BeachOfEden

I think as many progressive minded people as possible need to know about TCPC. So here are some ideas I have come up with to get more people aware of this site and to get more people to connect with TCPC. 1. Advertise TCPC on Beliefnet.com. Have the offical TCPC logo with an appealing message placed on Beliefnet..many under their Progressive christianity section. 2. Request that Google and Yahoo ADD the term "Progressive Christianity" TO it's exiesting directory because I HAVE checked and as of yet they do NOT have it..they only have the term "Evangelical Christianity." 3. If some TCPC memeber or participant could create a web ring especially for Progressive Christianity and then invite other progressives to join it it, advertise it and exchange one another PC links..and advertise TCPC on it. 4. Invite all who are signed on here on the TCPC forum to submit their own PC articles to be published online on TCPC articles, PC book reviews. 5. Make TCPC flyers and mail them to mainstream and more liberal churches asking them if they would like to be listed on your Progressive Christian churches links. 6. Maybe if TCPC could hold free lectures to the public out here in Southern Califoria? Like maybe at at a progressive Church in santa Barbara and try and invite all the progressive churches in that area and sourrounding to come?

This is just my personal opinion..but I feel that once the fundamental voices outnumber the progressive ones in a church..then it is time to break off and start a whole another church. One thing about United Methodist that is 'different' from D of C and Episcopalian is that it is not ritualisitic. What i meanis that UM does not have the chants, robes ect that Eps does. Naturally, many like the chants, robes,ect...'they' feel it is inspiring and that is fine..but many other Progressive do NOT care for this and thus why they might be drawn to UM as an alternative to this...myself included in this statement. I never was inspired to really visit Episcopailan for the very reason that it IS ritualistic based and that simply is not my style..and thus why I tried visiting UM instead. I have also taked to a number of progressive individuals who have stated the same, including many homosexual individuals. There really is not a current alternative to UM...so maybe it IS time for one.

One thing I think would help greatly is that is the very term "Progressive Christianity" could be added to Google and Yahoo's directory in religions and THEN place this site THERE. Currently, there is no such term there....ONLY "Evangelical". Also, maybe advertose this site on Beliefnet's Progressive Christianity message board.

..The problem, I believe also is, that though United Methodists and D of C, ect churches have now begun to start and become contemporary....the problem is that they waited SO long to start..that these fundamental churches have already stole all the youth's attention. Also, UM, D of C, UCC, these few Progressive churches numbers are small and so they can not compare to the numbers these mega neo-Evangelical churches draw. If this statement is true, and I believe from what I have onserved that it iS..then these few Progressive churches need to unify together. Maybe UM, D of C, ect. need to come come together and do a Christian coffee shop or use surf shop or whatever and take make their own contemporary places. My OWN experince here in Ventura has been that this one non-denominational Evangelical church named Bible Fellowship has the best pastor at speaking and sermons. They also have the very best contemporary rock band that i have heard. While the United Methodist Church I visited and the Disciples of christ church of Ventura that i visted...do not have good speakers and their contemporary band were not as good nor well organized. Studies show that the ages that people are most likley to turn to religions are like ages 15 to college, these are also the most influnced years..and unforuantly, while these age groups COULD be hearing a more inclusive and tolerant version of Christianity at a progressive church..they are by large hearing another version of christianity and being convinced it IS THEE ONLY version.

I believe that one of the main challenges that Progressive Christian churches like United Methodist and United church of Christ 'NEEDS' to meet..is that fact one of the main obstacles in the Far Right being the major bull horn that the majority listens to..is the fact that whatever church does the best job of appealing to the youth..then, naturally all the youths from all the churches will flock there. Unforuantly, some of the most radical churches are the ones who are the best at attractiving the young. These churches would include Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, and FourSqaure Gospel. All three of these mega contemporary Evangelical Protestant churches are big time into the "Left Behind", belief and hellfire and also all three of the churches DENY women's as pastors. These '3' churches have proven to be the most sucessful in attractiving the young because they are the best churches at using and welcoming contemporary Christian Rock bands into their churches. These churches are also the ones that are the biggest supporters of Christian Surfers. Infact, the famous Surf church in Hunghtington Beach called "Surfer's Chapel", IS a Calvary Chapel. Like I said before, the thing that concerns me is that these churches are VERY sucsessful at wrapping their narrow-minded views in appealing "Seeker-Sensitive" packaging. They give the younger generation the preception that because their music is hip and their pastors speak on their level that this somehow oddomatically means that they are tolerant and inclusive.

I have a web page that is devoted to,listing ALL Progressive Judeo-Christian faith groups and/or web sources: Progressive Christian Links Here listed you will find Progressive aternative listings for Catholic, SDA, JW, Mormon, as well as this web site and the Center For Religious Tolerance! And if you know of more we have not heard of then please let me know! Thanks! Jahpslam68_4@hotmail.com

You bring up some excellent points here. I guess I agree which what you are saying..also the one point, I think is either #3 or #4 about everyone sharing in the drinking of wine and eating of the bread..this, for me, is difficult because kinda like a fundamental Catholic, I was raised in a fundamental faith group that preached SO strongly about people not taking the bread and wine unworthyling..that now I'd much rather just listen or read about the account rather than actually partake in this ceramony. Yeah, I agree with you also on these points. As for Sponge. No i do not agree with his whole interpretations. For one thing, Sponge is a Universalist..while I am a Conditionalist..but his comment about Jesus being everyone's Savior I think ties in with your quote, "In other words, Christ (who is "a" revelation of God) is salvic for Christians, but Buddha and his teachings is salvic for Buddhism because he too is "a" revelation of God for those in more of a Buddhist culture." As well as my quote about how the Hopis have The Great Spirit and then a belief in the Great Spirit co-creator and nephew. Your comment about basic trinitarian doctrine...I am interested in the possibility of Progressive bibical unitarians..infatc, I thinking on starting a thread on this very concept/topic. I don;t mind the theolgoical mess either..It is part of the journy. I agree. And also make a point to realize that others who may be Catholic or Buddhists may and I had found, often DO have vaulable insights that I had not come to see or known and I appreciate this and it aids in my own perception of Christ.

I have communicated with Natural deists in the past and enjoyed it a great deal. They taught me some true facts about what our founding fathers REALLY believed. Location: Colorado, U.S.A., North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, ? Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy... Interests: Lover of abundant life in God's Kingdom. I agree! I enjoy: Walking/hiking on the beach or nature trails or riding my beach cruiser bike every day for fun and health. Watching Suring. theology; inter- and intra-religious dialogue; promoting "progressive/alternative/ radical/counter-cultural Christianity"; Love talking on Beliefnet, helping animals. I have been a big supporters and helper for the SPAN network which helps spay and neuter pets. I love gardening with tropical plants. I love palm trees! Style: casual beach - Roxy gal t-s, jeans, baord shorts, Vans sneakers, flip-flops, surf hooded sweatshirt, retro 70's track jackets, beaded and wood tribal surf necklaces with Hibcius flowers. Favorite Music: 60's and 70's folk rock, Led Zep,Roots reggae, funk/disco, New wave, some techno/dance music. World music. Favorite: TV Shows: American Dreams, and HGTV. Favorite Movies of all Time: The first 3 orginal Star wars movies, Indiana jones 1 and 3. Lady Hawk, Pirartes of the Carribean. Favorite Organizations: The Network for Religious Tolernace,Earth Ministry; The Center for Progressive Christianity, PAWS, SPAN, NWF. Favorite Books: When God Becomes A Drug, What Paul Really Said About Women, Replenish The Earth, To Care For The Earth - A Call For Green Theology, Book of the Hopi, Black Dawn, Bright Day. Favorite Scriptures: Galatains 3:28; The Peaceable Kingdom Scripture.

Here it is: the direct link to the offical Liberal Catholic Church of America: http://members.tripod.com/~LiberalCatholic/

Cool! I am 35 too! I thought I was the only Progressive here under age 45. I live in Ventura Califoria.

Yeah, I agree that IS why I like the way this site says that we view "Jesus as the gateway or relm to God." I kinda agree with Bishop Sponge when he said something about Jesus is everyone's savior even if they don;t know him or who he is. It's like in the Hopi belief the Great Spirit's first born of Creation was called Sotuknang. The only difference is in the Hopi's creation story the Creator turns to Sotuknang and says, "You shall by my nephew and I shall be your uncle." And Hopi story goes on to say that this Sotunknang was the Creator's co-creator. This story is almost precisley like Gensis in which Yahweh cllas Jesus the First Born of Creation and through which all things came to be. So to me the Hopi's Sotunknang the same as the bibical Savior Jesus, just a different name. So I think Progressive Christians share the same social jsutice views as the UUs and Liberal Christians...it just that the difference is that Progressive Christians believe one CAN view Jesus as Savior withOUT having to be a fundamentalist or belief that 'ALL' 'OTHER' persons of 'different' religious views are doomed or unsaved. Would you say this is correct?

I have met many great UU Christians and held many great conversations with them. These UU Christians on the liberal left believe that Jesus is not Savior and is instead a positive teach and role model for us all to follow as a guild to God. Now, as we all know, on the far religious right aka the fundamental Christians, they passionately embrace that one MUST accpet Jesus as their personal Lord and savior to be truely Christian and thus saved. It is NOT so much this in itself that causes liberal Christians to perfer to embrace Jesus as a positive role model and teacher rather than Savior....but more so...what is connected to the religious right's proclaimation in this. The problem that liberal Christians have with fundamental Christian's is that while they 'say' that Jesus died for ALL....they still matained that 'ALL'; who do not interpretate the Scriptures PRECISELY the same way THEY do are NOT 'truley' Christian, are a 'cult' and are "NOT saved." My question is: Are their Progressive Christians who embrace the 8 points of Progressive Christianity and yet..DO accpet Jesus as Savior..and believe one CAN do so withOUT being a fundamentalists or pushing a fundamental dogma in people's faces? Just curious. Thanks:)

It is interesting to note how Millennial beliefs are found also in PureLand Buddhism, Hare Krishna, 12 Tribe Rastafari and many Native American beliefs such as the Hopi and also the very liberal Bahai faith. But in these groups the interpretation is about the end of one AGE and the begnning of a positive one to follow..rather than the end of this physical earth..as the fundamental branch of Protestantism teaches. I was raised in Jehovah's Witnesses...so I know all about Armageddon warnings. It is interesting to me how most religious books are always mentioning William Miller in connection to JW's. While Miller and JW's do indeed both focus on End Times...Miller was thee spearhead person to start the whole "Rapture' belief....ineterestinly...JW's REJECT the concept of a "rapture," they also reject the belief of a literla eternal hellfire...While that IS '2' beliefs I CAN and DO embrace now that I am a Progressive rather than fundamental Christian. As I grew older and more interested in helping perserve the environment I often thought it was odd that though JW's often spoke of looking forward to the day when God would restored THIS natural world....they seemed completely UNinterested in helping our earth NOW. Though JW's and Evangelical/Fundamental Protestants fight like cats and dogs...mainly over the trinity debate...they DO share many beliefs..such as not allowing women to be pastors/elders..basically NOT treating women completely equal.....being unkind in their words towards homosexuals..and ovbiously, in this case, disregarding our present natural enviorment. JW's and Fundamental Protestants also share a major theme in common that all fundamentalists share..that is...teaching a members-ONLY salvation. The only major difference is the Evangelicals use getting "Left Behind" during the rapture and going to hell scare tactic for conversaion...while JW's use the getting destroyed at Armageddon and simply ceasing to be/never being resurrected back to life scare tactic to gain and keep converts.

Also now I add my take on all this....(This is long..but is informative and useful..so you may wish to save it or print it out and read it when you have time) Sun Bear,Hopi & Native American Renewed Earth Prophecies SUN BEAR & NATIVE AMERICAN'S BELIEF IN THE GREAT SPIRIT Sun Bear was born in 1929 on the White Earth Reservation in Minnesota, United States. He was of Chippewa Tribe and was of Ojibwa descent. His birth name was Vincent La Duke. He started the Bear Tribe. In 1992 Sun Bear wrote a book with fellow Native American Wabun Wind, intitled, "Black Dawn, Bright Day." This book, along with '2' other online Native American sources: "American Indian Prophecies", by Ira Kennedy, and, "Prophecies of the Hopi Indians: Looking Back", when gathered together give the best review on Native American beliefs in the coming renewl of our earth and all life. In Sun Bear's book: "Black Dawn, Bright Day," as well as these other '2' online book resources explain that Native American's believe in God, the Creator that they often call, "The Great Spirit." The Hopi call The Great Spirit Taiowa, and interesting there is also a belief in Hopi that God created an offspring of himself called Sotunkang. Much like the Bible's Jesus, Sotunkang acts as co-creator to The Great Spirit, and through Sotunkang all things are created. There is also a spirit guardian fingure who falls from grace because of a lack of gratefuness who is much like Satan and his name is Masaw. In the Bear Clan at Songopovi, The Great Spirit is named Yahoya...which sounds very much like the Bible's name for God in Hebrew as Yahweh and Jehovah. PROPHECY OF THE RAINBOW THE UNITY OF RACES Also, the Hopi have the same sort of Great Flood story in which humankind bacame thankless in their hearts during the third age on earth and only 4 humans seek the Great Spirit and keep The Sacred Way. The Hopi believe that these 4 survivors of the Great Flood are the ones from which the 4 sacred colors of all humanity sprang: Red,Black,White and Yellow. Note how much this is like Twelve Tribe Rasta's Bibical teaching of Noah's 4 sons of which the 12 Tribe would sprout. Since that time, the Hopi teach humanity has turned their hearts away from the Great Spirit and The Sacred Way again. Humans have become greedy, in which they keep taking from the earth, but never give anything back. Hopi say humans are sucking the life from the earth in much the way a flea sucks blood from it's vitim. The earth quakes and world problems going on now are prophecies coming true and are like a dog shaking flies from it's back. The Hopi believe that this is an age in which the majority live in spiritual darkness. Many Native American's believe that we are living in an age that will come to an end and that a better one will follow it. This believe in the better age to come on earth is what Sun Bear calls "The Bright Day." THE LADDER PHILOSOPHY VS. THE CIRCLE OF LIFE What prevents the majority of churches from understanding the Bright Day Prophecy? Sun Bear explains that it is the Ladder Philosophy. The Ladder philosophy, Sun Bear explains, is how American Western society has come to view all God's creation from top to bottom, like a ladder. Naturally at the very top is The Great Spirit (God)and the co-creator (Jesus)...but next in rank and importance is man, then under him is women, then under her is children, then under them is dog and cat and so on. But the question is: All these creations are ranked in order of importance acording to WHO? God? No. Man. That is why he places himself right under Jesus as if he is some sort of Divine King of Kings himself . But in Native American belief life is viewed as a circle where The Great Spirit and co-creator are still at the very top of the circle..but the rest of creation in not ranked by one being under the other or one over the other but instead the rest of all creation is side by side, next to one another in kinship, not over each other in rulership. Note in the Ladder philosophy of American Western belief things are ranked according to what's important to MEN..and NOT according to what's important to God. But the churches would likely say otherwise. GOD AND THE BIBLE SUPPORTS THE CIRCLE OF LIFE & NOT THE LADDER PHILOSOPHY The Western tradition has convinced people that it is God's will that man rule over the woman instead of being equally yoked side by side with her. The Western tradition has convinced people that the Bible tells human beings that it is ok for them to rule and exploit one another, animals and the earth for their own benifit. In the Euro-American Western tradition of treating the opposite sex, and others races as inferior and exploiting them as well as animalkind and the earth, they have long justified these behaviors by claiming that the Bible teaches the domination over women and animalkind and the earth. They say the Bible told Adam and Eve to "have dominion OVER the animals". Yet a Rabbi in a 1996 artical in Seirra Club magazine intiled, "Faith and the Environment", wisely explains that the actual Hebrew word was SHAMAR..which translates as "Care takers TOWARDS the animals" and NOT "RULERS or EXPLOITORS OVER THEM." Also, likewise churches have long quoted Ephesians Chapter 5 as a justification for sexism stating that this Scriptures call "men to be HEADS OVER women." Here the English word HEAD is translated from the Greek word ARCHE which means "CHIEF", "RULER" and "to have authority OVER"....But Christians for Bibical Equality wisely bring out this this an a translation error. The word here was not orginal ARCHE/HEAD..but instead WAS the Greek word KEPHALE which means "Selfless one", "willing self-sacrificer" and thus SPEARhead...NOT "HEAD". So are humans justified to exploit animals? The Bible brings out that in this imperfect age, just as with the animals, God permits humans to kill animals for food or if an animal threatens their life. But the Bible does NOT say it is ok to exploit animals or to treat them unkindly or to hunt them for mere entertainment or sport. Genesis 3:21; 9:3; Exodus 21:28) As for the earth, Jah says he will "destroy those who destroy the earth".Revevation 11:17,18. And as far as claiming one race is superior to another, or that theat one sex is superior to another, the Bible says: "There is is neither Jew nor Gentile,nor male nor female...but ALL become equals through Christ."-Galatians 3:28. Jesus also said: "The MEEK shall inherite the earth." Matthew 5:5. Now if ones thinks of their self as superior to the opposite sex or other races, then that person is NOT "meek". There is a very famous Native American proverb that says: "What ever man does to the earth, he does to himself." In the Bright Day book Sun Bear says: "Native people try to blend WITH nature, rather than trying to conquer it. Before we Native people look at adding anything to our life we pray over it. We ask, "How does this effect our life? How does this effect the rest of creation? How does this effect our relationship with the Creator?"... In stark contrast to this I call to mind numberous old photographs of our early pioneers during the 1800's, with axes in hands, proudly smiling as they stand in front of a toppled great Red Wood trees. Their eyes gleaming with dollar bill signs. Never 'thinking' how their actions might effect the future,the earth and wildlife. Never stopping to think: "What does God think of this?"...They only thought of themseleves and how they could make a quick buck. Yet, likely many of these men were deemed, "good Christians", by there peers and "civilized", while Native peoples were deemed "savages"...Unforuantly, these type of people still exist. DOES THE 'RAPTURE' BELIEF SUPPORT THE CIRCLE OF LIFE & THE MEESAGE OF GOD'S COMING KINGDOM ON EARTH? A prime example of this as well as one of the worst examples of Western church ego gone mad is found in Bun Bear's account of the views held by Ronald Reagen's former aid in the Department of Interior named James Watt. Shockingly, as a "good Born Again" (Evangelical Fundamental Protestant) Christian he expressed not wanting to wast any time or effort protecting the environment reasoning: "Why should we? When Jesus is just gonna come back and scoop all the righteous up to heaven and burn up the earth anyways?"...You see, this is the problem with the 'rapture' movement. Many non-rapturists laughed at the 'rapture' movement as being silly. But it goes beyound being "silly",it is actually destructive for it seems to give people a since of complete apathy about caring the earth or anything other than winning people's souls into heaven. BIBLE STUDENTS WHO SHOW A LACK OF CARE FOR THE EARTH! Both Haile Selassie's Twelve Tribe movement as well as Age to Come Christianity and The Charlse T.Russell movement rebuke William Miller's 'rapture' theory, teaching and believing instead on Jah's Kingdom coming on earth. Never the less, I must stop here and tell you that dispite the fact that the Age to Come Christian movement prime theme is focus on the renewl of this earth as God's Kingdom comes to rule over it, I have been very dismayed and shocked at the high numbers of individuals I have heard from amoung the Russell movements,speak in such an equal tone of apathy toward caring for the environment and animalkind as Evangelical Fundamental Protestants. The additude I have heard them express so often is: "Why bothered saving the environment? When Jehovah's just gonna fix it all for us when earth becomes paradise anyways?"...Oh yes. Jehovah WILL "fix everything"...but with such expressed lazy additudes and lack of care for helping God's creation is this imperfect age...what makes them think he WANTS THEM in his Kingdom? Remember, "He that is faithful in the least of things will be give more." Such ones should know better. WHERE DID THIS 'RAPTURE' IDEA COME FROM? But just how did the 'rapture' belief come about anyways? That is a very long story. But basically, the beginnings of the rapture theory can be traced back to Nelson Darby. Today, it seems that amoung Evangelical Fundamental Protestants, anyone who does not accept the 'rapture' belief is "Unorthodox". However, such "unorthodox" ones would included their Protestant peers: Presbyterians,Methodists, Episcoplains,Lutherns,Disciples of Christ Church, and Quakers. All these also reject the teaching of hellfire as well. While Evangelical Fundamental Protestants proudly proclaim the rapture as "orthodox" Bibical Christaintiy...many are unaware that this is a in the history of the Christian church a fairly new belief. How new? Well according to a History Channel's program on Millenial movements in America when William Miller first began preaching about the end of the world and the rapture, "Methodists LAUGHED at HIM (William Miller)and were reported saying: "Who ever heard of such unorthodox teachings?"...So. what was once deemed "unorthodox" by mainstream Protestants is now deemed "orthodox" by Evangelical Protestants. THE END OF THIS WORLD OF THE END OF THIS AGE? Upon reading Sun Bera's Bright Day book I was greatly impressed with his bibical wisdom and insight into understanding Greek and Hebrew. In a very wise manner, Sun Bear brings out in his Bright Day book that in the orginal manuscripts of the New Testament Jesus did not say: "End of the WORLD", but instead DID say: "End of THIs 'AGE'." The English word here 'AGE' is translated from the Greek word 'AEON'. This can be PROVEN by simply looking up the footenote in the Living Bible or Living Translation at Matthew Chapter 24, verses 3 and 34 and Chapter 6. Here the footnotes verify this saying: "Here the word WORLD LITERALLY translates as 'AGE'"...Since it is verified that the orginal word age has been changed to world, the question is why? Simply put, it seems the world age (AEON) has been changed to world (physical earth) so as to better fit the Evangelical's 'rapture' belief. To admit that Jesus spoke of an end to THIS AGE....instead of the end of this physical earth would mess up their belief that the earth must be destroyed literally by fire while the faithful are wisked away to heaven. You see, if it is understood that God's Kingdom will come on earth...as it is already in heaven..and if the Kingdom will come on earth...then there would be no need to fly away to heaven..and the escape pod known as 'rapture' serves no purpose then. One thing that fuels the 'rapture' belief is the fact that Evangelical Fundamental Protestants believe that the earth will literally be burned up by fire. They make their claim on this based on the scriptures found at 2 Peter 3:7 and Revelation 17:16. These Scriptures speak of the earth being "completely cleansed by fire". BOTH NATIVE AMERICANS & THE BIBLE USES THE WORD 'FIRE' SYMBOLICALLY However, in both Native American beliefs and in the Bible the use of the the phrases, "purification by fire", and "Cleansed by fire", is used SYMBOLICALLY. Why does I reason this? Take Matthew 3:11 for example where John the Baptists explains to the crowd that he baptises with "water", but then he tells of one coming who is greater than he (John) and that this one who is greater (Jesus) would "baptize with water,spirit and FIRE." Logically, we know that this does not mean that Jesus would literally dunk people into real fire, but instead again fire is used symbolically to show that when one is baptized then this person's is changed by Holy Spirit and Holy Spirit "cleanses", or "purifies the heart", thus, in a spiritual sense, their hearts are renewed. HOW THE HEAVENS & THE EARTH ARE RENEWED So, likewise it is when the scriptures speak of a, "New Heavens and a New Earth"- 2 Peter 3:13; Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:5. Thus, why Jesus prayeed: "Thy Kingdom come...ON EARTH...as it IS (already) IN HEAVEN"...The Heavens have already been made NEW...when Satan and his fallen demons were kicked OUT of heaven. When he was kicked out of Heaven he and his demons came down here upon the earth. The Bible says they know they only have so much time before God renews the earth as well and when this happens the Bible says that the Devil and his demons will be cast away from humanity. HOW WEEDS AND SEEDS GREW TOGETHER Sun Bear discribes in his Bright Day book how a religion came into being. It used fear tacticts, evening barrowing some from other religion that was older than itself. The people representing this new religious movement claim themselves superior and these individuals came to call themselves, "Christians." However, their behavior seemed far removed from the orginal teachings of Jesus Christ. They took Christ's teachings and claim that in the name of the Bible they had the God-given justiifcation not to tolerate others. Sun Bear says these people looked back at other religions that were older than there own and not of their own roots. He said they studied and were greatly inspired with Greek mythology. They read how the Greeks had this belief of an underworld for the evil. This underworld held a great eternal Lake of Fire to which Hades, the Greek god of the underworld held rein over. Upon reading this, these people thought: "Hey this is good stuff! What it would took these Greek ideas accept make our own twist? We will say that instead of the Bible's teaching that both the righteous and unrighteous go into SHEOL (Hebrew for "The Grave) We will teach instead that the bad and unrighteous get thrown into this Hades's "Lake of Fire" forever. Instead of the keeper's name being the Greek's "Hades", we will change it to the Bible's foe Satan. And we will call this place, "Hell". We will say that Satan is the keeper of Hell and whoever God dislikes we will say he hands over to the Devil and into his Hell! Yes! This will hold a much greater impact over the people with fear,even more so than death! What a great concept to keep the people from questioning our church!"... Besides changing SHEOL to HADES and then HELL. These folks also took the Bible's discription of an ancient burning trash dump outside the walls of Jerusalem called GEHENNA and merged it with HADES/SHEOL and HELL. Thus, when the Bible speaks of the evil being "Thrown into Gehenna", and that, "This means the Second Death", it merely means that if someone is found worthless at the end of the 1,000 rein of Christ, then they are thrown away into the trash,never to be resurrected back to life again. This is why it says: "This means the Second Death"..because from the second death there is NO ressurection. It's permanent. The Hebrew Scriptures plainly teach that the dead simply "Sleep" or are "Unconscience", "They know NOTHING"-See Ecc 9:5 and Psalm 146:4. 'SOME' CHURCHES HAVE MADE IMPROVEMENTS Dispite the Babylon teachings that have been added, the inequalities and the fear tacticits, Sun Bear also states the grand improvements and sincere and humble efforts made on the parts of many churches to correct such ways. That some Christian churches have repaired the demaged bridges between Native peoples and other races and how some have began teaching equality and have become teaching to care for the earth and the animal kingdom. As we have stated before, we know not all Christians students of the Bible believe the same, and that there are many different held views held amoung different Rastas. So it also is with Native Americans. However, in sum, what I see is at the heart of Sun Bear's message is: (1) The earth will be cleansed...but NOT destroyed. (2) The Sacred Path will lead us to the renewl of the earth..which is built on the respect for the Creator. (3) To find this Sacred path we MUST start caring for the earth NOW, and THIS age. This means we must start caring about our natural world and stop viewing the animals as throw-away dixies cups. (4)We MUST stop our hyprocrisy of proclaiming the Golden Rule..but then only implying it to those our group, race or gender. This will lead us to peace in this imperfect age and brings us the hope of the better age to come.

I would like to post for you my favorite parts on an article that this site has on it. The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation By Barbara R. Rossing Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 2004, Hardback, 212pp., $24.00 Review by G. Richard Wheatcroft During the 19 th century a new theology was conceived called “premillinarian dispensationalism.” John Nelson Darby, a British evangelical preacher, made a number of visits to the United States to promote what he called “dispensations,” that is, “intervals of time ordering God’s grand timetable for world events.”According to Darby, the Bible contains a schedule of events which will precede the end of history. The first event, coming before a millennium, will be the return of Jesus to ‘Rapture’ all true believers “out of the world into heaven.” Then, after seven years of global tribulation, Jesus will return a second time as a warrior to defeat the forces of evil at Armageddon and establish a reconstructed kingdom of Israel over which he will reign for a thousand years until the end of the world. Darby claimed that the foundation of the “dispensations” is Daniel 9:25-27, the Book of Revelation and other texts from the Hebrew and Christian Testaments. Although no specific passage in the Bible uses the word ‘Rapture,’ the popularization of the concept began with the Scofield Reference Bible, a version of the King James Bible published in 1909 which included headings and marginal notes highlighting Darby’s theology. Conferences and radio programs sponsored by The Moody Bible Institute and other Bible schools spread the message. In the 1970's The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey was a best seller. Between 1995 and 2004, a series of twelve Left Behind novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, fictionalizing the ‘Rapture.’ have sold more than 60 million copies. John Hagee, Pastor of the 16,000 member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and author of Doomsday: The Countdown Has Begun is a proponent of the ‘Rapture.’ Barbara Rossing, who teaches New Testament at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, calls the ‘Rapture’ phenomenon a “destructive racket.” She writes that her book is for those who are concerned about the “simplistic” misinterpretation of the Biblical script by the “whole prophecy industry of Tim Le Haye, Hal Lindsey and others.” It is her conviction that dispensationalism must be challenged today “both because of its false theology and also because of its growing influence on public policy.” To counter this distortion and manipulation of Christian faith, she provides an interpretation of the Book of Revelation which provides “a vision of hope for God’s healing of the world.” The basic theological foundation of the ‘Rapture’ is Manicheism, a form of Gnosticism, considered a heresy by the early Church, which posits that the world is evil and that our goal is to escape it. The focus of the efforts of the ‘Rapture’ proponents is, therefore, to save individuals “out of this world.” The author writes, “The Rapture vision invites a selfish non-concern for the world. It turns salvation into a personal 401(k) plan that saves only yourself.” She charges that La Haye in his Left Behind novels also provides a “powerful platform” for influencing his readers “on a whole range of conservative political issues including anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, anti-environmentalism, militarism, and Middle East policy, as well as opposition to the United Nations.” The author says The purpose of the Book of Revelation is not to give “God’s play-by-play script for the future,” but to unveil a new vision of life for people who were under the domination and oppression of the Roman Empire and to encourage them to be faithful to God alone. She writes, “Revelation’s proclamation of an impending ‘end’ referred not to the end of the world but to the end of Roman rule.” BeachOFEden: "I don;t really agree that the Book of Revelation is only about Roman's past. I think it is about the future..but NOT the way the far right fundamental Protestnats interpretated it. BeachOfEden: " I Thessalonians 4:13, Matthew 24:39-42 (See also Luke 17:34-35), Matthew 24-25, and John 14-1-2. These texts and many other biblical passages used by have nothing to do with the Rapture. It is salutary and timely to have a scholarly and lively critique of a dangerous misinterpretation of the Bible." I also agree with that statment. Next I would like to add my views on this.

Looking over all the members here I have noted that hardly anyone tells anything about their interest. So if you don;t mind me asking. What age group are you in? Anyone here ages 25 to 35? Anyone here from Southern Califoria? What are your interests.

You are very right, Oak...in that the fundamentalists feel they 'need' the teaching of eternal hellfire in order to maintain and gain converts. Waldo Emerson once said, "The Bible says that man was created in God's image. But the problem is that man has created God in his image." Unforuantly, much of the human race is revenge-minded. It is not good enough for THEM for the evil to simply cease to be...no they want to image them punshed forever...because it is they way THEY think. They churches that constantly harp on warnings of hellfire or getting "Left Behind" or armageddon and the highest memebership numbers. That is truely sad. They would LIKE to believe it is because they are the real form of Christaintiy and we Progressives are the false version. But the real moviation factor behind their zeal is morbid fear.

(the following is LONG..but you may like to save it and print out to use as a Progressive source against the fundamental interpreation of hell)... Conditionalism Where ever you see these * before a paragraph it means where I have added my own comments In the list below are some who embrace this view or comfortably tolerate it. Naturally, while this may be true at the moment this list is written and posted, they could change or even recant their view. I do not promise that at the very moment you read this, this list is absolutely current. The following are some of the NON-JW churches that reject the view that hell is a place of eternal hellfire torment, and belive hell to mean to cease to be all together... The Anglican Church (Episcopalian church in England). The Advent Christian Church The Church of God of Abraham Faith/ The Open Bible Church Liberal/Progressive Or Moderate Luthers, United Methodists Disciples of Christ Church The Presbyterian Church The following evangelical Bible scholars and commentators have expressed a similar belief in one form or another: John Stott (in the Anglican church and author of Evangelical Essentials, 1988 pages 313-320), John Wenham (see The Goodness of God, 1974; Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, 1991, chapter 6: The Case for Conditional Immortality), Christianity Today, October 23, 2000 What is hell-eternal torment or annihilation? A look at the Evangelical Alliance's The Nature of Hell. By Robert A. Peterson 10/13/00 It was six pages near the end of the book that exploded like a bombshell within evangelicalism. The book was Evangelical Essentials (InterVarsity) and the year was 1988. As the book's subtitle announced, it was A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue between liberal Anglican David L. Edwards and evangelical Anglican John Stott. For 338 pages, Edwards and Stott ranged over many issues, including the gospel, biblical authority, miracles, ethics, and missions. But near the end, in those six pages, Stott tentatively defended annihilationism-the view that unbelievers are finally annihilated and thus do not experience torment that is eternal in duration (as fundamentallists believe). Fundamentalists, who make up most of evangelicalism, were shocked. Some, like John H. Gerstner, went so far as to question Stott's salvation. Evangelicals have been debating the subject ever since, both sides producing books and articles defending their views and contesting the opposition. The hell debate With the publication of Stott's views, evangelicals were spurred to study the issue more deeply and to respond. Perhaps emboldened by Stott's example, others followed and declared their commitment to annihilationism: Philip E. Hughes resigned from Westminster Seminary and wrote The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Eerdmans, 1989), toward the end of which he took an annihilationist stance. A 1992 Baker collection of essays, Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, included a piece by John W. Wenham, "The Case for Conditional Immortality." Conditional immortality, or conditionalism for short, is the view that human beings are not naturally immortal. God, who alone is inherently immortal, grants the gift of immortality only to believers. Unbelievers, because they lack this gift, do not live forever. Although technically not identical with annihilationism, conditionalism has come to be used as a synonym for it. Through Wenham's influence, a previous book by Edward Fudge was revised and issued in 1994 by Paternoster Press as The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality. Plainly, the annihilationist side had taken up the debate, challenging the fundamental view. Heavyweight fundamentalists did not stay out of the fray. D. A. Carson devoted 22 pages of The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan, 1996) to an exegetical defense of the fundamental view. J. I. Packer, a figure as revered by evangelicals as Stott, expressed his displeasure in Evangelical Affirmations (Academie, 1990) that Stott had advocated annihilationism. Plainly evangelical Anglicans were lining up on opposite sides of this issue: Stott, Hughes, Wenham and Michael Green on the side of conditionalism; Packer, Harmon, Gerald Bray, and Alec Motyer on the side of fundamentalism. Into the fray stepped the Evangelical Alliance (EA). Also called World's Evangelical Alliance, founded in 1846, EA is a Britain-based association of evangelical churches, parachurch organizations, and individuals. It is the umbrella organization for evangelicals in the United Kingdom. Seeing the controversy on hell and other issues dividing evangelicals, EA established the Alliance Commission of Unity and Truth Among Evangelicals (ACUTE) in 1995 "to work for consensus on theological issues that test evangelical unity, and to provide, on behalf of evangelicals, a coordinated theological response to matters of wider public debate." ACUTE comprises three evangelical bodies: the Evangelical Alliance, the British Evangelical Council, and the Evangelical Movement of Wales. One project of ACUTE is The Nature of Hell. It was written that evangelicals might stand united against universalism while disagreeing among themselves concerning the nature of hell. The study group, consisting of fundamentalists and conditionalists, had the task of writing a report that would promote understanding and tolerance among member believers. Building a foundation After describing points of agreement among evangelicals, the report gives background regarding universalism (the idea that ultimately all will be saved), a recurring issue in English church history. The report concludes that universalism is not an option for evangelicals because it lacks biblical warrant. Nevertheless, the report adds, "In an increasingly multicultural, pluralist society, the universalism which now underlies most forms of liberal Christianity is likely to present an ever-greater challenge for evangelicals." The report then identifies the key biblical texts in the debate on the nature of hell. In the Old Testament, the focus is on the present life, not on life after death. Sheol is a dark, dreary, silent underworld of half-existence. Only two Old Testament texts, Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2, refer to resurrection. The report then comments on the New Testament pictures of the afterlife, including Gehenna and Hades. Two conclusions stand out. First, the report notes that the synoptic Gospels, Jude, and Revelation speak of "Gehenna," "Hades," and "fire." John, Paul, and the other epistles speak chiefly of "perishing," "destruction," and "death." Second, the report recognizes that "this variation in biblical imagery stands behind much of the debate between fundamentalists and conditionalists." The Nature of Hell next traces the history of each point of view. Fundamentalism: Tertullian, Lactantius, Basil of Caesarea, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, and Wesley all endorsed eternal punishment. Forms of conditionalism are found in Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch. The meaning of burning sulfur After outlining key definitions (see "Coming to Terms: Five key phrases in the hell debate," p. 34), the report examines five critical exegetical issues that each side debates. 1. Destruction and perishing. Conditionalists argue that biblical language about the lost perishing (e.g., John 3:16) or being destroyed (e.g., Matt. 10:28) ought to be taken at face value to indicate extinction of being. Although the report almost always sets out the best arguments for both conditionalist and fundamentalist sides of an issue, here it includes only a weak fundamenallist response. A stronger one involves the "destruction" of the beast, foretold in Revelation 17:8, 11; he is later cast into the fiery lake of burning sulfur (19:10) and is "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (20:10). 2. The fire and the worm. Conditionalists maintain that the biblical imagery of hellfire indicates consumption and not the infliction of pain. Fundamentalists respond that the fire and worm in Mark 9:48, a key text, are "undying" and "unquenchable," respectively. Conditionalists counter by insisting, "Although both the worm and the fire themselves appear to be everlasting, the effect they have on any individual sinner may yet be terminal." 3. Eternal punishment and "the age to come." Fundamentalists historically have pointed to Jesus' parallel between the two destinies in Matthew 25:46: eternal punishment and eternal life (italics mine). Conditionalists respond by saying the text does not define eternal, and it could be rendered qualitatively rather than quantitatively; hence "the punishment of the age to come" and "the life of the age to come." Even if "eternal" punishment is the correct rendering, it could point to the everlasting effects of the punishment (conceived as destruction) rather than to everlasting suffering of the punishment. Fundamentalists raise their eyebrows when conditionalists insist on a different meaning for the word eternal when it is used in two parallel phrases in the same sentence to describe the two destinies. 4. Jesus' account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Fire imagery here plainly speaks of pain and not consumption (vv. 23, 24, 25, 28). Some fundamentalalists say this account teaches that the lost will endure eternal torment. But conditionalists correctly point out that Jesus' parable pertains to the intermediate rather than the final state. 5. Sulfur, smoke, and the "second death." The meaning of Revelation 14:10-11 is contested: the wicked will be "tormented with burning sulfur" and "the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night" for them. Fundamentalists assert that this text unambiguously teaches their view. Conditionalists appeal to Old Testament texts that describe God's destruction of cities, "all of which are reduced to wastes of burning sulfur, but which themselves cease to exist as cities once they have been razed to the ground." The rising smoke in Revelation 14:10 is a trace of the destruction wrought by the consuming fire. And the torment relates to the moment of their destruction rather than eternal suffering. But, fundamentalists, the text speaks of "the smoke of their torment" going up "for ever and ever" and thereby connects the suffering of persons with eternal duration. Fundamentalists also point to the sentence that follows-"There is no rest day or night" for the wicked-as evidence of eternal punishment. Conditionalists counter that this does not prove endless suffering but only suffering that lasts as long as the sufferers do. Fundamentalists point to Revelation 20:10 as unequivocally teaching eternal punishment. After the devil is cast into the lake of fire, John reports that the devil, beast, and false prophet "will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Because "day and night" is further modified by "for ever and ever. They refuse, however, and instead argue that this text says nothing about human beings suffering eternal torment. Indeed, the devil, beast, and false prophet function symbolically here to denote opposition to God. In fact, the meaning of the imagery of Revelation 20:10 considered in its totality, they argue, is annihilation. This is confirmed, conditionalists claim, by the fact that a few verses later the lake of fire is defined as "the second death," a clear reference to cessation of being. Fundamentalists remain unconvinced. The devil, at least, and probably his henchmen, are personal beings. Furthermore, Jesus in Matthew 25:41 assigns the "goats" to "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Fundamentalists also reject conditionalists' equating the lake of fire with annihilation, arguing instead that death signifies not extermination but separation. The second death, therefore, stands for eternal separation from God. Moreover, the lake of fire signifies eternal torment in Revelation 20:10; if conditionalists' interpretation were correct, shouldn't John have indicated a change in its meaning five verses later when he speaks of humans being thrown into it? From philosophy to blessedness The report notes that four main theological issues also figure in the debate. 1. The place of philosophy. Annihilationists claim that the church Fathers imbibed uncritically the Greek notion of the immortal soul and consequently were misled into the Fundamental doctrine of hell. If all human beings live forever, the argument runs, they must forever inhabit either heaven or hell. Fundamentalists point out that, aside from the debated question of Platonic influence on the Fathers, the important thing is whether the Bible teaches immortality. Fundamentalists take different paths here, some claiming Scripture affirms immortality, others saying Scripture implies it. Matthew 10:28 ("Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell") is hotly contested: conditionalists insist on the plain sense; fundamentalists say destruction is a metaphor for terrible loss. 2. God's love and justice. How could God's love and justice possibly be made known in the everlasting conscious torment of human beings? Indeed, the report notes, "This question is regularly cited by conditionalists as a starting point for their abandonment of the fundamental position." How is it just for God to punish for eternity sins committed in a finite lifetime? Some Fundamentalists have followed Aquinas in insisting that sins against an infinite God deserve infinite recompense. They have maintained that only a holy and just God (not sinful human beings) is qualified to determine the consequences of sin. They suspect that conditionalists "are succumbing to contemporary cultural representations of pain as the ultimate evil to be avoided, when sin against God is in fact a more heinous thing." And Fundamentalists have affirmed that eternal conscious punishment will bring glory to God, the righteous Judge. 3. God's triumph. According to conditionalists, the fundamentalist picture of the end mars the biblical hope of God's ultimate victory, for fundamentalism pictures an eternal eschatological dualism between good and evil. Fundamentalists reply that Revelation 21 and 22 paint a picture that includes the lake of fire as well as the new heavens and new earth. They insist that God will reign over heaven and hell and be glorified in both places. 4. The blessedness of the redeemed. Conditionalists argue that the joys of the saved in heaven would be diminished by their knowledge of the never-ending suffering of the lost in hell. The standard fundamentalist response is that God will remove any pain that those in heaven might otherwise experience. The need for sensitive reflection The report next seeks to remedy the fact that evangelicals on both sides of the debate have produced little in the way of pastoral reflection. It calls all to hold solemn and sensitive attitudes toward hell. Evangelicals historically have understood hell as a spur to evangelism. Recently, however, some have debated how prominent a place hell should have in Christian witness. Fundamentalists accuse conditionalists of underestimating the fate of the lost, and conditionalists criticize fundamentalists for unnecessarily adding to the scandal of the gospel. The report calls for a truce and urges Christians to combine words of God's justice and love when presenting the gospel. For example, on the issue of what believers are to say to terminally ill patients who do not know Christ: While demonstrating God's love in their actions and avoiding exploitation, Christians are to speak of God's judgment as background for sharing the good news of Christ. Concerning pastoral care of the bereaved, pastors should rejoice at the home-going of a believer, but it is inadvisable to pronounce that a specific person is in hell. Instead, pastors should preach the gospel to the living. Room at the evangelical table [*?] Though the report acknowledges that Fundamentalism is the majority view among evangelicals, it strives to maintain fellowship with conditionalists. Although a few fundamentalists have questioned the right of conditionalists to be called evangelical Christians, the working group that drafted The Nature of Hell affirms that right. In terms of doctrine, the study confirmed that the main conditionalists show a high regard for the authority of Scripture and attempt to base their case chiefly on biblical exegesis. Historically speaking, though, conditionalism fares far worse than fundamentalism. Although evangelicals are wary of appeals to tradition as compared to Scripture, the testimony of history, in which few major theologians have wavered from fundamentalism,places a considerable burden of proof on conditionalists. Yet conditionalism seems to share an evangelical worldview or ethos with fundamentalism. Furthermore, conditionalists bear a "family resemblance"; they are part of the same relational network. Indeed, "when it comes to those who have moved from fundamentalism towards conditionalism, the familial ties remain strong," the report notes. Conclusions and recommendations The Nature of Hell ends with 11 conclusions (each accompanied by biblical proofs) and 11 recommendations. First, a summary of the conclusions: All human beings will die and will be resurrected to face God's judgment, issuing either in eternal glory or condemnation to hell. Furthermore, "God has revealed no other way to salvation and eternal life apart from through Jesus Christ." "While rejecting universalism and postmortem repentance, the report affirms, "In his sovereignty, God might save some who have not explicitly professed faith in Jesus Christ," although we are not to assume this in any specific case. Christians should therefore evangelize, assuming that it is through proclamation of the gospel that God saves people." *..."I" reject universalism but I embrace postmorttem repenance completely "The gospel is chiefly good news but also includes the message of hell:" "Hell is more than mere annihilation at the point of death. Rather death will lead on to resurrection and final judgment to either heaven or hell." Hell involves separation from God, severe punishment, and is "a conscious experience of rejection and torment." *..."I" do not concure. "I" am NOT a fundamentalist. "Furthermore, "There are degrees of punishment and suffering in hell." *...This too I view ######. There are no "Degrees' of ceasing to be. You either cease or you don't. Then come the recommendations: "Hell understood as eternal conscious punishment is the historic view of the church and is the mainstream evangelical position." *...WRONG. hell as understand as as eternal conscious punishment is the Fundamental position..NOT the mainstream position. "Still, "Conditional immortality is a significant minority evangelical view. Furthermore, we believe that the fundamentalist-conditionalist debate on hell should be regarded as a secondary rather than a primary issue for evangelical theology." *...Good luck with that, = to get Fundamental to agree that any of their interpretations are secondary rather than promary is all but impossible. "Furthermore, "We understand the current Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith to allow both fundamentalist and conditionalist interpretations of hell"; nonetheless it would be helpful to add a clause on eschatology that includes conditionalism. The evangelical fundamentalist-conditionalist debate should continue with the parties maintaining "constructive dialogue and respectful relationships." *...That WOULD be nice but so far I have not personally seen where fundamentalists acknoweldge the conditionalists views. The few times I have seen a Progressive Baptists, Luthern or United Methodists try..instantly the fundamental Protestant presumes they are either Mormon or JW and proceeds to call them an unorthodox "cult." An American assessment The report is a model of how evangelicals can study together constructively, even when they must agree to disagree. The working group did its homework well, as the extensive bibliography and footnotes attest. A spirit of Christian fairness pervades the report. Fundamentalist and conditionalist views are given on every debated point. Too often evangelicals have ended up with black eyes before the world by conducting their debates with acrimony and rancor. From the perspective of evangelical Anglicanism, the report must be deemed a success. It has a clear purpose: not to allow the fundamentalist-conditionalist debate to further divide evangelicals in the United Kingdom. This is evident in the candor with which it describes the history of the debate, in the makeup of the working group (including scholars on both sides), in its design (the first and last two chapters form a literary inclusion that calls for theological inclusion), and in its conclusions and recommendations: Readers should not miss the point: the book is not a debate between fundamentalist and conditionalists concerning the nature of hell. Instead, it is a summary of that debate written to bring fundamentalist and conditionalists together. It is an attempt at damage control. "As an American evangelical and a Reformed theologian, I have learned from The Nature of Hell. I have added to my bibliography, learned new ways conditionalists handle exegetical and theological problems, been brought up short a few times (the report cites my Hell on Trial frequently, usually favorably, but twice offers criticism), and appreciated the pastoral applications. I agree that the fundamentalist-conditionalist debate does not extend to matters of salvation." *...I appreciate this. But unforuantly I think you are rare in this. "Yet I do not agree that the fundamentalist -conditionalist debate should be regarded as "secondary," if that means a debatable matter as church government and eschatology are debatable. In my view conditionalism is a more serious error for three reasons." *...Oh dear. I guess I bragged on you too soon. "First, despite good intentions, the conditionalist exegesis of the key texts falls short. After studying the report's presentation of the key exegetical debates, my conviction that fundamentalist is the teaching of Scripture has been strengthened." *...Just as with the Evangelical book, "A Cause For Faith," that Evangelical author too came away beliving this. That is positions and explainations help shoot down any support in favor of conditionalism...but as a Conditionalist myself I concluded the complete opposite. "Second, conditionalism frequently leads to systemic error, adversely affecting other doctrines. So it is in the case of Edward Fudge, perhaps the conditionalist most cited in The Nature of Hell." *...Us conditionalists say the same of you fundamentalism. You believe your defense in support of hellfire is convincing..yet in your over confidence..you fail to see how your very belief that hell is eternal fire torment..you contridict the very basics that God is love. And you fail at resolving the question that if God has already deemed that a person can not be rehabilitated...then what is the point of conscious punishment? Is not the purpose of pushiment the hope for reform? Even when Saul or Tarsus was blinded ..this DID prove to be a punishment act that DID lead to paul reform and thus his salvation. What's the point or logic in keeping someone around forever if they can't learn from their errors and become reformed? "I fear that conditionalism might have a negative effect on evangelism and missions. If fundamentalism is correct, then conditionalism seriously underestimates the pains of hell" *...Oh gee! If we stop using scare tacticts in our sermons and simply rely on love then how can we scare people into coming back each week? "Indeed, the lost would rather be annihilated because their suffering would be over." *...His words there, not mine. D. A. Carson speaks a hard but necessary truth: "Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the "hard lines" of Scripture. And in this way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the gagging of God by silencing the severity of his warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his redeeming grace." *...Fear not. I don't think Southern Baptists or the extremists Jihads are in any near future danger fading away...not that is..unitll Judgement Day... Robert A. Peterson is professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. He is the author of Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (P&R) and, with Edward Fudge, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue (IVP). Related Elsewhere Be sure to read the related stories to this article, "Rightly Dividing the Hell Debate Advocates and Writings" and "Coming to Terms in the Hell Debate." The Evangelical Alliance's press release about its report is available on the organization's Web site. Media coverage of The Nature of Hell includes: Is there a Hell? Yes, experts say, and it's awful-The Age (Apr. 3, 2000) So Hell is a real place after all. Thank heavens for that.-The Independent (Apr. 3, 2000) Children 'should be told of hell' | Liberals twitch as evangelicals turn to fire and brimstone-The Guardian (Apr. 15, 2000) Unless Jesus Says Otherwise, Hell Exists, Asserts Evangelical Report | British group acknowledges differences on annihilationism, but says doctrine of hell must be preached again.-Christianity Today (Apr. 18, 2000) Hell Is There and "Occupied" | The UK's Evangelical Alliance reaffirms the reality of hell in a report to be published next week.-Religion News Service/Beliefnet British evangelicals emphasize Hell-Evangelical Press/B.C. Christian News (May 2000) Hell is back in business | Trends come and go, so don't be surprised when you hear the latest: Hades is hot, angels are not.-Salon.com (June 12, 2000 Read Robert A. Peterson's meditation on "Christ Our Kinsman-Redeemer." Previous Christianity Today articles on hell include: 'Hell Took a Body, and Discovered God' | One of the oldest and best Easter sermons, now 1,600 years old, is still preached today. (April 24, 2000) Unless Jesus Says Otherwise, Hell Exists, Asserts Evangelical Report | British group acknowledges differences on Annihilationism, but says doctrine of hell must be preached again. (April 18, 2000) Is Hell Forever? | Annihilationists anticipate one ultimate destiny for the wicked, an undifferentiated nonexistence. (Oct. 5, 1998) Can We Be Good Without Hell? | (June 16, 1997) October 23, 2000, Vol. 44, No. 12, Page 30

Oak: "I agree with this ,my union of churches is conservative , and the programs do cover the safe sex matter and STD prevention , basically , a church cannot do less than the educational program do in high school." I am very glad to hear this..cause I did not know if they did or not. But I am very glad to hear they do "Should I suggest there are more and more young people in conservative churches than in liberal churches..." Yes, yes! This IS precisley it. Something needs to be done about this! "Basically liberal churches are seen as "growing older and older" while conservative renew their members (picking young people from other churches for example..)" Yes and thus they are breeding the future generations of fundamentalists but only dressed more cool. "Why do you go to the "evangelical " church ? Because the music is good and i dislike the incense fragrance .." I LOVE the contemporary good sounding music of the mega contemporary Evangelical churches...but I surley do NOt love the sexism and "Left Behind" sermons. From what I have seen, and mind you I am purely speaking about what "I" have seen in 'MY' city, Ventura (Which our city's paper confirmed as by large red and NOT blue) is that all the people in the liberal/ Progressive churches here like Disciples of Christ Church and United Methodists are 50 to 90's. Infact, 'I' have NEVER seen a person my age, 35 or younger ever, and the little I have listened to these older liberals/progressive Christians and talked to them..they do not seem very excited/stoked about trying very hard to reach about to the contemporary youth culture. Yet, the most far right fundamental bracnhes of Evangelical protestant churches ARE and thus the youth culture is flocking to THEM and embracing EVERYTHING withOUT question. They looked up to these Fundamental youth pastors with awe. I have been talking to some of these young adults in the Christian Surfer's Associations. They are Fundamental and when I try and get their input on Progressive views...the Fundamental churches have convinced them that moderate and Progressive versions of Christianity are false. When i have spoken to Pastors and congeration members of liberal/Progressive churches in Ventura about this program they merely sigh and agree that it is a shame but they offer no suggestions on how to try and reverse this trend. You have to stop and realize that ALL Christian coffee houses, Christian Surf clubs, and basically all youth culture forms of Christianity are woned SOULEY by the Fundamentalists. Instead of sighing about this..the Progressive Christians need to actually DO something. It seems to me that everything the 60's Civil Rights movement fought for and everything that geberations youths fought against has been completely erased from the minds of todays youth thanks to the majority known as the Far Right or the fundamental collective churches.

I am also a Progressive Christian who does not support abortion. On the topic of gays....I once talked to this gay man who also considered himself Progressive Christian and he shared with me that his view was that God was not against people of the same sex being attracted to each other but rather came to the belief that God was against the act of anal sex..whether between two men or a str8 man and women and this is also the highest way AIDS is spread. I don't push my views off on anyone but I personally concure with this. I am a str8 gal who has two great gay guy friends and one is my my nephew. I asked them what they taught of this guy's idea and they said they agree. I have not completed by view on what i think of homosexuality. I think it does not work and is not fair to try and make gays be attracted to the opposite....but I think I agree with this one gay guy's view. The guy's said he was very concerned that liberal churches were not educating awareness on this topic and that he felt by them being silent on the topic that in a sense they were encouraging people's risk to get and spread AIDs. I don;t know..what do you think about this?

I tired the Ventura United Methodist church about 2 years ago Easter. They just started trying to have contemporary service. It was not good and the speaker was not good at speaking and they'd played off key. I tried the Ventura First christian Church and it was not as bad as UM..but it was not very good either. No, it is not because I think either of these are "Too" liberal for my tast. It's just the non-Progressive non-denominational Evangelical church of my friends and it's called Bible Fellowship Church and it is ran better. It has great contemporary music and their Pastor knows how to speak without boring people to death and he has a sense of humor...But again, this church while contemporary is NOT progressive and thus they do not share my social justice views. What I really wish is that their was a church with the music and good speaking style of Bible Fellowship Church but with United Methodist/ Disciples of Christ Progressive views on social justice. But the MU church and DOC church of Ventura is very boring. Their speakers are boring. If anyone knows of some good Progressive churches in Santa Barbara then maybe I'd check that out.

Hey everyone, PLEASE read my new thread connecting to this topic here about being "CONTEMPORARY & CULTURALLY RELEVANT." :)Thanks!

What I maily do is subscribe to a number of different christian newsletters in the mail. One I like is called, "Earth Letter", and it is ran by a collective group of eco-minded Progressive Christians in Seattle WA. Their group is called Earth Ministry and they write things about nature which Scriptures. The other is not a Progressive group, they are Evangelical, I guess but they have a newsletter called, "Wisdom & Power", and they are Abraham Faith church of God, also called Open Bible Church of Pomona. They are offically Progressive, however, they DO have female pastors, I hear, and they do not believe that Christ will burn up the earth one day, both of which I find agreeable. But..I feel that one of the main reasons that Progressive Christian churches are declining and Evangelical ones are growing more popular is that while Progressive churches are liberal in their social justices views..they seem by large to show very little interest at all in being culturally contemporary or trying to compete with the Evangelical churches "Seeker-Senstive" outreach programs. I wish I could chat about this with the United Methodist Church here in Ventura where i live or even Santa Barbara..but I feel that it would be a wast of time. I think the majority of congergation members are old liberals who those liberal like the old style and they really are not interested in trying to attract the youth..and so sadly, the 12 to age 35 crowds flock to the contemporary but very dangerously narrow-minded and fear-laced Evangelical churches. Their the youth learn to make Christianity hip and unboring..but they also slowly learned to be judgemental and to view as non-Fundamentalists as "Cults" that are doomed and unsaved.

I positively consider myself a Progressive Christian..but I don;t not belong to nor attend any church. I am 35 years old and I enjoy the beach culture. I also like and enjoy the sound of contemporary sounding Christian rock. The mega popular Evangelical churches offer good contemporary Christian rock and they are very good about being culturally relavent towards the youth cultures..such as surfers and all...However, as we as Progressives know....along with the great sounding contemporay Christian rock and the great speakers they have like Greg Laurie..the problem is you also get a a very fundamental right winged dash of old time sexism as well and a dash of oldtime hellfire or "Left behind" threats...all of which I reject. I have found United Methodists and Disciples of Christ church closest to matching my own social justice views...but I don;t care for their services because they are boring and they are not very into the contemporary sound. Another thing I find concerning with the Progressive Christian churches is like how I said they have no culturally relavent programs. For example there are no Progressive Christian Surfers groups,ect. I really wish Progresive churches would make more of an effort to become cultually relavent and contemporary in nature. What do you think?

For myself..terms such as "Traditional" and "orthodox" don;t mean anything to ME. I think a major reason why this is...is because I have heard these terms spoken by Fundamentalists Christians towards Progressive and Liberal Christians to try and show them how offtrack THEY thought/THINK all of us progressives were/ARE. I am a big believer and supporter of Melton Gorden and Timothy Miller's who promote the concept of all non-dangerous alternative faith groups being called just that...="Alternative Faith Groups." This concept or approuch contrasting to the Fundamental Protestants' position of simply tagging 'ALL" non-Evangelical Protetsnats "CULTS." In light of this, as a Progressive Christian who happens to be Ex-JW (raised that way) i find I have ALOT in commom with ALL Ex-fundamental religious members who are now either progressive or even liberal. I CAN totally understand why SO many having been raised in past fundamental churches have to seek help for depression. I mean after all, 'if' one's form of Christianity is fundamental in nature rather than progressive than rather than beliving in the conditional interpretation of hell as simply meaning death...most Fundamental protestnats teach that if you don't agree with the Fundamental Protestant view on the Bible then you are going to a literal place of hellfire torment forever. if you were JW..then hellfire is replaced with the threat of simply dieing at armageddon and NEVER being resurrected... So yeah, that WOULD cause reason for help. So tell me, were you raised in the Abraham Faith Church of God? Just curious...