BeachOfEden

"I BEG you all to put this wonderful info in your PROFILES if you have not already! It really helps people get to know each other and feel more a part of this excellent little community if you share some basic info there - where you are from, your birthday (it appears on the main page on the big day so we get to wish you a happy birthday), your interests, etc. Do it now! On the top of the page, click on "my controls" and then on "edit profile.".." Yes, please, everyone fill out your profiles. When I first joined here and filled my out I noted that hardly anyone else took the time to fill out the profiles.

But in a pivotal scene, Obi-Wan says what amounts to the same thing: “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” Again, is this not Lucas' way of making a statement that only extremists claim to have "All 'The Truth'"?

Yeah, I read your blog and I liked it alot. This Card guy seems to resent the idea that Anakin could do bad things and then do a good act in Return of the Jedi, saving Luke, his son, and then at the end of Jedi we see Anakin has gained immortality long side OB1 and Yoda. But as I said there are many characters in the Bible who did terrible things and yet were redeemed in the end such King David and the Impulsive apostle Peter and Paul of Tarsus. But why begrudge a person turning to the Light side? The very idea of begrudging someone's truning their life around is not Christian. The moral of these stories is...the harder it is for a person to redeem themselves...the better it makes a person later. Maybe if Peter did not have to work so hard to not be impulsive then he would not make the more sympthathelic Saint he would become later.

"Well I might disagree slightly (re: Comrade) that SW is *only* a movie (well it is only a movie but as a movie it is an art form-- and art usually is beyond just a simple entertainment value, which I think the whole idea is)." I agree. Was the Beatles JUST a band? "Card makes interesting points considering the hx of Christianity (ie the Jedi are an elitist group, etc. Seems there were a lot of such warrior groups in the hx of Christianity, like the Knights templar. Current administration in Washington propose a elitist (ie US born) group of trained warriors (US military) to go out and convert savage and evil governments to our side thru the use of bombing and if necessary on the ground fighting. Actually sounds *conservative* to me, or rather "neocon". " The Current Bush administration are actually like the Dark Jedis because Bush and his far right Empire do not want Evangelical Protestantism to merely blend WITH the American government, (which, in itself, is bad enough...) but they actually want Evangelical Protestantism and the American government to be ONE. Just like how Emperor Palatine does not want to merely merg his Dark Jedi views WITH the senete. Rather he wants his dark Jedi beliefs to BE the government, the Empire. "Sort of like the Southern Baptist. HIGHLY democratic??? Or JW, not exactly highly democratic either." Precisely. I never forget many years ago reading a quote in a JW watchtower where the JW org actually not only admitted but BRAGGGED that they are "NOT a democracy." They are NOT a democratic Order, They are a Theocratic Order, as they discribe it. They explain this as meaning, "God ruled," But it's really Man-ruled. "As we learned at the end of Return of the Jedi, even the most dark-side-serving of ex-Jedi mass murderers can, with a single “good” act like refusing to murder his own son (which even the most evil men generally avoid), earn the right to eternal life as the equal of true saints like Yoda." What of Saul of Tarsus? He murded MANY Christians, thinking he was serving the True God of Abraham and maybe the Roman Empire? Yet, like Anakin, Paul was punished for his acts. Just as Anakin turned into Darth Vader and defromed by the fire and had to wear this iron lung untill he was an old man, and worse yet, trade his beautiful wife, Padme for the evil, wrinkled Emperor...so too...Paul was blinded for a while before he was knighted Saint and what about in the Old Testament in which King David not only aranged to have sex with of of his own army officer's wife..but then to cover it up..he purposely send the women's husband to the front line in war so that he is killed..and yet later he is blessed by God and it is through His blood line that Anoited One come to be? But again, David had to pay the price of dealing with his own hell... Card's complaint against the older Vader turned back to Anakin saving his son, Luke's life, and killing the evil Emperor in Return of the Jedi ..and thus saving his eternal soul is therefore is an invalid complaint. "Or the sort of justice where a person can "earn" eternal life in heaven even after mass murder by professing Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, while those who have lived lives of great virtue but have not done so (ie the Dali Lami, Gandhi, etc) will go straight to hell and live in eternal damnation?? At least we know the Jedis are a fictional group. :-)" Yeah, well, that's not really Christianity or God but rather the far right extremists they were like to call Fundamental Christians..and 'their' twisted 'version' of what 'they' think Christianity is. This is like the Dark Jedis. "As a religion, the Force is just the sort of thing you’d expect a liberal-minded teenage kid to invent. There’s no God and there are no rules other than a vague insistence on unselfishness and oath-keeping." Oh yeah, blame it on liberals. :-) Well, some people DO see religion like that, or maybe they make it like that..but that's not God's problem.

For some reason, the Southern Baptist have b@tch with Star Wars..just as they have a problem with women, dancing, and the like...and everything not created by the SB.

Yeah, I read this in the paper too, and I don;t like this Card guy either. He simply sounds like a Southern Baptist Lite to me. No Faith in This Force "Memo to would-be Jedis: in the new movie, the knights are elitist, dictatorial, and unconvinced that good is an absolute." "showing of Revenge of the Sith on its opening day. Many had obviously memorized all the howlingly bad lines. They began laughing out loud just before the line was said, and applauded at the wretched “emotional” moments in the movie." He critisining of the movie is over-the-top. The only lines in the movie that are very good are the ones between Anakin and Padme..but the Emperor has some of the best lines in the movie and I like the dialog between Anakin and Ob1. "But then, walking out of the theater, they fiercely defended the movie against anyone who dared to speak against it." Yes, we know that and no I don't relate. I felt Star wars episode 1 sucked and I don;t have a problem saying it. I felt II was a little better and I think Revenge of the Sith was really good. "Some fans are so loyal they have even adopted “Jedi” as their official religion on census reports and The Force as their equivalent of a “personal savior.”.." We also know this and yes, it may seem a bit much..but then again the Jedi religion on planet earth looks very sane when compared to the pink haired Pentacostal clown lady on TBN. "In a way, this is kind of bittersweet. It shows that the universal hunger for meaning is still prevalent, even in our agnostic era, which is encouraging; but these true believers will eventually realize that the philosophy behind Star Wars is every bit as sophisticated as the science — in other words, mostly wrong and always silly." Would this person not say the very same thing of Progressive Christianity? Yet, they can not see how WRONG and silly we see their TBN circul style Evangelicalism..complete with circus ten, ring leaders and clowns for Christ. Why does Christ 'NEED" clowns, anyways??? "It’s one thing to put your faith in a religion founded by a real person who claimed divine revelation, but it’s something else entirely to have, as the scripture of your religion, a storyline that you know was made up by a very nonprophetic human being. " You mean like George Bush or a spokesman for the Southern Baptist convention? How Does the Force Stack Up As a Religion? "As a religion, the Force is just the sort of thing you’d expect a liberal-minded teenage kid to invent. There’s no God and there are no rules other than a vague insistence on unselfishness and oath-keeping. Power comes from the sum of all life in the universe, and it is manichaean, not Christian — evil is simply another way of using the Force. Only not as nice." Again, is this not what the far right claims our Progressive Christianity is? That WE are the spiritual junkfood? The Christian answer to Tweenkies? Have the ulta-Evangelical Fundamental Christians ever stopped to consider that's how WE see THEM? That We think 'their' version of Christianity does not makes sense and infact contridicts itself? "Good and evil are in a constant and nearly equipoised tug-of-war in the Star Wars series. But in the more recent movies, it seems that the goal of good people is not to wipe out evil, but rather for there to be a balance between the Light and Dark sides of the Force." Well, the Evangelicals think if they side with the Jews in the Middle East then they CAN cause Jesus to come back and fullfill all the prophecies...Is this not trying to balance out good and evil? Is it not silly to think that humans can do certain things to force Jesus to come here through there own foolish attempts and screwing around in politics? "The new movie itself asserts a kind of equivalence. When the evil Palpatine says, “Good is a point of view--the Sith and the Jedi are almost the same,” we can dismiss this moral relativism as part of the deception of the dark side." Is not one's man meat another man's posion? Bush 'thinks' he's good and that Holy Spirit is with him. But in a pivotal scene, Obi-Wan says what amounts to the same thing: “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” This most likely, is a piece of George Lucas coming out and saying that no person has "All the truth." And those who claim they HAVE aquired it...must have lost it completely. In otherwords, only extremists claim to know all "the Truth." "Isn’t that odd? The only thing both sides agree on is that people who believe in absolute good and evil are bad! ... (snip)" No, it is not odd. There ARE extremes at both ends and whether extreme Left or extreme RIGHT..the PROBLEM is..BOTH ARE EXTREME and thus is WHY they see in black and white. "There are other ways that the actual story subverts the official “religion” of the Force. Take the idea that you become a Jedi by training. Well, sure — but you are only chosen to train for the Jedity if you have some kind of inborn power. " How should I know? I never visited the Jedi Temple. i don;t know how Jedis are spoted or chosen. It's likely much like how the Buddhists chose their Buddha Masters. Or how apostles are chosen. "You can dedicate your life to serving the Force if you want, but you can’t become a Jedi warrior-priest unless you were born with the power and anointed as some Jedi’s apprentice. " Well, according to the Revenge of the Sith novel Jedi Master Qui Gon Jinn (Ob1's Master who died in Episdoe 1..) learned about immortality not from the Jedi's themselves..but from another order called The Order of the Whills. Later he tells this to Yoda and then Ob1. So ovbiously, the Jedis are open to the fact that they do NOT have ALL the answers and maybe OTHERs CAN enlighten their understandings in the ways of the Force. The sounds pretty Progressive, if you ask me..and maybe this is why the Jedis annoys this author so. Maybe the idea that Jedi individuals in Star Wars aknoweldge that maybe THEY do NOT have ALL "the Truth" annoys...this Card guy..because that sounds too much like Progressive religion. A Conservative Religion "The overt religion of Revenge of the Sith is a kind of democratic pantheism, but the real religion is for the privileged few, who get to decide what’s best for everybody else and then enforce their own rules, all in the name of “the Force.”.." Now, that sounds more like our present government in the United States..not this movie. Only difference is it is in "The name of God" instead of "In the name of the Force." Maybe this Star Wars fil annoys this writter cause it reminds HIM TOO much of our government???? "How did a nice Protestant boy like George Lucas come up with an official religion more rigidly hierarchical and doctrinally uniform than Catholicism?" What? You just said George Lucas' religion was that of a LIBERAL-minded teenager. But now you are claiming his religious views of a fundamentalist Catholic?! Which is it? Too liberal or too fundamental? "It’s the religion of the people who are Chosen, and you aren’t ready to have a share of the power until we say you are. Quite the opposite of, say, the Quakers or even the Puritans, who eschewed permanent religious hierarchies. ... (snip)" WHICH "QUAKERS"? The liberal ones or the Evangelical ones? "So it might not be such a good thing if the Star Wars films become the first movies to lead to a real-world religion." It already is...at least symbolically speaking. George Bush is Emperor Palpatine...and all of damn liberals and Progresives are those annoying Rebels of the Alliance trying to undermind the American Way..akak "The Empire." "Of course, all this quibbling would be moot if, in fact, the Jedi religion actually worked—if people could tap into the Force and do the miracles that the Jedi routinely perform. " I don;t know. What about those Faith HGealings on TV? Is the Power from some Force? And if so, which side? The Light or the Dark? "But it doesn’t work. No matter how intensely you believe, you can’t leap tall buildings with a single bound or drive a car with your eyes closed." Wait a minture..I thought this Card guy WAS an Evangelical Christian. If so, does he not believe in mircles? "So if a religion is known to be fictional, trains its exclusive practitioners to be killing machines, and doesn’t actually work in the real world, why do people call themselves Jedi?" The Jedis do not train their students to be killers anymore than Jesus trained Peter to cut off that Roman officer's ear. People do what they want, impulsively,whether their religion agrees with it or not. Why do people call themselves anything? BushEmperor.bmp

And what about this book, "Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters" he speaks of? Sounds GRAT! Check out this review bya Progressive Christian! About time Christians stop critiquing Star Wars!, May 24, 2005 Reviewer: Nicholas Carroll (Smyrna, GA United States) - See all my reviews When I was a teenager, I remember at Sunday School, we used material from Focus on the Family (Dr. James Dobson's organization) and when one lesson critiqued Star Wars as a pagan-influenced film and "Empire" especially for its "Buddhist concepts", our Sunday School class voted to drop use of Focus on the Family for our lessons. That was back in 1989 and I've never liked Dr. Dobson since (as I've learned more about him). In the late 1990s, when I learned about how George Lucas was inspired by Joseph Campbell and his study of ancient mythologies to create the brilliant "Star Wars" saga, that got me interested in learning Joseph Campbell. There's nothing "evil" or "pagan" or even "anti-Christian" in learning about how other mythologies influenced story-tellers and religions through the ages. Unless Christians realize this fact, they will continue to lose out to popular culture and become as irrelevant as Zeus and Medusa. I saw this book and it piqued my curiosity. I wanted to see if the writer had an anti-Star Wars bias or was he willing to examine the ideas in the film series in relation to Christian viewpoints. Fortunately, he is not like James Dobson...that is to say, he's not threatened by the big ideas presented by Star Wars. This book is amazing and necessary, as the writer ties in ideas to Christian ideas without stretching the point to where it doesn't fit. Fortunately, the writer seems to be advocating a kind of Christian life I'm familiar with...one consistent with Jesus' call to help the poor and afflicted, the commitment to peace and nonviolence, etc. He doesn't try to distort the message of the Star Wars films by advancing the conservative/fundamentalist Christian line that supports wars, unfiltered capitalistic greed and compassionless economics...he sticks with the Jesus of the New Testament and early Christians who stood up to the Roman Empire. Thus, the writer has good credibility with me and this is a book I'd love to teach in my church's young adult Sunday School class. The reason I subtract a star is because the writer totally got "karma" wrong. In one chapter, he criticizes George Lucas for his decision to change Han Solo's firing at Greedo first in the special edition of "Star Wars: A New Hope" because Lucas believes that killing without reason means there can be no hope of redemption (which isn't true if you follow the trajectory of Anakin Skywalker to his ultimate redemption). The writer tries to say that this view is what karma is. That is not true. Karma is simply the Golden Rule...a universal law much like the law of physics (for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction). Karma is any action that returns to the originator of such action. If you do evil, evil will come back to you. If you do good, good will come back to you. That's all it is. To distort it as something else hurts one's credibility a bit. To me, it seems like a lot of Christians are threatened by karma...even though no one should be. Jesus taught a principle of karma and if we all lived by the law of karma, we would have nothing to fear. Only people who commit evil acts want karma to be untrue, because they don't want to pay the price of their sins. Other than that one glaring error, I recommend this book for study, as it will help people become better Christians and that is a good thing. Too many people have fallen away from Christianity because of the hypocritical leaders. Anything that helps people understand what Jesus really was about is a good thing.

Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:12 TERRY MATTINGLY: Faith, The Force and 'Star Wars' This story was published Wednesday, May 25th, 2005 Scripps Howard News Service (SH) - While tweaking the original "Star Wars" movie for re-release, director George Lucas decided that he needed to clarify the status of pilot Han Solo's soul. In the old version, Solo shot first in his cantina showdown with a bounty hunter. But in the new one, Lucas addressed this moral dilemma with a slick edit that showed Greedo firing first. Thus, Solo was not a murderer, but a mere scoundrel on the way to redemption. "Lucas wanted to make sure that people knew that Han didn't shoot someone in cold blood," said broadcaster Dick Staub. "That would raise serious questions about his character, because we all know that murder if absolutely wrong." The "Star Wars" films do, at times, have a strong sense of good and evil. Yet in the climactic scene of the new "Revenge of the Sith," the evil Darth Vader warns his former master: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." Obi-Wan Kenobi replies, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Say what? If that is true, how did Lucas decide it was wrong for Solo to gun down a bounty hunter? Isn't that a moral absolute? If so, why are absolutes absolutely wrong in the saga's latest film? Good questions, according to Staub. While we're at it, the Jedi knights keep saying they must resist the "dark side" of the mysterious, deistic Force. But they also yearn for a "chosen one" who will "bring balance" to the Force, a balance between good and evil. "There is this amazing internal inconsistency in Lucas that shows how much conflict there is between the Eastern religious beliefs that he wants to embrace and all those Judeo-Christian beliefs that he grew up with," said Staub, author of a book for young people entitled "Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters." "I mean, you're supposed balance the light and the dark? How does that work?" The key is that Lucas - who calls himself a "Buddhist Methodist" - believes all kinds of things, even when the beliefs clash. This approach allows the digital visionary to take chunks of the world's major religions and swirl them in the blender of his imagination. Thus, the Force contains elements of Judaism, Christianity, Animism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and even Islam. None of this is surprising. Lucas merely echoes the beliefs of many artists in his generation and those who have followed. But the czar of "Star Wars" also has helped shape the imaginations of millions of spiritual consumers. His fun, non-judgmental faith was a big hit at the mall. It is impossible, said Staub, to calculate the cultural impact of this franchise since the 1977 release of the first film - Episode IV, "A New Hope." The films have influenced almost all moviegoers, but especially Americans 40 and under. "I don't think there is anything coherent that you could call the Gospel According to Star Wars," stressed Staub. "But I do think there are things we can learn from "Star Wars." I think what we have here is a teachable moment, a point at which millions of people are talking about what it means to choose the dark side or the light side. "Who wants to dark side to win? Most Americans want to see good triumph over evil, but they have no solid reasons for why they do. They have no idea what any of this has to do with their lives." Staub is especially concerned about young "Star Wars" fans. He believes that many yearn for some kind of mystical religious experience, taught by masters who hand down ancient traditions and parables that lead to truths that have stood the test of time, age after age. These young people "want to find their Yoda, but they don't think real Yodas exist anymore," especially not in the world of organized religion, he said. In the end, it's easier to go to the movies. Meanwhile, many traditional religious leaders bemoan the fact that they cannot reach the young. So they try to modernize the faith instead of digging back to ancient mysteries and disciplines, said Staub. "So many churches are choosing to go shallow, when many young people want to go deep," he said. "There are people who just want to be entertained. But there are others who want to be Jedis, for real." Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. BeachOfEden: Well, there is ways to blend Buddhism with Christianity..but it is a skill. Case in point? Well, this one book I have by Marcus Borg, "Jesus & Buddha." I think does a great job of comparing the two faith's side by side. These questions that the author brings out in this article are very logical such as this quoten that Master Wendu (Samual Jackson's character) in Attack of the Clones says of Anakin< "Could this be the one that the prophecies told would bring balance to the Force"? See the conflict the author of this article discribes going on within George Lucas about his aquried beliefs of mixing his United Methodists upbringing with his interest in Buddhism....is not so much unlike many of us here on Progressive Christianity forum..and the discussions we often have had here and these discussions and questions are: Is God personal or immpersonal or both? Is Holy Spirit personal or immpersonal or both? Is the Holy Spirit God or a seperate power FROm God? What's all you guy's take on all this?

Ath said: "See, thing is, I have. I've had deeply spiritual encounters with Goddess and I miss them so much. I know it's the same God, but I just can't summon up the intimate relationship with "her" within Christianity. I sure would like to. I don't mind relating to God as Father, and I do, but I miss my Mother sometimes. I don't believe God has a gender, but as humans we relate in anthropormorphic terms, and for me Christianity is "male". Perhaps someday I could envision God/dess as Eastern Orthodoxy does. I'd love to learn more about their insights." I don;t have a problem with this..which is lucky, I recken..That is..I don;t have a problem seeing God as BOTh Father AND Mother..or more precise...I see God as my Cosmic Perent(s).

I never meant that i viewed Progressive christianity as merely reduced down to "JUST social justice" cause otherwise this would just be an ethical social clubhouse like UU's. (No offense, I like many of UU's concepts..but they are affraid of seeming "Too-Judeo-Christian" in theme that they have gone over-the-top on the left to the degree that the congeragtion gets offended if you even use the word "God" there.) What I meant was/is we all have our beliefs regarding the nature of God and Christ such as deciding whether we are trinitarian or bibical unitarian but..but in refreashing CONTRAST to far right Christianity...we do NOT place such theological personal interpretations ABOVE social justice aka "The Golden Rule." I thought about this post for a while and wondered what to say. I decided, for a place to start and gather my thoughts, to actually offer my views on the 8 points. So here goes: 1. Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus; Yes, this goes along with the above I stated... 2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us; This also goes along with the above statements that i made...God=Yahweh/Jehovah/Jah/The Great Spirit/Father/Mother, Loving Perent,ect.. Ath said: "Yes and no. I'm not a relativist and I don't think all paths are equally valid, but I do recognize that just because someone belongs to another religion, they are not automatically damned and going to hell, so to speak." Agreed. For example I find Buddhism's view of God being an Impersonal force within too Impersonal and far removed from the loving universal Comisc Perent belief that I believe in through Christianity..However, that does NOT mean that i think their prayers don;t count or that their own beliefs don;t have any solid good in them..it's just for me, I find lacking..it that it is not personalized enough..that's all. 3. Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God's feast for all peoples; Ath: "I'm not sure exactly what is meant by the above statement, so I don't know if I agree with it or not. Same here. I like to observe the communion process ok, but more so..I like to hear the The Last Supper account re-told. 4. Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable ... Agreed, pretty much...unless..they are fundamentalist in nature and desire to challenge the whole '8' points of Progressive Christianity... 5. Know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe; Agreed. 6. Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes; Ath said: "Not really. Not anymore. I'm kinda tired of searching and questioning actually." I pretty much have completed gathering together the basics of my belief system..infact I did that in the 90's...it's just I feel I can also aquire new insights or inspiring perceptions from different cultures and sources... 7. Form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping one another for the work we feel called to do: striving for peace and justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers; Agreed. 8. Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege. I think I agree, although I'm not sure what is really meant by "renunciation of privilege". Agreed.

QUOTE(BeachOfEden @ May 18 2005, 09:18 AM) ...because Prog Christianity's prime focus IS on social justice rather than on fighting over doctrines. FredP Yesterday, 10:30 AM Post #29 : "You are not the appointed spokesperson for Progressive Christianity." Excuse me?! What is it I said that inspired such a negative sounded reply? I don;t see where I said anything that conflicts with Progressive Christianity. How is it that expressing a completely inclusive view is somehow in conflict with what Progressive Christianity stands for??? "Social justice is immensely important to me personally, but it is not what I'm referring to when I identify myself as a Progressive Christian. Progressive Christianity means just what it says: a movement to explore the meaning and practice of Christianity in a Progressive context. You can't throw your arms around the world with this label; it has to mean something more than a social agenda." Umm..ok...if you want to expand on this, we are all listening. "My committment to Progressive Christianity will probably mean that my ideas dovetail significantly with those of other belief traditions, and that I won't be trying to convert them to a different outward religious form. It will even probably mean that our social agendas will overlap significantly. But a Zen Buddhist is not a Progressive Christian, nor would he identify himself as such. Do you see the difference?" By this to you mean you beg to differ with those here who maybe express that they see no conflict and complete harmony with blening Progressive Christianity with say...Zen buddhism? New Thought philosophy? Or Native American spiritual beliefs? Is this what you are talking about?

WindDancer: "About JW's and Mormon's not being viewed as Christian. That bugs me too. Because it shows the emphasis on "correct" beliefs as the criteria for being Christian. I'd look more at the dysfunctional life-diminishing behavior that is so damaging and can happen in any faith community. Other Christian denominations are not immune to that, just because they have the "correct" beliefs. " That is precisely it. The fundamental far right Protestants such as Southern Baptists, Assembly of God and Calvary Chapel all embrace the same sexist views of women and the "members-ONLY" salvation theory that the Mormons and JW's do. But none of these antiGolden Rule hyprocrisies matter to any of these groups...they instead focus all their attention of fighting over the doctrines such as trinity.... And this is where Progressive Christianity stands in stark CONTRAST to ALL the fundamental Protestants as well as their fundamental cousions, the JWs and Mormons that they are always tagging "CULTS." Unlike these fundamental groups, be they deemed "orthodox" by Evangelical Protestants...or "UnOrthodox"... Progressive Christianity stands in stark contrast to Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel..AND Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons...because Prog Christianity's prime focus IS on social justice rather than on fighting over doctrines. On the Progressive Christianity site you will find Progressive Christians who may be pro-trinity Liveral Catholics or Progressive Lutherns and Prebyterians as well as Progressive Christians who came from JW and Mormon background who are bibical unitarians and you'll also find Unity church Progressives as well as those who came from a Christian Science background and who may still hold Progressive New thought views...and yet all of these are welcomed and NONE are tagged, "Cult", or "Unorthodox"....Because we all share the same respect for social justice..then this is what ties us together regardless of whether we embrace a triniatrain view of God or Bibical unitarian view, and you can believe in New Thought, New Age or the New Earth..and no one will judge how "Orthodox" you are.

AletheiaRivers: " I do have a knee-jerk reaction against those who think that JWs aren't Christian. " So do I...And it is NOT because I want to defend their fundamentalism...I do NOT defend ANY fundamentalism..no matter their denominational brand name. It's because of hyprocrisy, I feel, on the part of the fundamental far right Protestants like Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, Calvary as well as the far right Catholics...These types throw JW's, Mormons and CSs all into the "non-Christian"/ "cults" can. And as Ath pointed out the whole reason that these far right Prots and Caths do this is NOT because LDS follow Jospeh Smith nor because JW's follow their 'organization'..but instead it's ALL bacause they hold a b#tch against JW's and LDS for simply being non-trinitarians. For this very same reaosn is why they also dump on Bahias...even though Bahia is opposite from JW and LDS because it IS Progressive in social justice. "I don't get it. What do individuals or groups hope to accomplish by treating others that way? Do they hope it will "bring them to Christ"? It doesn't work that way." Fundamental religion..be it Fundamental Protestants or Fundie catholics, Fundie JWs or LDS is ALL about being 'THEE" right and flawless version of Christianity while deeming ALL OTHERS sub-par and unsaved. "I just get tired of the stereotypes of JWs and Mormons that are flung around on TV and on the Net. Every group has its weirdos and scandals and that is all you hear about. (Ex-JWs and ex-Mormons can be the worst offenders in this regard.) I wasn't a member of a cult and my neighbors don't have 5 wives, only 3." Yeah, I agree.

Well, when when I and a best friend of mine were walking down State Street in Santa Barbara together about around the early to mid 90's when began talking of our agreement that we had both made up our minds to leave JW. I think, if I recall correctly, my friend voiced her uncertantly and perhaps possible regrete of getting baptized in JW and that maybe she made a mistake like she married the wrong person and now she felt need needed a divorce. To this I replied that fully realized that a vast majority of those baptized IN JW had a screwed up idea that they were getting baptized TO the JW organization...but I said, "I personally never felt or was confused about who or what I was getting baptized to. I knew that, as I do now, that i got baptized to God...and NOT to JW or some religious group or organization. I knew what I was doing..and the way I see things it would not change my view if I had been Baptist in Baptist or Luthern or other..cause I got baptized to God and not a church..So I said to her, "So I don;t feel I need to notify them (the JW org) that I want to get divorced cause I never felt or thought I was married to them anyways." She pondered on this for a moment and then replied,Hummm..I see your point, very logical." So I basically said that I could totally understand if someone felt that they DID think they were getting baptized to a church instead of God..that they felt it was not a real baptism..but I did not feel that was my case..So in this way, I guess I could kinda see what Des is saying. As with the comparision to the communion thing..yeah, it might be that with some, like with a Catholic who is now Ex..they may feel that taking communion reminds them too much of like saying they agree with the fundamental ideas of the Catholic church..and maybe sometimes ex-fundamentalist feel this way also about baptism... But with the communion thing..there is the added thing where a confusion and fear of your desire of where you want to spend eternity comes up..and, well do you feel this is likewise with the Baptism issue? I mean like if you were raised in Southern Baptists and let's say they made a very big deal about being baptized and it connecting to being Southern Baptist and getting into heaven..then might it be possible that they were fear baptism cause it would remind them of agreeing or claiming to WANT to go to a Baptist heaven? Does that make sense? When I was in JW they taught that a person could either desire to live on earth forever...OR..heaven..and that 'if' one partook of the bread and wine then it was making a very strong and clear statement that you desired to trade in your eternal life on earth in favor of heaven. As with the vast majority of JW's, I desired eternal life in an earthly kingdom amoungst nature instead of a spirit relm. I saw the heavenly hope as being like an unnatural Victorian painting with chubby angel babies flying around on clouds and that seemed really weird and boring to me. After I left JW..even though I no longer identified with being IN JW I still perfered the idea of a earthly with nature and animals instead of floating around clouds amoungst chubby winged babies and to be honest..I still feel this way. The traditional Evangelical Protestant idea of heaven is very unnapealing to me..and well that's my take on all this..don;t know if other people relate or not.

Most likely..I would say.

Ok...I found that actual thread that I was taling about,Des, here it is: "Issue #6 Understanding Progressive Christian XJWs & X-Catholics Fear of Participating in Communion. ( Explaining What The 10 Wrong Things Author Does Not Understand About XJWs & XCatholics Uncertanity About Communion des Mar 28 2005, 03:34 AM Post #2 funny little bit on diversity). >Issue #6 Understanding Progressive Christian XJWs & X-Catholics Fear of Participating in Communion. ( Explaining What The 10 Wrong Things Author Does Not Understand About XJWs & XCatholics Uncertanity About Communion Well I don't know about this personally, but this did come up in the new members class. Apparently some ex-Catholics can not get over the idea that the bread and wine (or grape juice in our case) are literally the blood and body of Jesus. I'm sure if they would be able to accommodate to the more Protestant type sentiment they would be able to participate but we know that for many people conversion to a different belief system doesn't come in one big jump. I don't know that that explains everybody, perhaps not JWs. Perhaps if there is no communion service they don't quite know how to integrate it. CS do not have any ritual elements, but I was quite happy for them and just felt very comfortable since I thought it was a missing piece in my life. But some people might feel differently and feel fear over something different. This is very good that you explain this FACT about Catholics so that those who have not been raised Catholics would understand. Also I talked to someone who said another reason as an X-Catholics feel uncomfortable about communion is because Catholics make such a big deal about only serving communion to worthy Catholics..that once a person does not want to be catholic anymore than everytime they think of communion they think of embracing the Catholic church and it's views which they do not want to do. In JW the belief is that each person chooses in their heart which type of after life he or she best desires and whether they desire a non-organic/supernatural relm or an earthly organic paradise. They make a big deal about if you don;t know what you are doing then you might be saying you wish to spend enternity in the version of paradise that is non-earthly..and to me I always picture this is a version of paradise devoid of organic matter and animals which i loved. Thus both JW's and Catholic warn so much about not taking communion if you don;t understand it..that a person fears taking it..because they are confused about what these symbols mean and it's meaning to their after life beliefs. Because of this confussion I think many Progressive XJWS and Progressive X-Catholics perfer to focus on the meaning of Christ's ransom and resurrection..then to actually particpate in the taking of the actual symbols."

Thanks, Des, for re-locating this thread to me. Since January I have been working on this research project in which I examine the 10 points that the author of the book Ten Wrongs Things I Learned In A Conservative Church...wrote..and the last subject I have is examining this participation in the taking of the bread and wine issue and trying to explain to the reader the reasons why some Ex-Fundies like ex-Fundie Catholics and Ex-JDubs fear getting involved in communion. The author of the 10 Wrong Things books seems completely lost as to understanding why anyone would feel uncomfortable with communion...so my endevor to to explain why so that readers might understand better. On the topic of baptism..yes in the JW faith you must be be old enough to make a choice on baotism before you can get baptized. JW's feel that babies can not make a choice cause they are not old enough to understand what they are doing. There is also this non-denominational/contemporary Protestant church I would attend sometimes called Bible Fellowship and they also believe this. So they explained that they do NOT baptize babies but instead they do this thing where the pastor prefor this blessing cememony where he prays over a perent's under age child and they ask God to guild the child's heart to choice to accept Christ when they grow up. I don;t remember what they call this...I only remember them explaining to everyone that they wanted to clearify that these cemonies are NOT baptism of under aged children.

"I must state my conviction that this Pope's negatives. overcome all of his positives." "I believe the most destructive aspect of this papacy was the deliberate war he, along with his chief enforcer of orthodoxy, Cardinal Ratzinger, waged on creative Catholic scholars. Holding tightly to an almost idolatrous claim that truth had been captured once and for all inside the infallible dogmas of the Roman tradition, this Pope began a process of systematic oppression of that church's creative scholarship. No one was allowed to think outside the box of imposed dogma or to press the edges of a real dialogue between an exploding world of knowledge and an ancient faith tradition." ~ John Shelby Spong

Some months back, there was a thread in which we were all discussing how sometimes Ex-Catholics and Ex-JW's devolope a fear of participating in communion because of what their faith group background taught about whether a person is worthy to partake in communion or not. Does anyone know where I could re-locate THIS thread and what it was called? Cause I like to to add the info to my research web page. Thanks:) BeachOfEden

"I sometimes just throw an idea out into the conversation and see if I get a "bite." Yes, or more often I listen closely while others talk and listen to hear them throw a Progressive Christian bit out there and then I add to it..Especially I have experinced this is a liberal city like Santa Barbara. At least 3 times while visiting a natural organic cafe or Earth day fair a Progressive minded New Age person, neo-hippie, or natural deist has started just such a friendly spiritual discussion with me. Another good place I have found for this, is in the book stores in the section where they sell Progressive Christian themed books.

I think if Progressive Christians were able to leave free zines at health food stores like the New Agers do..then this could prove to be a non-invasive way of preaching/witnesses.

I realize that most here came from other fundamental faith groups background than JW's or their cousins, the Bible Students...but I encounter a Bible Student who voices bigotry towards Christians who embrace the restored earth destiny belief and I thought I'd post it here..so that this may be added to the Progressive Christians achieves for all to read.... <P> Round II With RR <P> Wednesday, 11 May 2005 <P> <P> Beth Sarim Community JW Reform Forum Open Discussion <P> Author Message <P> BeachOfEden <P> The Use of Insulting Theological Terms - 2005/05/10 05:06 <P> It would be really appreicated if faith such..such as JW's and Bible Students, of which we have been speaking about here..but this also goes for Evangelical Protestants and Catholics...would stop using insulting words and phrases to discribe those outsider their own set of belief system. There Are words to discribes non-memebsr withOUT being insulting. <P> There is no need, for example, for JW's to call non-JW's "Wordly". Likewise, there is no need for Bible Students to use such words as "UnChristian," to discribe their restored earth destiny embracing brothers and sisters. Just as there is no need for Evangelical Protestants to call others "cults' or "Unsaved." <P> ALL these types of words give the impression of judgement upon others, that is, that the one using these words is setting themselves as JUDGE. Why not call non-JWs precisley that, non-members? Why not Bible Students call their earhtly brothers and sisters simply that, earthly? And why not Protestants call non-Protestants precisley that, non-Protestants? <P> reply Warrior User <P> Re:The Use of Insulting Theological Terms - 2005/05/10 08:09 <P> You've got a point BOE (and not Body of Elders) LOL! <P> I try to refrain from using negative terminology to describe others but sometimes it just slips out. Must be all these Goyim on this site!!!!!!!! <P> (for those who don't know, Goyim - gentiles - is not merely a description of non-Jews but carries with it some very derogotory connotations - hence the fact I don't use it. <P> Jesus is judge. He knows who is Christian or unchristian, Saved or unsaved etc. Our judgement is in the safest hands possible. <P> Shalom. <P> reply <P> BeachOfEden <P> Re:The Use of Insulting Theological Terms - 2005/05/10 09:54 <P> I was thinking of that, Warrior, how Jews sometimes call non-Jews gentiles, but that too. I wonder fundamental Buddhists go around calling other Buddhists or non-Buddhists UnEnlightened? <P> RR <P> Re:The Use of Insulting Theological Terms - 2005/05/10 14:49 <P> I don't recall on thsi forum any BIble Student calling you UnChristian! <P> BeachOfEden <P> Re:The Use of Insulting Theological Terms - 2005/05/11 03:18 From Beliefnet.com Jehovah's Witnesses Debate Board <P> 10/10/04 8:34 PM <P> RR: <P> "Perhaps if you could show us (I am a Bible Student) a scripture or scriptures, that tells us that Christians will live forever on a restored earth, we would accept such. However, there are NONE. The hope of the Church is heavenly, until that door is closed." <P> RR144 <P> Marken, those are great scripture, but do they apply top the Church? Those anointed with his holy spirit? <P> RR144 <P> 10/10/04 8:39 PM 9 out of 15 <P> "Sher, I never said no one was going to live on the earth, I simply said that the"Christians" hope is not earthly. Mind you I am not talking about people who believe in Jesus, that in itself does not make one Christian. HOWEVER ... the Church class, the true Christians in THIS age, inherit the heavens." <P> "There is NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that states that CHRISTIANS will inherit the earth. the hope of the Christian in the new testament was heavenly." <P> BeachOfEden <P> Do you remember, now?

I have no doubts that in many ways Jim Wallis is far more educated than me, especially on political matters..but I have observed many friends trying to do what Jim is..and after a while they get exasperated with trying to reason with fundamentalists as they come to realize that it is like talking to a brick wall. "Lately the conservative Christians are tinkled pink about the new pope. I mean it wasn't that long ago that they were talking about 'romans this and that' and saying that Catholism was a cult. You just never know." That because the Far right Protestants see him as useful to their conservative causes..but as soon as they don;t find him useful anymore they'll go back to calling the Catholics a 'cult' again. It kinda reminds me how this one person who used to be JW explains that JW's use the UN to their benifit and then turn around and claim the UN is Satan's organization. Jw's often use and quote from Catholic encyclopedias..but then they turn around and paint pictures in their books of Catholic priests next to the Beast of revelations. I think all these fundamental faith groups will use each other's resorces to further than own causes and then when the finish they go back to calling each other heathens again.

"Beach,I don't think that Mr. Wallis is "doing the same thing." I don't think that he is trying to infiltrate the conservative ranks by subterfuge, but then I don't think that the conservatives are doing that to the liberal ranks either. I think that he is doing the followin." It seems that way to me and I positively think this is what the conservatives are doing. I have gone to such events thrown by the religious right when they try and make themselves appear to blend in with liberals only to try and sweet-talk us into changing to the right instead, and I am just saying that because I don;t like this...i would not try and do this in return to the far right "1. He is reclaiming the term evangelical which has be coopted by people whose real goals are politically conservative. There are people who are filled with the Good News of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are politically liberal. The conservatives have represented that these liberals cannot be real Christians for reasons that have very little to do with the tenets of Christianity. I feel that it is important that the general population and our elected officials know that not all Christians support the conservative agenda." Don;t you think it would be more productive to simply show to the public how there CAN and IS a different 'type' of Christianity that is not intolerant rather than focusing on trying to simply reclaim these title "Evangelical"? The name "Evangelical" has already became sullied by the right's rights actions and their cliam to own the copy rights to this word...and such..why would non-far right winged Christians want it? "He is supporting continued dialogue between diverse factions. Insulated from disenting views, groups have a tendency to become too extreme." If we..would good with this do? Jones and Falwell would insult all us Progressives as Unsaved 'Cults', we'd get offended and say they are intolerant..and both parties leave annoyed. Whay good can come from this? "We could allow those groups whose views are radically different from ours to become more extreme, " We can not stop this. if we were to try and controll their behavior, no matter how hideous we think it is, then this is like them trying to controll society. "and then try to keep their extreme views from affecting us." The only way you can do this is don't go around them. if you go around them, they will insult you. "In doing this we are saying that those people are unimportant, and we must expect that those people are saying the same thing about us." I would not define them as "unimportant." I would term them as harmful to social justice and they would say we are harmful to Christianity. "Alternatively, we could continue dialogue, and, while not enforce uniformity of opinion, at least foster a mutual respect." But history proves they THEY will FORCE their views on us..and this will end up in them being disrespectful. "I may not respect the views that extreme conservatives have, but I should respect them as human beings." Can't you respect them as human beings without going to their conversaion events?

...Because they already make it very clear (the far right, that is) that they are NOT interested in "hearing our views."