BeachOfEden

I was raised JW and in it, just like within fundamenal Protestants churches, I was deeply ingrained to believe in extreme black verses white thinking...That there was ONE TRUTH faith and all others were going to hell..or in this case, Armageddon..in a handbasket. Even after a person begins to think progressive..I think it takes a good 5 years, at least to shake all the fears that 'maybe the my fundi church was right...-"...type thinking.

These books that everyone is suggesting DO help! I can not stress this enough. One of the best helps for me to get over this transition period was a book called "When God Becomes A Drug," By Leo Booth. Now, don;t let the title fool you. This book is NOT anti-God. Rather, it explains how to replace former UNhealthy ridgid views on God with new healthy views. It is written by a guy who used to be a fundamental Catholic priest and now is Progressive.

" Ten Things I Learned Wrong from a Conservative Church by John Killinger."

Hey Bro R, can you tell us some details about this book? Cause I just saw it on Amazon.com and it was interested in it! Thanks! Like what basically are the ten things in the book the author covers?

Oh the fundies never cease to 'try' and gain the copy rights to the word "Christian" if you go on the Evangelical sites on Beliefnet you will always see this effort...They can not sucess with this...but they never stop trying. The best thing we Progressive can do is counter-act this by making make pages to expose this effort. It is well known to Protestants that the Evangelicals DO indeed label all the non-Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, JWs and Christian Science as Un-Christian "CULTS." And the Evangelicals, even the Light ones don;t really care about this...But 'if' we were to HIGHLIGHT that the Evangelicals are ALSO labbling their moderate and Progressive PROTESTANT peers as UN-Christian "CULTS," then they just might feel very differently about slamming their own spiritual kin.

"I think it's possible that in THIS country, we can reverse this trend, but it requires that the progressive community really get organized and put out a clear, coherent statement about what we believe."

YES! Progressives 'NEED' to learn how to innerfaith with moderates to help get the NON-far right a voice..load enough so the majority will listen.

"We need to get our vocal leaders, like Dr. Spong, for example, on the 700 Club countering the lies and hatred, going head to head with right-wing pundits disguised as men of God."

No, I don;t think so..not on TBN or 700 Club cause they will edit it the way the regular news does the Bush movement. ...

WE 'NEED' get Progressive people like Matthew Fox and Sponge their OWN tv shows..NOT ON TBN but on regular channels like KCLA..on Sunday mornings to complete with the flood on tv tv Evangelicals. Maybe create an hour long show live from the a Progressive Church in Hollywood. and have TCPC sponsor it and avertise their books on it. Have different Progressive Christian speakers as guests and/or progressive christian musice artist and actors/actresses. Also we NEED a FREE Progressive Christian newspaper or zine like HopeDance..accept the focus would not be souly poltical like HopeDance is and then all of us help circulate them and leave them at natural food markets and cafes around out towns.

"This is an interesting point, because I DO believe that anal sex is immoral, for the medical reasons aforementioned. However, I believe that in a real, true, loving relationship (gay OR straight), sex is secondary to the spiritual bond that two people share. So I do believe that two gay men in a loving, committed relationship can glorify God with their love for one another, as long as they treat their bodies as temples, as we are called to do in the Bible, and refrain from engaging in risky sexual behavior (like anal sex and sex with multiple partners), thus avoiding "sexual immorality" and therefore, sin."

"To tackle this from a biblical perspective, it's hard to say whether oral sex is included as sexual immorality, but most lesbians I know (and I know a bunch) use vibrators and other sex toys with their partners. "

I can neither prove nor disprove that..but I just got a gut feeling that oral is not on the same level as anal..for whether gay or str8. But it might it might rank second to health risk but likely matural masturbation is likely the safest for all couples, gay or str8, male or female, or if gay or lesbians then liely front to front sex.

"my definition of "sexual immorality" includes risky sexual behavior...."

Yeah, I agree. If the medical established publsihes FACTS that one particalr form of sex is THEE highest or higher than all others for sonstantly spreading AIDs or Hep B and C..then I figure that it doubles as spiritually inccorect as well.

(just as straight men engage in anal sex with women), so again, none can really criticize this behavior on strictly (non-biblical) ethical grounds."

I agree with here here 100%! Stra8's who do this kind of dangerous sex and then slammed gays completely "Bleep" me off!

"I have several gay Christian friends. They are wonderful people, and powerfully devoted to Jesus. I don't believe for one second that they are doomed to eternal hell or that God hates them OR their lifestyles, as they are possibly the most stable, devout, passionate Christians I know. But they hold themselves to the same standard that every Christian should. They live moral lives and do not perform lewd acts on one another. They just praise God for the gift of love that He chose to bestow on them, no matter whether the vessel of that love has a ###### or a vagina. They refuse to squander a gift that many of us never have a chance to enjoy. Do I think that's evil? Of course not! How could it be?"

That is great! You just discribed my nephew! My nephew is a gay 33-year old man. He is dedicated to help his fellow gay friends in A/A. I am so proud of him. This group of A/A gay and lesbians do everything in their power to encourage each other and everyone around them to live, safe, healthy and responsible lives. I just pray that my other gay guy friend, the one who is also XJW, does the same! I constantly am concerned for him. On one hand..he agrees with what you guys are saying..but on the other....he is pulled to engadge in risky behavior and I pray think he will choice the healthy and positive path!

There might be some truth to this. There are factions in every moderate to liberal Christian church that have fundie members who want to turn them into "Bible believin'". There is a faction in UCC that has been working on UCCs from inside. There is a big group in UMC.

 

"Being a United Methodist from rural Virginia.... There are PLENTY of fundies in the UMC. But there are plenty of true progressives as well, who choose not to ignore the slogan "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" (like my father, who is pastor of a 4 church charge deep in "gay-bashin', bible-beatin', hellfire-and-brimstone" appalachia).

 

I was blessed to be able to speak with a bishop in London last summer who restored my faith in the International Methodist Church, but in the US, the last 4 General Conferences (I was at 2 of them) have seen a deep divide in the church. Many of the ordained clergy want to take a more hard line fundie route.... Getting back to the roots of the evangelical movement and riding the wave created by the religious right. They believe this will boost membership (and revenue). Most of the Lay delegates and many of the Liscenced (as opposed to ordained) clergy want to take the opposite route, opening the door for a more progressive and accepting church. Their motives are rooted more in the spiritual rewards of speaking to people who want to listen and really making a difference, the way Jesus wanted us to. The split is nearly 50/50, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better."

 

Yes, they have been keeping us informed of this turn of events here on the TCPC board. I fear that UMC, and these other mainstream churches are loosing the moderate and Progressive battle...if it keeps going from 50%/50% to 50%/75%..and so on then the best thing to do is SPILT.

 

"I feel, based on my experience with the church, that the rules will change in favor of progressve ideals eventually, and the fundies won't win, but I also believe that the fundies have been very successful in stalling this process for quite sometime."

 

I don;t want to freak any body out..and maybe UMC is luckier then others to begin with but believe it or not I have heard individuals from my own JW background say this about JW. I have also heard catholics say this and Southern Baptists. I used to actually think this when I used to still be in JW. I thought surely, in time a moderate/Progressive element would raise...But JW, like SBC is ran by and has always been ran by old white str8 men ONLY. Man, I wish that there WAS a Progressive alternative to each and everyone of these groups. But I think if there was..the Progressives should take a different name because the fundamental will ruin it's meaning anyways with time and they'd likely try and sue anyone else who uses the church name anyways.

 

"I feel like I know you since I've read so many of your posts over at UCC, although I only posted once there myself, in introduction to the board."

 

Yeah, me too! We have learned alot from you about UCC and we learn alot about Campus Crusade For Christ from Aletheia, lot alot Catholic from others here and i hope the verity of differetn faith backgrounds here keeps expending because we keep learning more and I LOVE it!

 

 

 

QUOTE

<SweetTea>This means sex without love, sex that is medically or emotionally dangerous, and sex that involves children or other family members.

 

This is an interesting point, because I DO believe that anal sex is immoral, for the medical reasons aforementioned.

 

"Anal anything is gross to me, it's not something I ever liked the idea of or wanted to engage in, the smell, the bad bacteria like Ecoli, Hepatitus etc. The person on the other forum seemd to think gay people ALWAYS engage in this as he kept bringing it up, but I believe it's not as common as oral is. I know gay people who DON'T do anal anything with anyone."

 

I am so glad to hear from a gay guy who also feels this way about it. It sounds one-sided if a str8 person says this but when the gay men also say this then it does not seem one-sided and it gives me hope that both gays and str8's can avoid this health risk.

 

"The forum pest also kept claiming UCC churches were closing at a much higher rate after accepting gay people than before, he seemd to ignore that facts I presented showing churches of ALL denominations closing world-wide at higher numbers- the lawsuits closed many and are closing more, dwindling memberships in huge older buildings that now need expensive repairs, handicap retrofitting, asbestos abatement etc are combining into one building and closing one."

 

I agree. The decline of the moderate/mainline churches began declining LONG BEFORE they started welcoming gays. I think it happened when they refused to agree with the fundamental's interpreations of hell and they rejected their "left behind" movement. The fundi churches have a great zeal to do whatever it takes to win the younger generation. This ZEAL to 'appear' "SEEKER-SENSITIVE"...REALLY is genereated from FEAR> Fear of what? Hellfire threats and "Left behind" threats. This also connects to a elite savation mentality

This is very intersting and informative, what you are all telling us about this UUC forum. When I saw that ad on tv I felt glad and for a brief moment I considered maybe I should check UUC out....But what you guys are saying about UUC is much what I gather from the United Methodist Church and D of C church in my city that I visted. I don;t mean about the gay issue nor women's equality...I don;t know I just got this feeling that the younger generation wanted to change so as to draw more types of people and I got this feeling that the older conservative people did NOT were not a bit interested in this.

"Yes that was my sister in Campus Crusade. I think for one thing she went from one legalistic religious system to another. From Christian Science (which is highly legalistic) to fundamentalism which is highly legalisitc. Another thing is that our dad was very critical--

so she goes to a religion with a very strict and critical "Father". Why didn't I go that way?"

Precisely! That is also what i find with the JW's! They go from JW to Assembly of God or Southern Baptists! That IS precisely what my own web pages I made addresses. WHY JW's usually simply rotate fundamental faith groups instead of becoming more Progressive.

I did not go that way. It never interested me! When I left JW I study Natural Deism and UU and Native American. Then I studied all Progressive denominations like Disciples of Christ and United Methodists and then, I finally ened up finding the TCPC.

I could never and still can not figure HOW and WHY a person who leave a fundamental faith group like CS or JW and simply trade in for Southern Baptist or the like.

"I was on the UCC forums for a while but left for a few reasons, one being a troll repeatedly changed names with new accts and posted anti gay bogus or biased "statistics", comments, political statements about gay people in all caps in the subject lines etc etc."

That happens alot on the XJW Debate board. There's these hardcore Southern Baptists who pretend to also be XJWs but don;t know what the 'bleep" they are talking about and they try and trick all former JW's into joining their fundamental right wing campains. It gets very annoying.

"I thought the UCC all welcome theme and commercial was good and was the main reason I joined that forum- to support that, I wasn't planning to stay long but in the process I met a few really good friends I keep in contact with via email instead of the board."

I have this great childhood friend that I grew up with. He is gay and also XJW and we were thinking about checking out this Progressive Presbyterian church in Hollywood in the Spring...but while I DO greatly respect these moderate mainline churches for social justice..there is always the battle with the old school fundamentalist that want to take the church back to it's John Calvin days...and because of this I think these churches like United Methodists and Presbyterians,ect..maybe all the Progressives should just start their own Progressive non-denominational churches and just make sure they put these phrase, "A Progressive Christian Church," on the outside.

"I was raised Catholic as a kid but I am agnostic, and a devotee of a fairly rare alternate sexual practice, I have a few problems with religious concepts, scriptures, people using selective parts of scriptures as a weapon, and then hiding behind the text when challenged by stating; "It's GODS word"

hypocritical people who say homosexuality is a sin, but convieniently ignore that "sin" includes adultry, divorce, working on the Sabbath, eating pork, stealing of ANY kind, cursing one's parents and muiltitudes of things that occur daily everywhere."

Yes, my friend has also spoken of this to me and I always reasure him that I agree..that is..that many Southern fired str8 fundamentalist point the blaiming finger at gays but can not see the log before their own eyes.

"They cite that homosexuality is sin, but then ignore the written directives to stone adulterers, abortionists etc. "

Again, I agree with you on all this.

"So I don't know...every religion has it's books, scriptures, beliefs, history, characters and Gods, I don't believe any single one is 100% right over all the rest to the exclusion of the others. AFter all, Muslims for example believe the same sort of things Christians do and call all other religion followers the unbelievers who won't get to "heaven"- just as we claim they and other non believers won't."

And I also agree on this. I find much in Native American beliefs that compliment my own Progressive Christian views.

When the fundamentalist use the phrase "The Bible is with out error," I find it to be very grab-bag meaning....Cause like I said before, I neither understand 'their' meaning of "The Bible," nor the phrase "With out error." It's like saying, "The barbie doll is made without a flaw." The question would be, "Thee barabie doll?" What does that mean? As if there is only one barabie doll in the world? millions roll off an assembly line everyday. Also which brand? Metel?

Also, I can see what you all are saying that whether the Bible translations have been altered or not have nothing to do with your belief. But take AletheiaRivers' fundamental aunt, for example. Aletheia said that this Campus Crusade aunt of her's is very smart and it sounds like she likes to do bibical research. Well, maybe deep insdie it has always botherd her that the bible seemed sexist and she wondered how Jesus could be that way, or maybe deep down inside she can't stomac the idea of a literal hellfire...well, if a moderate or Progressive could share with her a book on conditionalism or maybe the book, "What Paul Really Said about Women," then she could read the author's smart bibical research into the actual original Greek and Hebrew words and their meanings, and 'if' such a thinking person cared to look at such information...then this might lead them to more progressive thought.

Hi Ken and welcome. I also took world faiths in college and LOVED it. We look forward to hearing your insights on the forums!

BeachOfEden

Well for example, the fundies claim that the word HEAD is Galatians is Arche which in Greek means "Ruler" but infact moderates have come to verify this is a translators error and insread the actual Gree word was KEPHALE with denote a selfless spirit. Now if you were to run into a Evangelical Light or say a JW who did not like the idea of sexism..then you could share this with them and then this might lead them to start thinking more Progressive.

Well perhaps we can say we believe that through translations from Hebrew and Greek to English words, phrases and their meanings change, and we realize this. i think we can all agree upon that. So to say that today all our modern day copies of the bible are error-free is not reasonable and this does not mean that the whole bible is false it simply calls for reason that meanings of words change when you translates them Hebrew and Greek into English. We could give the example that in Greek there are '7' 'different' meanings to the word LOVE. Everything from Agape, which means God unconditional love...to Arose which means passionate sexual attraction type love. And explain that we CAN CLEARLY see the 'difference' here.

Plus that ALL Christians understand that at least some parts of the Bible WERE written symbolically and that even Christ told us this in the Bible. What do you think?

Now as for moderates and non-fundamental Christians wanting to reclaim the title "Evangelical" as their own. What can you do once the majority has decided to 'change' a words meaning? Perhaps in the 1920's to be GAY simply mean carefree but TODAY it means to be attracted to the same sex. If someone refused to accept that this word's meaning had changed they'd be confusing alot of people.

It seems to me that the Fundamentalists have highjacked the word "Evangelical" ..and they would LOVE to claim the copy rights to the word "Christian" and we KNOW they have not stopped trying! Especially with their cult-tagging campains...but foruantly THAT chalenge IS beyound their grasp.

PS> The fact that the Luthern church does use the term "Evangelical" DID and DOES confuse me. Truthfully I can NOT tell with Luthern churches and Baptist churches are moderates and with are fundamentals.

here's an piece I wrote...

The History & Roots of American Christian Fundamentalism

Beliefs That Religious Fundamentalists Share

*That 'Their' Brand Of Christianity Is 'THEE' Only Real Version of Christianity & All 'Others' Are False & Unsaved

*Spreading The Gospel Motivating By The Fear Of Loved Ones Being Destroyed At Armageddon, Or Going To Hell

*Praising Women But Refusing To Excpet Them as Completely Equal

*Rigid Man-Made Rules That Can Not Be Bibically Backed

(This website does NOT support the views of www.EveryStudent.Org, www.Watchman.org, nor the views of www.Freeminds.org, nor ANY of the above ads)

The term "Fundamentalist" derives from a 1909 publication "The Fundamentals: A testimony to the truth" which proposed five required Christian beliefs for those opposed to the Modernist movement.

Originally a technical theological term, it became commonly used after the "Scopes" trial in Tennessee during the mid 1920s. Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher was on trial for contravening the state's Butler Act. It forbade the teaching of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." 4,5 Although Scopes was found guilty, it was generally felt that he had won a moral victory.

By the late 1930's Christian Fundamentalists had formed a sub-culture and had largely withdrawn from the rest of society. Following major revisions to Roman Catholic beliefs and practices during the Vatican II conferences in the 1960's, the term "fundamentalist" started to be used to refer to Catholics who rejected the changes, and wished to retain traditional beliefs and practices. Thus it became a commonly used word to describe the most conservative groups within Christianity: Protestant and Catholic.

Back in the 1960's many theologians and historians expected that religions would become less conservative and generally weaker with time. That did not happen. Instead, the fundamentalist wings of major world religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, have grown and become increasingly dedicated to preserving religious tradition. Karen Armstrong has addressed Fundamentalism in Christianity, Islam and Judaism in her book: "The Battle for God." 1

Focus on the Kingdom, Volume 6 No. 9 June, 2004

My Spiritual Journey

by Diane M.

"When I was young, my parents called themselves fundamentalists. As I grew older, they began to use the term evangelical. (In my experience, the difference between the two is mostly one of tone: the manner of presentation of doctrine rather than the substance of doctrine. The stance of an evangelical toward the world is less confrontational and less wary than the stance of a fundamentalist.)

The theology I was taught, and believed, from adolescence through most of my adult years I call evangelical orthodoxy. Some major doctrines are the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, salvation by faith evidenced by works, eternal security, the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, the immortality of the human soul with immediate heaven or hell after death, and the everlasting suffering of the damned in hell."

In the U.S., the Fundamentalist-led Moral Majority emerged to challenge social and religious beliefs and practices. Today, Fundamentalists are the most vocal group in opposition to abortion access, equal rights against discrimination and hate crimes for homosexuals, physician assisted suicide, the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research, comprehensive sex-ed classes in public schools, etc.

The Assemblies of God is one Fundamentalist denomination. The Southern Baptist Convention has moved towards fundamentalism in recent years. Bob Jones University [see buttom link on him], the General Association of Regular Baptists, the Moody Bible Institute and other groups are also Fundamentalist. Among the most generally known Fundamentalist Christian leaders are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey.

"I think inerrancy is actually a bit inaccurate term. For example my friend above, believed that the Bible was pretty much written by God but translated by people who might make errors in translation.They would believe we are saved by grace vs works, but might be more open to other people (than Christians or Conservatives being able to receive the message somehow)."

That pretty much discribes me and I agree with each and every of the TCPC 8 points. I think there are indeed a number of people like this and may agree with every 8 points or maybe at least 7....but they are affraid to adopt the word "Progressive" and/or affraid to get ride of the word "Evangelical." However, it would be GREAT thing if we could help infom them on all this then maybe they would not fear what they do not know. If this were possible then a greater thing could be acomplished and that is we could innerfaith with such Evangelical lights, Catholic Lights and so on and thus Moderate Christians and Progressive christians could join forces in making the more tolerant voice of Christianity heard. The Fundamental Protestants and the extrea dark version of the Evangelicals have already joined forces..blurred the line from which is which and thus end up out number ALL the more moderate Christians.

One thing I think may freak some moderates out is when the Progressives say, "I don;t take the Bible literally but I do take it seriously." This makes them think that at best Progs think the Bible is just a positive fairy-tell. I can see where Progs might think this sounds great but the problem lies in the phrase 'literally' and also 'the Bible.' Instead of saying this maybe we can instead say that we reconized that orginal Bible manuscripts as their were orginally found in Greek and Hebrew WERE and ARE 'different' than ALL our modern day copies and that in this process of translating many erros in Greek and Hebrew have already been verified..but that these errors are not related to the orginal texts and their orginal meanings and that we DO understand this. Pluss..that we believe many text that were meant symbolically have been taken literally and vice versa. Example..would you take the Beast with horns on it's head in the book of Revelations LITERALLY? When John the Baptist said that Jesus would "Baptize with water and fire", do you really think he meant Jesus would baptized people by dunking them in fire?" ect, logical sound reasonings like this. I may have made this a bit too wordy and maybe someone can better sum up what i am trying to say..but I think you DO underatnd what I am getting at.

I agree with you 100% that Evangelical used to mean simply Evangelicalizer..and but NOW means a hardline Protestant that embraces hellfire threats and "the rapture" and more often than not is anti-equality.

"And yes, I believe that Sojourners identifies as an evangelical magazine. Jim Wallis grew up in the evangelical tradition (though I can't remember which one). "

I don't think that is wise on his part cause what will happen is the harline Protestants will be drawn to his mag, thinking it will agree with 'their' conservative interpretations of the Bible..and when they find out that it does NOT then they will mail and or e-mail him telling him how wrong he is.

There are '3' books that I have found on Amazon.com that sound so good that we must simply review them. I can't buy and review the mall but here there ARE:

1. "The Bible Tells me So," A History of Use and Mis-use on the Bible By Jim Himm

$25.16

2. "The Rapture-The Error That Leaves the Bible Behind," By David B. Curre

$16.96

3. "The Fire That Consumes,"- A Cause For conditionalism

BY Edaward Fudge

$29.95

Also I would add that when I use the term "Lite Evangelical" Or "Lite Catholic", ect...by this I do NOT mean lite as in "Fluff" or that one believes in 'myths'. Rather what I mean is like what Des said, "Lite" as in not heavy-duty intolerance, not extra-dark in world view where everyone is saved angels or evil doomed demons..but believe there IS a middle grey where people are neither in darkness nor superiorly blessed above everyone else. Yes, I DO believe there ARE open-minded (non-exteremist/tolerant) Catholics, Evangelicals,ect..and it IT THESE that are moderate rather than extrem and THESE are THE ONES we Progressives can and should inneract with and reach out to. In the progressive relm of Christianity when someone reaches out to a open minded or moderate Christian it is NOT an attempt at coexing them INTO our perspective...rather it is beliving we already have a comon ground to begin with...which is...reason.

"Yikes. Well I don't quite get that at all. I think it is a whole counterculture thing circa the 60s (some people have never gone past that). "

I actually like neo-hippism...well, many parts of it...like the civil rights parts, the eco-friendly part, earth day.....infatc alot of the beliefs would be in harmony with Progressive Christianity.....but then there are these parts that we are talking about...where it becomes irrational and contridictive..kinda like Evangelical Christianity...accept the flip side. The chrasimatic Evangelicalism and the mystic neo-hippism (oddly enough) share some magical thinking conepts. This is high lighted in this book I Have "Religions of America" where the author Leo Rosten compares a study done in 1972 where those who use LDS or pot are compared to the chrasmatic Jesus People movement where the Jesus Freaks speaks of being "High on jesus" and feeling that the Holy Spirit was a high "Like Speed."

"I can't understand the feelign that marijuana would be totally harmless in their view. Seems to the idea (or at least justification thereof) that it is somehow "natural". Well if you know about burning, you know that burning changes a substance. So if they felt eating it was better than alcohol, I could understand that. But I really think it is a cultural thing kind of, and not based on much rationality."

Yeah, I concure. It would make more sense to me if the neo-hippies liked to use Marijuna in baking rather than smoking. I the idea that inahuling ANY kind of smoke could be "natual" and "healthly" seems irrational.

"BTW, the guy I know that has ADD and pretty much wasted is VERY worried about diet and other drugs (won't take anti-GERD drugs, though he has pretty severe GERD). I don't suppose that marijuana would be so great for that."

Oddly enough it is more commom than not. How many neo-hippies passionatley refuse to eat eggs, milk or any food that it's not organic for fear it might harm their health and yet how many of these end up with throat cancer for smoking weed? Bob Marley? GREAT musical artist and lots of his Rastafrai 12 Tribe bibical understanding were right on...but the smoking part?

"Also as per alcohol. I can't drink at all. But I don't feel that very moderate drinking is bad. Esp. as you say the red wine. Most people I know now are very moderate/light in drinking.

However, in excess, I think it is more dangerous, and the dangers are very well known."

In my family they simply can not drink moderately...Seeing this, I chose not to even start at all.

"That's like using alcohol though. Not better or worse, I think, except for the penalties of marijuana usage."

And interstingly, the majority of neo-hippies i have met who are for smoking pot for non-seriously illnesses...usefully have voiced very passionatley against drinking alcohol and very hardcore against non-Vegans..even contedeming the eating of milk or eggs...Eating eggs and milk does not hurt the animals and yet that fell it is so unhealthy and unnatural.

But I think it strikes people like me and Des odd that people would feel so strongly that eating eggs and milk are unnatual and unhealthy but that inhaling smoke would ever be "Healthy" or natural and that mind altering substances even from a natural plant for fun could be healthy.

Correction...I had siad,"It might be interesting for both you and your sister to know that there IS, actually a group online for Liberals who are pro-choice."

I MEANT to say that there Is a online group on mysapce for Liberal Pro-Lifers.

"Hey good points, Beach...

But I think it is pretty hard to debate a Fundamentalist without the Fundamentalist ended up trying to convert you."

Even in the most conserative faith groups you will find that their will be '2' groups within the groups= (1)The extra dark (passive-aggressive) fundamentalists and (2)the more moderate conservatives. Take my mom's JW congergation. There are about 2 to 5 moderate JW's I can think of that my mom is friends with that I actually can get along with and find some common grounds. Themmm (sigh) there's the extra dark ones. The very day before X-mas I drove to our local natural foods store to stock up on food before the big holiday weekend. Upon leaving the food market i noticed a group of 4 JW's from my mom's congergation. One, a pretty low-key and moderate African-American elder and unforuantly his not-so-low-key and very passion-agressive fundamental wife. This women is always on the look-out to save someone's soul from Armageddon.

They were so passionately invloved in conversation with each other I thought that maybe I could slip by unreconized. "Hey! Caroline! Caroline!" called out the elder's wife to me. I don;t know where she got that name, cause my name is not Caroline. Anyways I turned with a friendly smile. She exchnaged the common pleasenties of how are you and how's your mom? Yet it was hardly a jump and a skip from this and she jumped in said, "You want to study the Bible with me?"

This is very annoying for many reasons. One, this in not approperiate behavior in front of the store. Second, it's invasive. And three, she darn well knows that I was raised in JW and was in it for 26 years..and yet she is acting as if....I was stranger that she met in a primitive country where the Bible is not well known.

"My sister and I actually had a pretty good discussion on abortion, but since I don't think "abortion is good" but maybe at times necessary-- in fact, would like to see a way for it to be unnecessary-- it made it possible. It was I who took a more middle position. But it was possible. But real theology, what would happen is that she would ask me a question and then turn it into an argument for a more conservative viewpoint"

It might be interesting for both you and your sister to know that there IS, actually a group online for Liberals who are pro-choice.

"The thing is that when you debate a Fundamentalist, pretty much they have everythign at stake when they talk to you. Maybe you think it is an interesting discussion and they think they are going to need to keep you from hell's fire."

Or in mycase, Armageddon but yeah, precisley the same thing.

"They know you are absolutely wrong and you might think well it is working for them or something-- don't agree with it. I think it puts progressives in a lousy debating position. After all they have hell on their side, so to speak."

Their fundamentalists' fear or hell, Armageddon, getting "Left Beind" or (D) all of the above is so powerful it IS the obstactle that prevents them from even considering for one second...listening to our view and even allowing themsleves to think, "Maybe this Progressive 'COULD" be right? Maybe God is using THEM to help ME? Maybe THEY are NOT unsaved?

>nd yet all three of us find agreement on the 8 points of Progressive Christianity and that's what we all hold in commom. None of us think the other is not saved simply because they hold a different interpretation then ourselves..and that IS what differs US from fundamentalists..which i think is GREAT

"

Sure you can debate with people or more or less discuss religion with people, but only if they share the belief that there isn't one right answer across all times for all people. I don't mind that sort of debate at all, in fact enjoy it. It's when it gets into the I'm right and you are all wrong, that's when I'm out of "

Precisely. So is it even possible to have such positive conservations with conseratives? Only if they are conservative-lites (more moderates) and not the extra dark versions.

-- James has raised a point that I have more or less held my tongue about with this forum. Some, not all, of us on this forum have layed the groundwork for demonizing fundamentalist Christians as a general group. We've got a silly little name for them, we've all but determined that they are either of enferior intellect or sitting lower on the developmental ladder than we enlightened progressives. How arrogant are we?! I understand that many of us have felt harrassed and abused by fundamentalist forces, but we should be seeking to overcome this instead of nursing it among ourselves. I know that this site does not have progressive/conservative dialogue or debate as a primary objective (or as an objective at all), but I believe there is room for it. It is my sincere prayer that we progressives start the journey of forgiveness and reconciliation with our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. We are all a part of the body of Christ. This is no accident. Will we be crippled by hate, fear, and anger or will we be strengthened and made whole by love?

To James and any other fundamentalist Christians who may be lurking,

" There are a billion places for moderate and conservative viewpoints to be discussed."

Just wondering, do you really think there ARE many places for even MODERATE Christians? Seriously, I was just wondering this yesterday. Cause if there WAS even more moderate places on the web I'd be glad to at least check them out as well cause lots of times I find that I CAN get along with moderates...It's just the hardcore fundamentalists that i can not.

Does anyone know if there are any books written by Progressive Christians that support Conditionalism/annihilationism?

Thanks!

"How do you debate beliefs without coming across like you're trying to convert I wonder?"

I think THIS forum IS a GREAT place to see that. For example we have one Progressive Christian who believes in a view of Christianity that also compliments Hindu thought. This person shares their view on this with passion. But when they are explaing this, "I" do not feel they are tring to get me to join a Hidnu+Christian Liberal Church. We have another Progressive christian here who's millennial view is that the book of Revelation is based on past things that have already occured instead the future. They have explained their position of this of which I have found greatly interesting and then there is me, A progressive Christian who millennial belifs closely match Hopi Native American. The three of us may different on our millennial views and also each of our own discription on what we each believe Jesus being the relm of God is..and yet all three of us find agreement on the 8 points of Progressive Christianity and that's what we all hold in commom. None of us think the other is not saved simply because they hold a different interpretation then ourselves..and that IS what differs US from fundamentalists..which i think is GREAT

"SweetTea, you clearly have real medical issues. I would agree that sometimes marijuana is a better drug than some of the alternatives. But I don't think the vast majority of people who use it are using it for medical reasons. Even self-medication."

Agreed. And it really annoys the hell out of me how I have observed with my own eyes stoner kids trying to ride the coat tails of the seriously ill patients who really DO need and benifit from medical marijuna use. I HAVE seen many REAL seriously ill people on documentries benifiting from medical marijuana use...but NEVER have I had THIS type of marijuna user approuc me to try and support medical use of marijuna. Rather it has been obviously otherwise perfectly healthy young hippie kids. They want me to USE the seriosuly ill as a justification for 'THEIR' recreational use...and I doubt that those who really ARE seriously ill and ARE benifiting from MEDICAL use of marijuna really appreixate these kids poising to represent them.

"I think ADD and marijuana really do not mix at all. I have seen this way way too many times. I think people with ADD are somewhat predisposed to self-medication. Not saying I think Ritalin is so great-- there are alternatives, like DMHO (I think or is it DMSO??) and so on."

My nephew, Jake has taken both..and both had horrible eefects. making him more paranoid and more angry.

" But marijuana basically will take a functioning ADD person, and turn them into non-functioning. Case in point: Twenty something ADDer, worked as a CAD programmer (yikes that's some hard work). Then starting smoking pot. He couldn't focus at CAD, he started bumming aroudn with a guitar, it's not like he is musically talented as he isn't. Another guy in late forties, still strapped to mom's apron. He can barely leave the house."

Another example. My brother.

"I'm sure you can find Biblical verses supporting or not marijuana use. I'm not sure about occassional use, I'm not sure it does much harm. I don't think it hurt me. I think very limited use is prob. equivalent to a couple drinks (not to the drunk state). (Though it is illegal, with draconian penalties.) But I'm not sure all kids (or adults) know where that is. And I do worry about accidents (perhaps an unrecorded death no. on marijuana). It's use isn't conducive to driving."

I simply don't reply on any substances, pot or alcohol. Having dyslexia..I don;t think I need to add to attention span challenges.

"That said, I don't know that a stoned state is all that good for lots of things that really count in life like relationships and so on. So I definitely think you can be a progressive and be opposed to it. I think the medical use is a humanitarian issue. But I think the vast majority don't use it to medicate."

I agree 100%

"It's simply not the government's job to determine what we put into our bodies, but here in America, we expect our government to force us to make good choices about our own health"

Well, as for 'me'...'I' am not trying to vote against it and I am not using poltical vote to stop it...I am just saying the stoned hippie kids who HAVE tried to approuch me in HOPES that "I" would vote for 'their' freedom to use it recreationally...that 'I" would not support or help THEM poltically in this.

"Jesus tells us that we are always responsible for our behavior. "

I think that is always a key point.

" Thankfully, your brother is not physically addicted to a more dangerous substance. Since addiction is a disease, it is treatable, but only if everyone (including the addict) recognizes what it is, and the argument of "at least I'm not doing hard drugs" is a classic defense mechansim for addicts who live in denial because they use prescription drugs or food or gambling or alcohol or any one of a host of other triggers."

My nephew who has been A/A for 8 years now says they call this type of justifying "The AtLeast" Club. "At least...I don;t do something worse like..._"

The disease must be treated, and taking away the trigger only brings about substitution, which can lead to infinitely more dangerous behavior.

"I have my own very sad stories about drug abuse.... How I was homeless for 6 months strung out on meth.... Or how I developed bi-polar disorder after habitual ecstacy use....."

This is intersting cause I once met this really handsom and kind young surfer at the beach my age. As we were talking about our love of the beach he told me he was bi-polar..but he also asked me if I had some weed on me...so I wonder if one

bothers the other when one could think it helps?

I understand your point...People CAN surely use marijuana recreationally..but I was stating my position that if a kid approuches me about supporting his marijuana views and I can clealry see it has nothing to do with medication for the ill but rather to further his recreational causes..then he's on his own. I support ALL forms of medication....but I don;t support any form of any medicines for recreational purposes.

One Reggae Gospel artists wrote:

"In the New Testament, the form of the word "sober" is used 17 times. Sobriety is an important part of a Christian's life. It is impossible to be sober and of a sound mind while using marijuana. In fact, recent medical science has even deciphered marijuana's high by locating tetrahydrocannabinol receptors in the human brain . "Many users describe two phases of marijuana intoxication; initial stimulation, giddiness, and euphoria, followed by sedation and tranquillity. Mood changes are often accompanied by altered perceptions of time and space and of one's bodily dimensions. The thinking processes become disrupted by fragmentary ideas and memories. Negative effects can include decreased motivation, confusion, acute panic reactions, anxiety attacks, fear, a sense of helplessness, and loss of self control" (Funk 445).

Marijuana is from the "Hops" family, the same family through which we get beer. However, the Greek terms for sobriety are not limited to drunkenness. They mean to be sober, and of sound mind, to be aware, much like our use of the word sober today is not limited to one substance, but is achieved by abstaining from intoxication.

In the scriptures, sound doctrine teaches that one must be sober (Titus 2:1-2, 4, 6) According to II Corinthians 5:13 we are to be sober for the cause of our brothers and sisters in Christ. For in I Corinthians 8:9-13 we are called to be sober (I Timothy 3:2-3, 11). Romans 12:3 calls us to think using sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given us. II Thessalonians 5:6 tells us to watch and be sober. I Peter 4:7 reminds us that we must be sober for prayer.

Anyone who has used marijuana knows of the unmistakable high that one receives after smoking or eating the drug. I can tell you from personal experience that one is not sober and far from being of sound mind while under the influence of marijuana. "

I fully support marijuana as a medical drug.

"To claim, as some have that marijuana is completely harmless is crazy. For one thing it has more tar (I think that's the substance) than cigarettes. Tobacco is natural too. (Although it has been mixed around with and so on.) There are a lot of perfectly natural things that are deadly like coal dust, the AIDS virus, and any no. of plants."

"Marijuana is also harmful to some people who are at risk. They have low drive, etc. anyway, and you combine this with marijuana and it is not pretty. And there are kids who always seem to need it. It is not addictive physically but in some individuals it is addictive psychologically. I do imagine that a stoned person is not able to drive well and would logically have poor reflexes (it slows down thought) and inadequate sense of "danger" (not really taking driving seriously) just because that's what marijuana does."

That is it. I HAVE SEEN shows on 60 minutes of verified ILL people with cancer and what have you...where there was this medical marijuna group in Oregon that actually gave out baked marijuna products and the like to the ILL and I DO think this IS GREAT. But EVERY time a kid has approuched me to try and support a marijuna agenda he or she was NEVER sick..but they are using the those who ARE sick, hoping to come along for the ride..in HOPES that while passing a law for medical marijuana maybe this can make it easy for them to get their party stash.

When a drug is misused for recreation purposes..whether it's a movie star hooked on Oxycoton, which they DID get lawfully from a doctor or whether it's weed or the pain killer stuff they put in yout I.V in the hospital..I don;t support the misuse of any of these. people like this may well reason that if they get stoned for fun...that it is their buiness and no one else's. Well, if your 'fun' does not innerfear with other people's saftey like impairing someone judgement at putting others at harm or being neglectful as a perent. And even it getting high for fun does not harm other people...if a person on their free choice is choosing to abuse their health and expose themselves needlessly to cancers....I don;t have any interest in supporting their pursuit of this...They are on their own.

As I told someone on Myspace when they sugested to me that one could NOT be liberal and reject recreational use of pot....I have a brother who is 43 and he has smoked pot recreationally since age 11. I also have 2 other siblings. One who is in her 50's and lives far from us in Oregeon and the other who is also in his 50's and also lives away in the desert. Besides me, who takes care of my elderly mother, my brother who smokes pot lives the closest to her, about 20 minutes from me....But he can never remeber his promised appointments, to help take her to her doctor's appoitments. So they rest of us siblings have to work twice as her for our mom because my one brother's 'recreation' gets in the way of helping her.

This brother who smokes pot has the skills to do carpetery, fix cars,ect..I do not have these skills..and so when my brothers forgets that he promised to do work on the house or what have you this kinda leaves our mom screwed. Many times we've simply have to wait several weeks or months to re-gain his memory to get things done for my mom. Also he has a problemed son who is 15 but do to health problems he is the size of a 10-year-old. He has anger problems and ADD. So my brother started letting smoke pot at age 11 which seemed to make him grow more angery.

Then about 2 months ago his other son, the good student and basically good kid who is 16 and has a responsible job at a pizza place got busted at school for trying to sell his father's weed to make extra cash. Because of this he was kicked out of his high school and now goes to continuation. It get annoyed at my brother because instead of taking responsbility of his errors in judgement in his use of weed he excuses himself by comapring himself to his other friends and former schoolmates who have dome worse drugs like crank and he simply goes, "Well, at least I don;t do harsher drugs like crack."

While there ARE things worse then geting high..there are things better..like being able to rember where your car keys are every morning.

I don't think drug programs that overemphasize the dangers of marijuana though do any good, and I'd like our tax money used doing better things than sending people for long prison sentences or using elaborate and costly interdiction.I do think the over criminalization is worse than any problems the drug may have. There are people serving life sentences for trafficking in marijuana-- worse than a rapist would get. I think it should be a simple misdeamor or maybe like a traffic offense.

But recreational use a good thing? Generally no. Medical use? I think as drugs go, it is prob. life saving in some cases.