BeachOfEden

Cool! I have been waiting along time to find a pro-conditionalist writter! thanks for letting us know! I will check out your link!

Well, that IS why I invented a middle way term that I called Divintarian. 1. Unitarian means that one views jesus as NOT God..but not anything more than just a good man and prophet 3. Trintarian means Jesus IS God... But, as you pointed out the problem is this only leaves you with '2' choices and NOTHINg to choose inbetween. That IS WHY I invented the 2nd view to fit inbetween the far left and far right... 2. Divitarian+ Jesus is NOT God but IS MORE than just a good man and prophet. Jesus is NOT the Incarnation of God...but rather Jesus is the highest reflection of what God's personality.

Well, there's some really great books out there to help with this. 1. "Ten Wrong Things I Learned From a Conservative church," Written by someone who is NOW a Progresive Presbyterian pastor who used to be a Southern Baptist Preacher. 2. When God Becomes A Drug," By Leo Both who is now a Progressive Esiscopalian pastor and used to be a fundamental catholic Priest. This would be a great start!

And also agree that God did not/does not make rules just to boss people around and that there are always good reasons..just like the traffiuc laws we have out on the roads.

Ok this is a very good question, C wrote: "I admire this article. I think it shows some really balanced, sound thinking. However, it doesn't adequately address the fact that there are men who choose to express sexual intimacy, as well as partnership, with members of the same sex only. "Gentle" male/male interactions would not satisfy the need for intimacy that penetration may indeed provide," Ok as a women this is something I have always wanted to know. You know, guys, how you can't tell when women are using their PMS as an excuse for a foul mood or if they really can't help it? And you wonder this cause as a guy you never experinced PMS so you can't tell if they are lieing or not? Well as a gal this is how I feel likewise with this pentration sex only issue with men. I am not a guy so i don't know..so guys, what if the truth with this penatrational sex thing? Is non-pentrational sex just as sastifiying and when guys say it aint is it all in there head? (sorry if that sounded dirty..) Like the deal with condoms? G0y guys? What's your view on this? "and if we also hold to the rule of monogamy and committed relationships of depth and duration, may not be practical, however reasonable, in a long term, committed gay relationship. There is also, lurking in this article, a sense of penetration itself, even among heterosexuals, as being an act of power and therefore somewhat demeaning to the penetrated." Well, intrecourse sex may be the source of being fruitful and having kids..but... #1. If you are straight women who likes men but does not want kids...intercourse-ONLY ideas on sex is a sure way to risk having them whether you want them or NOT...and this IS an issue with many religions..including my own JW background i came from..and Catholics and Mormons may also relate to this... #2. If you are a gay men and you DO have this idea that pentrational sex is THEE only most satifiying sex..then yes, I concure with Mike, the G0y guy that then you will constantly being putting your life at risk for either AIDS or hep B or C and his FACTS medically verify this. This is not an uncommon attitude, even among heterosexuals, but I think its a warped one. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of the very real power in sexual energy (a power that I understand as being "seated" within the same centre as our basic spiritual energy vis a vis the chakra system.) and, indeed, all of our so-called primal instincts. These powers are no more inherently evil than they are good, but Love or the lack of it, that makes them so... All in all though, I think the article makes excellent points. It is a fact that unbridled sexual license does have consequences. Even women who are promiscuous early in life are at greater risk of cervical cancers, miscarriages and even sterility, (not to even mention unwanted pregnancies) and these facts Speak. Welcome to the group Neutral, lily FredP Yesterday, 12:42 PM Post #57 Group: Members Posts: 375 Joined: 22-March 05 From: Chicago Area, IL Member No.: 322 QUOTE(cunninglily @ Sep 15 2005, 11:30 AM) There is also, lurking in this article, a sense of penetration itself, even among heterosexuals, as being an act of power and therefore somewhat demeaning to the penetrated. This is not an uncommon attitude, even among heterosexuals, but I think its a warped one. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of the very real power in sexual energy (a power that I understand as being "seated" within the same centre as our basic spiritual energy vis a vis the chakra system.) and, indeed, all of our so-called primal instincts. These powers are no more inherently evil than they are good, but Love or the lack of it, that makes them so... Exactly. I think this was the idea behind some of the radical feminism of the 60's and 70's -- that all heterosexual sex is, by definition, rape. It's a rather unsettling conclusion, that the only way biological life can procreate is by organisms raping each other. Doubtless, many early humans wouldn't have had what we'd call today love and affection for one another; but it's anachronistic to blame our ancestors for not having the benefit of our biological, cultural, and spiritual evolution. Anyway, yes, sexual energy is enormously powerful, and can be very destructive if not protected by the shelter of Love. But in complete love and trust, the sharing of this energy, this power that destroys the boundary between Self and Other for just a moment, brings us about as close to God as one can be in this mode of existence. -------------------- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin des Yesterday, 11:20 PM Post #58 Group: Members Posts: 631 Joined: 8-January 05 From: New Mexico Member No.: 273 Thanks for your clarifications, Mike. I think what you are promoting is actually more a healthy lifestyle than so much the position. I know the emphasis is there but what you want is love in a sexual context. There's a lot to be said for that!! I am agnostic on what role position has to do with it, but am happy to hear your point of view. Oh yeah, and welcome to the group, Mike!! Fred, your comments on the promiciousness of 'gay culture" has been alternative to feeling outcast are prob. dead on. I can't speak from any kind of experience. It gets to be role playing more than anything. >Des, ideally churches wouldn't look too fondly on sexual activity outside of a committed relationship, but I'm guessing there's probably a lot of temptation for churches who are trying to be gay-friendly, to be a little lax on that requirement. But you're definitely right Afaik, there is no "requirements" at all. (For heterosexuals either, as far as that goes). In fact, pretty much no church asks about the fidelty of their hetereosexual members, only about the sexual activity of their gay members. It sure is a double standard. But for my own church, which is UCC, all the people that have joined lately, that were gay, were part of loving monogamous relationships. In fact the thing that would strike one is that aside from being gay they are so normal and healthy (at least from out here :-)). This was true in the other UCC church i belong to in Chicago-- as far as I recall. And that was in the heart of "boy's town". >that, to be consistent, churches really have to treat promiscuity, infidelity, inequity, and "serial monogamy" (not divorce per se, but a lack of respect for the seriousness of the relationship bond) as being just as immoral for heterosexuals as homosexuals. It's a horrible double-standard. Let's worry about promiscuity, infidelity, and child abuse in homosexual and heterosexual families, and when those problems are resolved, then Well we don't get any sermons on it-- so far anyways. But the last pastor was canned due to having an affair with a member. That's pretty serious. The church is active in organizations that deal with poverty, child abuse and neglect and spousal abuse in a social action standpoint. >we'll get down to worrying about whether gays should marry or be allowed to raise children. I'm not worried about it at all. There are more things to worry about with child poverty, children having babies, etc. I think the Religious Right has used it as a wedge issue (and to cynically get people out to vote-- the whole thing on Bush's agenda prob. came from Rove) than anything. --des

Hi NeutralThought, I am the person who wrote this. I have two best friends since childhood who are both gay guys. Would you write to me? Also maybe you can also write to one of these friends of mine as well. This is my e-mail: Jahpslam68_4@hotmail.com Thanks! BeachOfEden

Finally people are seeing where I have been coming from. Does it really make sense that on a site created FOR Progressive Christians that one should be subject to being tisk-tasked for voicing their disagreements with conservatives? How is THIS progressive in nature? If I wanted this I'd visit a pro-conservative forum on Beliefnet.

"Ok, how about perhaps a distinction that isn't so judgmental, and might be a little closer to reality." See this is what I don;t like. You can not even voice your disaprovel of the right without getting a lecture.

Pat Robertson's Evangelical Protestantsim=Protestant Jihad Bob Allen, managing editor of EthicsDaily.com. 08-24-05 Religious leaders on Tuesday denounced religious broadcaster Pat Robertson for saying United States operatives should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Monday's "700 Club" broadcast on the Christian Broadcasting Network profiled the socialist president of the oil-rich Latin American nation, comparing him to Fidel Castro. BeachOfEden: I think it should be called the 666 Club instead or Maybe "The Section 8 Club," What do you thinK? Chavez has accused the United States of trying to assassinate him and predicted that if it happened Venezuela, the world's fifth largest oil producer, would stop exporting 1.3 million barrels a day to the U.S. and send them elsewhere.Robertson said Chavez has "has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent." This is the excellent quote of the week! "Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics said Robertson "illustrates what happens when fundamentalist Christians ignore the social teachings of Jesus and use their religious platforms to advance naked aggression against others—they sound like their ideological kinsmen within Islamic fundamentalism." Bob Edgar of the National Council of Churches called Robertson's call to murder a foreign leader "appalling to the point of disbelief." "It defies logic that a clergyman could so casually dismiss thousands of years of Judeo-Christian law, including the commandment that we are not to kill," Edgar said. "It defies logic that this so-called evangelist is using his media power not to win people to faith but to encourage them to support the murder of a foreign leader." Edgar, a former six-term congressman, was one of 12 members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1976 to 1979. Lynn said President Bush should "immediately disavow Robertson and his extremist rhetoric." Robertson ran for president in 1988 with the support of many leaders in the religious right. Jimmy Draper, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention who now heads LifeWay Christian Resources, hosted a reception for then-candidate Robertson at the SBC annual meeting in 1987. And this is a GREAT comment too! "Regrettably, the Republican Party has validated Robertson’s legitimacy over so many years that he and other members of the religious right are seen as theological representatives of the White House," Parham said. That "diminishes the global perception of the goodness and common sense of the American people." After his failed presidential bid, Robertson started the Christian Coalition, a grassroots religious right organization that today claims 1.2 million members. Pat Robertson History of Hateful ###### Remarks: SEXISM, HATE TOWARDS GAYS, & PROMOTION OF A VENGFUL GOD CONCEPT "Two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell’s statement blaming liberals, feminists, abortionist and gays for making America vulnerable by removing God from the public square." ON SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE “We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God’s eye and said we’re going to legislate you out of the schools,” Robertson said. “We’re going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We’re not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We’re not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say, ‘Why does this happen?’ Well, why it’s happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.” EVEN BUSH IS NOT EXTREME ENOUGH FOR ROBERTSON!?! In 2003 he said someone should use a nuclear device to blow up the U.S. State Department. He once urged supporters to pray that God would move three justices on the Supreme Court to retire. He accused the Bush administration of removing a Christian president in Liberia and replacing him with Islamic insurgents. This spring he said "activist" judges are a greater threat to America than terrorists. HATE TOWARDS GAYS..AGAIN He described homosexuals as "self-absorbed narcissists who are willing to destroy any institution so long as they can have an affirmation of their lifestyle,"-... PAT CAN'T SEE HE IS THE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT VERSION OF JIHAD! "Islam teaches violence "at its core." Look who's talking! ROBERTSON- A SPOKEMAN FOR EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS? Prescott, executive director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, said Robertson "and other extremists have hijacked our faith and they are destroying the credibility of the gospel in the eyes of the world." "There ought to be some way to distinguish Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus from those who wear the label while ignoring the teachings of Christ and defaming the name of Jesus--particularly when they literally advocate violence on a broadcast beamed around the world," Prescott said. BeachOfEden: There IS. We call ourselves Progressive Christians. Venezuela's vice president on Tuesday accused Robertson of making "terrorist statements" and suggested how Washington responds to Robertson's comments would put its anti-terrorism policy to the test.

Let us examine The 8 Points of Christianity... The 8 Points Original Version Print Version requires Adobe Acrobat By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who: 1. Proclaim Jesus Christ as our Gate to the realm of God I see this as focusing on Jesus as the gateway to God instead of claiming WE have the copy rights to God. 2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the gateway to God's realm. Now, here is a good example when a Progressive challenge is made. As a Progressive Christian I have no problem with others who may call God Great Spirit or Brhama (Hindu)..or say a Hare Krishna calls Christ Krishna..Now, as a conservative Christian would they be able to say the same? 3. Understand our sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of God's feast for all peoples Ok..what about the conservative Catholic who may view that only devote catholics should partake in this? 4. Invite all sorts and conditions of people to join in our worship and in our common life as full partners, including (but not limited to): believers and agnostics, Would a conservative view us Progressives as even "believers"? Could they tolerate agnostics? conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, define the word "conventional". What does it mean? Progressive Christianity allows and even encourage all to question..can they same be said of Conservative Christians? Can you question Bush without being called UnAmerican? Can you follow other paths along with Christianity like New thought or Native American or Bahia or UU without being called a cult? Can you question the doctrine of the trinity withOUT being called UnChristian? homosexuals and heterosexuals, Can conservative christians tolerate gays being present withOUT lecturing them on 'their' interpretations on the Bible and homosexuality? females and males, Can conservative Christians stand the fact that Progressives allow women to serve equally as pastors..Can they AVOID spouting sexist interpretations of the Bible here? the despairing and the hopeful, those of all races and cultures, and those of all classes and abilities, without imposing on them the necessity of becoming like us; "Can conservative Christians AVOID telling others how 'they' believe they can get to heaven or avoid hell? and telling others that their views are "Unorthodox"? 5. Think that the way we treat one another and other people is more important than the way we express our beliefs; Can this point here, #5 EVER be agreed by a conservative Christian??? 6. Find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers; And the very same question for this point, #6? 7. See ourselves as a spiritual community in which we discover the resources required for our work in the world: striving for justice and peace among all people; bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers; 8. Recognize that our faith entails costly discipleship, renunciation of privilege, and conscientious resistance to evil--as has always been the tradition of the church. These are the basics of this site's vision. Again, the 'basics.' The question is: CAN conservatives honor each and every one of these 8 points? PS. Another issue to examine. Fundamental Christianities and fundamental religions are based on Exclusiveness..while Progressive christianity is based on the opposite. However, many here have sugested extending Inclusiveness towards those who are ANTI-inclusive..So how would this work? How to do innerfaith with those who do not wish to inneract with you...unless...to simply debate with you and try and force you into agreeing with them? How would this be productive at all? To be Inclusive towards those who are Exclusive?

"Beach, I know that it is very hard to understand others at times, but I would really like to understand the root cause of why you feel we need a board just for ‘conservatives’. How big of a problem is this for ‘non-progressives’ to be posting on any of the boards? What are they doing that is so awful that we can’t handle" I simply do not enjoy or find it helpful or inspiring to talk with or listening to the view points from individuals who's faith is NOT Progressive in nature. I do not like or find it helpful to hear a conservative Catholic or Protestant give explainations to why their church interpretates the Bible in a sexist way. I do not care to hear their interpretations on why they think the Bible tells them that they are saved and everyone else is not and things of this sort "Again, I want to be sure that we are clear on this, who is going to decide who is a progressive and who is not" Each individual simply reads and affirms the basic 8 points. If they can't simply do this..then they should not be here...because obviously they are not agreemtn with this site's objective and purpose. " I have no problem with there being rules in place, for the benefit of creating a place of honest discussion, but I do have a problem with rules that ban certain views." Then you would positvely a problem with Fundamental and Conservative forums. That is why this forum should be the alternative to that. "Who’s view is the right one on here?" Again, it's all about agreeing to the basic 8 points. "What happens when one of us ‘progressives’ offends someone and now we are considered to be a ‘conservative’?" Would a Progressive go against ANY of these 8 points? If they DID how could they be Progressive? "Remember what the Fundamentalist want: to separate. Their desire is to separate themselves from the ‘godless world’ so that they wont be tainted. But they also don’t want to be challenged. Lets not become fundamentalist Progressives. " Do YOU WANT to innerfaith with people who DON'T WANT YOU? Do you want to innerfaith with people who would view your 'progressive' views as "NOT Truely christian"? Do YOU WANT to be told you are going to hell if you do not dare agree with 'their' interpretations of Scriptures?That is the question that you and every Progressive Christian here should seriously be asking themselves.... I myself can answer this question without hesitation with a postive NO. Like Des, who has had to endure the Jerry Felwell ways of her fundamental Campus Crusade For Christ an Ex-Christian Science family member..I have also been there and done that and no, 'I' personally don't care to go there again. But 'I' am NOT the majority and if for some reason the majority here decide they shall like and WANT conservatives here to freely dialog on EVERY board here..then most likely that what will happen.

The Trouble With Islam Today: A Wake-Up Call For Honesty & Changed A Message From A Progressive Muslim From Irshad Manji Time magazine, July 15th After giving a speech about Islam, I met this young magazine editor to talk about Islam's lost tradtion of critical thinking and reasoned debate. But we never got to that topic. She emphasized the London bombers "relative eco-nomic deprivation." I answered that the lads had immigrated perents who had worked hard to make something of themselves. I reminded her that several of the 9/11 hijackers came from weathy families, and it is not as if they left the boys out of the will. Finally, I told her about my conversation three years ago with the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. "What's the difference between suicade, which the Koran condemns, and martyrodom?" I asked. "Suicide," he replied, "is done out of despair. But remember: most of our martyers today were very successful in their earthly lives." In short, there was a future to live for-and they detonated it anyway. By this time, the oxford student had grown somber. It was clear I had let her down. i had failed to appreciate that the London bombers were victims of British society. To be fair, she is right that the marginalization, real or preceived, diminishes self-estee. Which, in turn, can make young people vulunerable to those peddling a radical message of instant belonging. But suppose the message being peddled are marinated in religious rhetoric. Then wouldn't you say religion plays some role in motivating these atrocities? The student shifted uncomfortably. She just couldn't bring herself to examine my suggestion seriously. And I suppose I couldn't expect her to. Not when Muslim leaders themselves won't go there. Iqbal Sacranie, a secretary-general for Muslim Council of Britain, is an example. In the midst of a debate with me, he listed potential incentivies to bomb, including "alienation" and "segregation". But Islam? God forbid that the possibility even be entertained. That is the dangerous denial from which mainstream Muslims need to emerge. While our spokesman assures us that Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism, those who commit terrorist acts often tell us otherwise. Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, left behind a note asserting that "it is enough for us to know that the Koran's verses are the words of the Creator of the Earth and all the planets." Atta highlighted the Koran's discription of heaven. In 2004 the executioners of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq, alluded on tape to a different Koranic passage: "Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind." The spirit of that verse forbids aggressive warfare, but the clause beginning with except is readily deployed by militant Muslims as a loophole. If you want murder and villainy in the land, they say, look no further than U.S. bootprints in Arab soil. For too long, we Muslims have been sticking our fingers in our ears and chanting "Islam means peace" to drown out the negative noise from our holy book. Far better to own up to it. Not erase or reverse, just recognize it and thereby join moderate Jews and Christians in confessing "sins of Scriptures," as an American bishop says about the Bible. In doing so, Muslims would show a thoughtful side that builds trust with the wider communities of the West. We could then cultivate the support to inspire cross-cultural understanding. For instance, schools throughout the West should teach how Islamic civilizations helped give birth to the European Renaissance. Some of the first universities in recorded history sprang up in 3rd century Iran, 9th century Bagdad and 10th century Cairo. The Muslim would gave us mocha coffee, the guitar and even Spanish expression ole! (which has its root in the Arabic word Allah). Muslim students would learn there is no shame in defending the values of pluralism. Non-Muslim students would learn that those values too great inspiration from Islamic culture. All would learn that Islam and the West are more interdependent than divided. Still, as long as Muslims live in pretense, we will be affirming that we have something to hide. It's not enough for us to protest that radicals are exploiting Islam as a sword. Of course they are. Now, mo0derate Muslims must stop exploiting Islam as a shield-one that protects us from authentic introspection and our neighbors from genuine understanding.

Are non-Progressives to post on the debate baord only,then? if so, that they must aat least stick to one board and NOT this one..then I would settle for that.

(A) They are Baptists? ( They live In Texas? © They voted for Bush? (D) All of the above?

So if there is to be no conservative/Progressive forum then is the answer that simply the Debate board would act as this then? If so, that is..that the conservatives CAn and are welcomed to go on the Debate board and NOT this regular one..then I will simply stay on THIS forum and choose never to go on the Debate forum then.

Funeral Met With Hate Gay Campain By Extremist Baptist POSTED: 6:37 pm CDT August 5, 2005 UPDATED: 7:26 pm CDT August 5, 2005 CHICAGO -- The final farewell for a young soldier in Northwest Indiana mixed a respectful funeral with a protest by a Baptist church group from Kansas. Spc. Adam Harding was laid to rest in Portage, Ind. His family and dozens of friends and neighbors attended the service, but they were interrupted by a Baptist group who traveled from Kansas to protest the ceremony. NBC5's Phil Rogers said that he was, in fact, reporting two stories: one of a young American killed in the line of duty, and another of that man's memorial service colliding with a church. To the dozens gathered to pay their last respects Friday, Adam Harding was hailed as the best America can offer. "Spc. Harding was first, foremost, and always a soldier," a military spokesman said at the funeral. He died July 25, when his convoy encountered a roadside bomb. His friend Dustin Dunkle, also serving in Iraq, knows it could have been him. I don't know what it's going to be like going back without him," Dunkle said, "with him not being there." And across the street from the solemn service, a message of horror and hate unfolded as mourners gathered. "If God loves this country, can he not curse this country?" shouted Jonathan Phelps, spokesman for the Westboro Baptist Church group, consisting Friday of about 10 picketers. The group's Web site hails the London bombings and states that the group wishes that the explosions could have been worse. They specialize in crashing the funerals of American soldiers. "God is their terrorist," Phelps said. "They've turned the country over to the fags. They're coming home in body bags." The group contends that dead soldiers are God's revenge for America's tolerance of homosexuality. "Hasn't this family suffered enough without you showing up at the funeral of their dead son?" Rogers asked Phelps. "This is not about them grieving. This is about them beating their chest in pride about this filthy United States of America," Phelps replied. All of Portage seemed to differ in their opinion of Friday's ceremony. Harding was hailed as his hometown's hero and the town was festooned with American flags. He was presented on Friday with the Army's Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. As is tradition, the soldier's grieving parents were presented with the flag of a grateful nation as hundreds turned out to prove the protesters wrong. "I don't agree with it," one woman said, holding up the top of a cooler on which she had written, "My God Loves Everyone."

In the relm of of fundamental Christian thought I have found '2' extreme views regarding salvation. One is the Protestant Fundamental Born Again theory of "Once Saved Always Saved." The other is like JW and Boston Church of Christ and Mormon..in which who get baptized but after this you are constantly warned to keep validating your salvation by preforming "works"/evangelicalizing..and they quote the Scripture of "Faith without works is dead." So what is your take on all this? We have two extreme fundamental views...one in which you are saved and you can be the biggest haughty jackass and it doesn't matter cause once saved always saved..and then the other extreme where you must constantly forever keep earbing the validation of your salvation by feeling forced to evangelize.

"I don't see Him as Savior from a literal hell, but as showing us a way of salvation from self-centeredness. I think He saves us TO God, not FROM God. "I don't see His blood as having some kind of magic power that somehow appeases God's wrath against sin. God forgives sin because He is a forgiving God. To think that blood is required is, to me, according to the Law, not according to God's grace. " I agree with you on this 100!

What about this..what if the debate forum name was changed to "Progressive& Conservative Dialog"? That way those from each camp could discusss differing view points freely and no one from either side is taken off gaurd as to what type of debate or topic type forum it is? The title, "Conservative" is not offensive as "Fundamental" would be..and those from the Progressive AND Conservative camps who enjoy a good challenge to their viewpoints could enjoy innerfaith dialog. It is a more precise discription of what the "debate" is about and both Progressives AND Conservatives could BOTH feel equally welcomed. With the title of the forum SO precise like this..then Progressives who do NOT wish to inferfaith dialog with those of a more conservative view point could simply stick to the regular Progressive Christian forum instead.

Thanks monica, You have always been great to me here. I will in the near future the unfriendly vibes here will cease. Hopefully those of a more non-Progressive nature with post on the debate forum instead of just the regular Prog forum. Thanks again:)

So like you believe in viewing Jesus as Savior and that you don;t not have to connect the atonement theory to it? Ok, I see what you are saying. I agree with your thought about the morbidness of God demanding blood.

"Beach,Your hostile comments, apparently directed toward Cunning Lilly are over the top and entirely out of line. I think you need to do a little soul-searching and apologizing.That sort of juvenile verbal mud-slinging has no place here or anywhere for that matter, except perhaps the couch at your therapist's office." Dear John, kiss my ass. I am NOT holding the actual creators of TCPC responsible for you people's UnProgressive behavior. Des I hold in high regard. And Ath, being a Progressive XJW I would expect better not to join in on Fred's Fundamental Catholic band wagon. I am resigning from these forums because I don't like the fundamental right turn innerfaith this forum has taken...and again i do not and will not connect the negativity of this forum with the actual creators of TCPC or it's newsletter and I want THEM to know that. I no longer feel free to talk here...so instead I be talking my thoughts on all this to Myspace's Progressive and Liberal Christian forums where they do screened fundies out and where Progressives CAN talk freely withOUT being lectured by the far right.

I am NOt the one who posted the thing about Hilter and I really have no idea what that poster's comments meant. cunninglily Yesterday, 11:34 PM Post #18 Group: Members Posts: 175 Joined: 18-March 05 From: Lafayette, Louisiana Member No.: 319 QUOTE(BeachOfEden @ Jul 26 2005, 06:01 PM) Like I said on the other post i am uncertain of the present feel here..but I wanted to express this and in the mean time I am going to address this issue on the Progressive Christian and Liberal Christian forums on MySpace. Cunn: "I, personally, do wish that you would take this somewhere else. It's getting tiresome and productive of nothing. Several of us: myself, Peacemover, Fred, Aletheia, Xian, Cynthia, darby have all already told you quite clearly that we wish to keep the forum operating as it is. You seem now to be operating in your own best interests and not in the interests of the group and seem hell-bent on scapegoating Fred to boot. For the sake of your own comfort and security Beach, you are making everyone else uncomfortable and jeapordizing the security of the group. Please. Just stop." Translation? Clear as a bell, Cunn..in other words get F---- outta here! I shall leave here as you have demanded.

If I may be straight forward with all..that mentality that Fred has been displaying here towards me does NOT reflect the mentality of the actual theme that TCPC displays itself such as in it's printed newsletters that i recieve in the mail. For example, if Fred found my opinions here offensive that I can not see where he would not be equally offended on what TCPC wrote themselves in their own newsletter about 'they' beliving that Billy Graham being a stumbling block to progressive Christianity. If you take this Billy Graham article, for example, I read it and did NOT take offense..but then again I am not a Christian fundamentalist so why would I? When individuals from TCPC or the Progressive forum on Beliefnet express their their disagreement with either the fundamental natures displayed by Protestant fundamentalist, Catholic ones, JWs or Christian science I do NOT take offense. Again why would I? When Des shared her annoyance with her preivious CS fundamental upbring I did not get my ass in the air about it. Why would I? I enjoy hering her issues with them. And I feel if someone can;t handle a person expressing their grienvinces with fundamental faith groups,,be they Protestant, Catholic or other..then they should not be here..rather than attacking us. Like I said on the other post i am uncertain of the present feel here..but I wanted to express this and in the mean time I am going to address this issue on the Progressive Christian and Liberal Christian forums on MySpace.

"But, in addition to exercise, one needs rest. Progressives need a supportive environment where we need not constantly defend our positions. I think that the original poster was feeling that her refuge was being taken away from her. Yes we all need to be challenged, but not all the time. Not all conversation should be debate." THANK YOU I feel we already have had to deal with CONSTANTLY defending our Progressive views when dealing with our conservative family members..It does not seem fair that we feel we HAVE to defend our Progressive views here or on ANY Progressive or Liberal themed site. I am going to address this issue on my own Progressive Christianities site on MySpace as well as the other Prog and Lib sites on Myspace.