AletheiaRivers

Ah come on! Cynthia? Lolly? Comrade? Cunninglily? Darby? DCJ? XA? Anyone? This thread is EASY!

IMO - In my opinion IMHO - In my humble opinion IMNSHO - In my not so humble opinion LOL - Laughing out loud LMAO - Laughing my a** off BRB - Be right back WYSIWYG- What you see is what you get TY - Thank you OK - OK That's all that I can think of. Anyone else remember any?

Matthew Fox is one author I can think of off the top of my head that often uses feminine imagery for God. His books are good, but can be a bit difficult to read. Not hard to understand, just "wordy". He's a Christian mystic (pantheist). After years of being a Christian and having very conservative, male imaged views of God ... and then years of being "pagan" and having female imaged views ... I now have more of a yin/yang, balanced, neutral sort of view. LOL! I sort of picture God (when I pray or converse) as a nebula or new universe being born (like what Jodi Foster saw in Contact). After all, I am talking to "all that is". I do own "The idiots guide to women's spirituality". It's pretty good. It gives a wide look at feminine theology and if I remember correctly, it does focus on the Judeo-Christian tradition the most. It has a recommended reading section in the back. I love Starhawk's stuff, but she is definitely not Christian (she's pagan and she's Jewish).

Right! Christianity isn't like sex OR politics ... it's like sex AND politics. What I mean is (agreeing with you) that our relationship with God is deeply personal ... and the depth to which that relationship touches our hearts moves us to share all that we've experienced with others, who may then want to join us in fellowship (church). In most churches however, individuals in that fellowship tend to have the attitude of "Jesus is my PERSONAL savior." From that viewpoint, a congregation isn't so much a covenental community as much as it is a group of like minded individuals who are all in it for themselves. Like the quote from the first post:

LOL! Cynthia. Definitely recommend Generous Orthodoxy. I also whole-heartedly reccomend "The Souls Religion" by Thomas Moore, "A Mystic Heart" by Teasdale, and "God at 2000" by Borg et al. (Should this thread be in the book review section?)

First car ... It was a Datsun, I'm not sure what year now ... 1984 I think? Right before they changed to Nissan. It was a baby blue, four door sedan. I got a kick-butt Pioneer stereo system for Christmas from my parents (ok, it was kick butt for 1986) just after I got the car. It was heaven. Here's another lite question: What is your single favorite food or dish? Also what is your favorite ethnicity of food?

In the thread about the ransom you make the comment about Jesus' saving us from "self-centeredness". I wonder how many people realize what a profound statement that is. I do. I'm amazed at how many times I've encountered that concept in just the past year. Not just in Christianity and the "purpose" of Jesus, but also in Judaism (I think the story of Eden is about selfishness, self-centeredness), Buddhism, Hinduism. Each of these traditions teach (in one form or another) that the reason for living, the meaning of life is to move beyond self-centeredness and to SHARE. Some individuals may decide that in order to not be selfish that they'll just give up all "worldy" things. I think that can be taking it a bit too far. God gave us this world to enjoy - not to deny (on the one end of the spectrum) and not to use up and abuse (on the other end). It's a middle way, a balanced way. Thanks for starting my day with a philosophical thought and a smile.

I had a feeling that was how it went down. Again, congratulations and love to you and your family!

Nice quote. Sounds like I'd like her a lot. I really appreciate how McLaren emphacizes this in Generous Orthodoxy - his use of the term "missional", his pictoral representation of the individual within the church and the church within the world (you have the book, you know what I mean). Again, I like McLaren's use of the word "emergent" and the metaphor of rings of a tree. The external ring of the tree wouldn't be possible without the next ring in. That ring would not be possible without the next ring in. And so on and so on and so on ... The church today has EMERGED from everything that has happened in the past and those happenings should be embraced (as rings in a tree), not tossed aside. The church today, like a blossom that grows from a root and a stem, has emerged and is continually emerging.

Hey Des, thanks for the reply. Actually I've done a LOT of research online about Topamax, probably more than I should have. The #1 side effect is "paresthesias", which is caused by sodium and potassium loss. I can handle the numb feet, face and hands. It also causes "acidosis", caused by the same bicarbonate loss. This can cause rickets and osteoporosis. Regular blood tests to check for acid/alkaline balance are recommended. And again, the same bicarbonate loss combined with water loss causes kidney stones. It WILL cause them, but they can be fought off with enough water. The #2 side effect is loss of appetite and having everything taste like crap. Apparently is makes everything taste metallic and bland. LOL. No wonder some doctors prescribe it for weight loss (stupidly, imo). I've got my sample. I agree the side effects aren't like Depakote or Dilantin, but still, it IS a anti-seizure med. My other option is Verapamil, a calcium channel blocker. I'm not too hip to it either. PS - Oh yeah, and the "eye problems", ie "narrow angle glaucoma" comes on abrubtly (without any real warning) and so an opthamologist might not catch it before it has manifested. Apparently however, the glaucoma is reversible if the drug can be stopped quickly enough (hard to do when it has to be titrated down). I'm sure I'll start it Sunday as planned, I was just hoping someone here might have some stories to share about Topamax, other meds, or their migraines.

Congratulations Fred! Whoo hoo! 9lbs 10oz? Your poor wife! Egads. Any complications with the delivery? Glad to hear everyone is doing well.

Thanks flowperson, I've actually "been in" natural foods, herbs, vitamins and alternative therapies for 12 years. I managed the supplement department in a local natural food store for 11 years and have been doing training packets for the last year to teach counselors what's what with herbs etc ... I've tried everything and anything "natural" for this issue: St Johns, Kava, Feverfew, Butterbur, Willow, Chiropractic, Cranial Sacral, Magnesium, Riboflavin and the list goes on ... Thanks again though

I've just been prescribed Topamax for a "Migraine Variant". To be honest, I'm scared to death to take the drug but am at my wits end as nothing else that I've tried has helped. Just wondering if anyone here takes Topamax or any other migraine prophylactic that has helped them with headache and vertigo. Thanks in advance for any responses and for humoring this WAY off topic post.

OK, I'll bite. I currently work out of my home doing research on "alternative" medical therapies for a natural foods store I used to manage for (until my health forced me to quit). I then create training and educational packets for the employees that work at the stores (there are 4) from the information I gather. Question: Who is your favorite author and what is your favorite book from that author?

It is a tricky situation. Yes, the United States government (and many of her citizens) do push Christian and secular culture in countries where it's not only NOT appreciated but is actually seen as an insult. Perhaps the individuals that respond with force towards those doing the direct "pushing" could be construed as "freedom fighters"? But are attacks (suicide or otherwise) against unarmed citizens, usually on foreign soil (ie Italy, USA, England) an appropriate way to send a message of "We don't like you"? Are these attacks really about that? Or are they merely about power, wrapped up nicely in a little "religious and cultural differences" package?

My gut response - There is no way whatsoever that 9-11 or the bombings in London can be construed as "freedom-fighter" acts. I think of terrorism as being defined as a deliberate murderous act against civilians or those not directly involved in war. I'm sure that definition could be picked apart and further nuances could be added to it, but for the nutshell version, I don't think it's too far off. However, it does seem that the term "terrorist" is being tossed about rather randomly nowdays. Any thoughts?

When language grows darker and darker By Joan Chittister, OSB From Where I Stand - National Catholic Reporter - Link "Language," John Stuart Mill wrote, "is the light of the mind." Right -- and sometimes it is its darkness, too. This may well be one of those times. USA Today, for instance, carried an innocuous little article this week about Pope Benedict XVI. They did it in one of those tiny sidebar articles that newspapers use to make us all aware either of the depths of the mundane to which we as a species have sunk or to send an ominous first signal of impending but invisible doom. It seems that Pope Benedict, in what has become for popes a regular Sunday public audience, prayed for God to "stop the murderous hands of terrorists." What's more, he made specific reference to the "abhorrent terrorist attacks in Egypt, Britain, Turkey and Iraq." Such bidding prayers may seem innocent enough to the average Catholic. We are, after all, accustomed to the recitation of random and relatively apolitical petitions in the midst of public prayer. To the Israeli ear, however, the prayer was both alarming and insulting. Here was a German pope who had failed -- refused? -- to include in the list of innocents lost in the maelstrom of global bombings Israelis who had also been killed in recent weeks by Palestinian suicide bombers. In fact, so major was the omission in the minds of Israeli officials that the Vatican's envoy to Israel got called in and told so, clearly, firmly and without putting a lot of protocol between the envoy and the message. This pope, Israel said, had "deliberately failed" to include the Jews among the ranks of those murderously targeted. USA Today reports that the pope responded to the diplomatic correction by direct mail within days of the rebuke, explaining that his intention had been simply to draw attention to incidents of more recent -- and, presumably, less constant -- occurrence. Frankly, I sympathized with the pope. I feel certain that the omission was not intentional. This was not a Catholic-Jewish, German-Jewish "thing." In the first place, those days are long gone, and furthermore, everything this pope has done in regard to the Jewish situation in the first three months of this papacy has been both sensitive and immediate. His first invitation and political outreach, in fact, was to the Jewish rabbis and community of Rome, a long-time historical measure of Catholic-Jewish relations. No, the situation is much more complex than that. The question is how to recognize the cast of characters in this world of blurred boundaries and doubtful definitions. Who are we really praying for when we pray these days? Who are we really talking about as we describe the world to one another. <snip> If truth were told, we seldom, if ever, even presume to talk about it very directly. Patriotism, Patriot Acts, Americanism, politics and all those things get in the way, it seems. The very thought of open discussion of the subject of language as obfuscation is enough to get a person called a traitor -- or, worse, these days, it seems -- a liberal. <snip> It is the words and our shifting, sliding, slippery definitions of them that confuse us. The truth is that most thinking people aren't really sure what a terrorist is. And the language just keeps getting messier and messier by the day. What, after all, is the discernible difference between a "terrorist," an "insurgent," a "freedom fighter," an "enemy combatant," and -- the new governmental words for it -- "a global extremist." How would you tell one from the other if they were all coming down the alley at you? I can understand it if you tell me that a terrorist is someone who for no discernible political or public reason at all simply determines to create havoc in a country for the sake of enjoying the chaos that bombs in subway trains will surely cause. But is that what's going on? Have these people really "no discernible reason" beyond some kind of social pathology to explain their actions? I get it if by "insurgent" you mean somebody who rises up to challenge a legitimate government in a stable nation. But is that what is happening in Iraq where one government invaded another "with no discernible reason"? Who is the terrorist, everyone who resists the incursion or those who planned it in the first place? I know that "enemy combatants" are some kind of military personnel who are engaged in military combat for the sake of their legitimate government, in its employ, in the service of that national system, or in fulfillment of their duties as citizens. But when you start distinguishing one from the other of these -- terrorists from insurgents from military personnel -- according to the side they're on, to whether they're on our side or somebody else's side -- I admit to moments of confusion. Is someone who resists invasion or foreign domination on behalf of his country and beyond or outside of legitimate government channels really a "terrorist." And if that's the case, what does that say about the French Underground in World War II or the Minutemen in New England before the signing of the U.S. Constitution? Are insurgents people who simply won't quit when beaten, like the Vietnamese, for instance, who defeated both the French and the United States with citizen armies rather than properly organized armed forces? Why were the mujahideen and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the guerilla fighters in Latin America "freedom fighters" when they were on our side and terrorists when they were not? Are the suicide bombers in Palestine and the army in Israel opposing military forces, one armed and one not, or is one legitimate and the other a terrorist organization? From where I stand, the language seems to me to be getting darker and darker. But until we know who is who and what is what, how can a pope decide when to put them in the prayers or not? And most of all, how can the world decide to whose cries of real outrage and carnage to listen, which wars are really "just" anymore and which are not, which policies of the high and mighty are either "high" or "mighty"?

Congratulations Des! I know that you are going to do an AWESOME job!

I admit, I am confused. 1) I didn't know that you are a "fundamental Catholic" and 2) I didn't know that I'm on your "bandwagon". Heck, I didn't even know that there WAS a bandwagon.

I've been away from the computer for a few days, but still want to offer a belated "Hello!" and "Welcome!" It's a great group here.

I recorded all three episodes so that I could watch them back to back to back. I think the third one just recorded. I imagine I'll watch all three sometime this Saturday or Sunday. I'm really looking forward to it.

I'm coming to realize that it is the "hard to pin down" theologians that I like so much: Lewis, Yancey, Bonhoeffer, Campolo, Merton, McLaren, Chesterton ...

Beach, I really appreciate your not wanting to debate with fundamentalists. I also appreciate your wanting a safe place to voice your opinions. I feel the same way. But again, I ask you, where on this board has anyone insisted on "doing an innerfaith with fundamentalists"? Do we even HAVE any fundamentalists that post here to do a inter-faith dialogue with? I read the debate forum over at bnet regularly. The discussions that happen on this board aren't even remotely close to the debates that happen over there. If the debate forum on TCPC was being abused by fundamentalists who were here trying to convert everyone, then I could see a need for a seperate forum. However, it's not and so I guess I just don't understand where the anger is coming from.

Exactly! I'm floored again and again when I find myself reading threads over at bnet, agreeing with a poster's comments, and then finding out that the poster is a ultra-conservative, born-again Christian. Two threads over, I read the words of the exact same poster that I just agreed with, only to find myself completely disagreeing with them. However, the fact that I agreed with them on the one point makes me want to DIALOGUE with them on the point that we DIDN'T agree on. I wonder if perhaps they have something to teach me.