgin birth, resurrection, second coming, etc. (on that we agree for the most part). Rather it's that his interpretation gives him (and his readers) so little left to hang on to. Resurrection: Myth or Reality?" I also concure with this...so if anyone else does then might I sugest another Progressive christian book for your consideration? "Ten Wrong Things I learned From A Conserative church." "and Liberating The Gospels do a great job of suggesting how the early Christians expressed their experience of the resurrected Christ in gospel form. But when he attempts to suggest what that experience might have been, the best he can possibly offer, haltingly, barely, is a psychological feeling of powerful love and self-acceptance. Life-changing love and self-acceptance, to be sure; of a sort never before seen, to be sure. All these superlatives and more about Jesus the man. But I personally think there's no way Christianity can possibly survive without Jesus, the Christ, the God-Man; and progressive Christianity has got to find a way to make this statement in a compelling way." Ok, here's what I see, presently the religious majority, both left and right is claiming that there is 'ONLY' '2' views of Jesus to choose from... 1. The far right=trinitatian=Jesus was Savior and God...or... 2. Far Left Liberal=unitarian=Jesus was neither god nor Savior, nor even divine in anyway. He was merely a good teacher who died and inpsires us to follow his example to better relationship and understanding of God. Might there be a '3' option? What 'if' There was a Progressive concept which I have come to name Divinitarian? 3. Divinitarian= Jesus is NOT God but God's Son. He is Savior to everyone, whether they know his name or not. You do NOT have to know his name to accpet him as Savior as the far right claims. Jesus is less than God but greater than just a nice teacher who died long ago. Jesus is divine in nature..in that fact that he perfectly reflects God's personality, rose from the grave and came to sit at the right hand of God? This topic includes, but is not limited to: * Is it possible in a progressive context to affirm the divinity of Christ? * If so, how? Metaphorically, mythically, allegorically, spiritually, literally? * If not, what do we make of this claim? Can we do without it? * How does Jesus relate to Christ? As my quote above should make clear, I want to affirm that it is possible, and (in my opinion) crucial, to make the claim of the divinity of Christ strongly as progressive Christians. Furthermore, I think that it can be done without appealing to virgin births and empty tombs -- but at the same time, without reinterpreting it away, to the point that it ceases to mean what it clearly claims that it means. Here's another question: Can one be Progressive AND hold a belief that Christ really rose from the grave withOUT attatching a "Or else!" /"Members-ONLY" mentality? I believe yes. What do you think?