AletheiaRivers

I think what I'm needing to get a clearer picture of (in order to grasp what you're saying) is what do you mean by "return to their Eternal Source"? I'm reading hints of monism in the last couple of posts. Am I reading correctly? Or are you meaning it in more of a Theosis sense - distinct from God but of one spirit with Him?

LOL! I could be wrong, but I don't think she meant prime as in 3, 5, 7 ... Perhaps she meant it more along these lines: Dictionary.com

The National Post At first I thought this was an "Onion-esqe" satirical piece, but it appears to be legit.

My foot is doing much better. When I push on the area where the hole was, I get small electrical-type "shocks" that run down into my toes. I suspect this is due to minor nerve damage and hope that is will go away. Otherwise, other than my ankle being a bit blue, everything is fine and dandy. "Nature area" - I love it. I'm thinking of how to make the sign now!

Darby, Thanks for the book recommend. I'll look into it. Recently my theological leaning has started drifting to the right (although still too far left for most conservatives comfort).

Actually, me and the hubby are going to Xeriscape, probably next year. This year we need to do a whole lot to improve soil drainage because our yard actually has a tendency to stay quite wet. We even have lichen growing in our back yard along our fence where it doesn't get any sun. LOL! Utah isn't supposed to have lichen! Perhaps I shall plant moisture loving, shade loving Hostas in that one area. Part of our Xeriscaping project is to remove most of the grass.

LOL Dillo! If I was zoned for it, I'd have a whole herd of miniature goats.

I've read and re-read and re-read your excellently worded post, but think I must be missing something. By the above quote do you mean that God is incarnate in all things all the time? (Which I don't necessarily disagree with.) If so, does this mean we just go back to God (un-empty the material form) with no survival of self? (I don't think you meant to imply this because you said that this view robs the natural universe of its dignity as nature ... so I must be misunderstanding). Or do you mean that we are just a little bit of both (creature and divine) in one being? That God created creatures and then "emptied" some of himself into creation? I love the interpretation (Jewish) of Genesis that "In the beginning..." when God said "Let us make man in OUR image" that he was actually referring to the just then created animals (creatures) as the "OUR". Meaning man is both creature (like the animals) and divine (with the spirit of God). I found that interpretation meaningful in that it affirmed the creature-ness of man as well as the divine-ness of man. Man is OF nature but also DIFFERENT than nature. When I read that I immediately thought of the Eastern Orthodox idea of Theosis which I've been trying to learn about and struggling to understand.

Doh! I agree. I never considered "inter-prog" debate. I'm too used to most of us disagreeing amicably enough to not need to discuss anything on the debate forum. LOL.

I'd say the debate forum IS the Progressive versus Conservative forum.

I've recently been reading posts at beliefnet that have made me aware of differing points of view between (generally) Catholics and Protestants (although I know it's not the view of ALL Protestants) regarding faith and works. I'm hoping that James, Curly, Darby, DCJ and anyone else who is interested ... can explain to me what might be meant by this statement: How do Catholics and Protestants differ on how they use the word "faith"? How do Catholics and Protestants differ on what they mean by "grace"? What do "justification" and "sanctification" mean? I keep coming across those words and have tried to understand, but am still a bit lost. Coming from a JW background, I perhaps share more in common with Catholics than evangelicals in my understanding of faith and works because JW's emphasize both pretty equally. So the "faith and only faith" and the "once saved always saved" ideas are pretty new to me. I understand that the "complaint" against a works based theology is that we cannot "gain brownie points" with God and I agree. However, I don't really get the impression that that is what groups who practice "works" are doing. I'm getting the impression that this definition of "works" is a "strawman" that certain Protestant denominations have set up against Catholics (and JW's and Mormons) in order to "tear down". I don't intend this to be a bash against evangelicals because the groups I've been reading that have been discussing faith and works have actually been Lutherans and Catholics. However, the quote I posted above was a conversation between a Catholic and a fundementalist. Opinions?

I haven't had any issues, but I only use the "add reply" button at the bottom of the page for every post, rather than the "reply" or "quote" or "quick reply" button. So, because I haven't had any issues, I thought it might be one of these other reply options?

To my knowledge I do not have any Jewish roots ... nope, just grey ones. OK, bad joke. I would highly recommend Rabbi Harold Kushner's "To Life!". It discusses Jewish tradition (with a mild smattering of doctrine) in a very engageing and readable way. This book helped me appreciate that (at least originally), Jewish law is not the "Do these things to gain brownie points with God", "works based", legalistic, "point out your sins" document that much of Christianity thinks it is. It's nice to know that many Christian groups are coming to appreciate this. NT Wright would be one writer and theologian who has researched Jewish law and has tried to offer a "new perspective" on what Paul may have actually meant when he talked about faith versus works. Anyway ... good book. I walked away with a deep appreciation of Jewish tradition and it removed many many "predjudices" I was given as a JW. Rabbi Kushner is Jewish (obviously) and so doesn't much care for the belittling of Judaism that Christianity has engaged in for 1500+ years, so he gets a little defensive at times and over-generalizes, but I took this with a grain of salt because I find it completely understandable. To Life! reviews at Amazon.com

I've really come to appreciate, from reading over at bnet, how many Christian denominations DON'T view the Bible as an inerrant literal historical document. I thought it was only Progs that didn't view the Bible this way. Lutherans, for example, believe that the Bible is "infallible" (that is is complete and perfect for working out the faith), but NOT inerrant. It has been weird listening to a few rather conservative Christians defending the reading of much of the Bible (like Jonah and the Red Sea) as story/narrative rather than as literal history.

Yeah. I think I'll keep him.

I was wondering if it is the new "quick reply" option causing the problem. Also, it didn't seem that we had this issue until the board changed to this new look. Did something change in the software besides the look?

Update: OUCH!!!! Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch !!! I tried to be stoic, but I'm a wuss. It hurts. Thank goodness for codeine. I think from now on when I mow the lawn that not only will I wear combat boots, but goggles and shin guards.

Ahhh, my favorite scene from that movie. Otherwise, I'm a "Meaning of Life" gal.

I just spent the past 2 1/2 hours in the emergency room because I was stupid enough to do so myself. Something shot out from the lawnmower and punctured my ankle, right at the artery. Did you know that arteries bleed ... A LOT?! The doctor took an x-ray to make sure there wasn't something still embedded in there and then I got a TETANUS/DIPHTHERIA vaccine. I expected that would hurt worse than my ankle, but surprisingly, it didn't. I wouldn't have gone to the emergency room but I KNEW that I was out of date on my tetanus booster and I am not sure that what I got stuck with WASN'T a rusty nail. Seriously. The people we bought the house from last November were slobs and left nails and broken glass all over the place. Anyway ... I'm ok. The ankle is wrapped and I get to spend the entire next two days on my butt reading.

Thank you BroRog! That helped a lot! I like the church terminology too. I like the feel it imparts. Now that I've heard you explain the terminology, I'm getting the impression that the JW's did everything they could (and can) to distance themselves from anything remotely to do with "other religion", which includes their using secular names for everything inside of the Kingdom Hall.

I just hate to do this but ... WHAT IS A CHANCEL? Depending on who is using it ... hmmmm. Here is comes again - sorry! Why does it change? When is the single piece of furniture a pulpit and when is it a lecturn? The person standing behind it makes it either "pulpit-ish" or "lecturn-ish", but what do they do to make it either/or? Did that question even make sense?

Cynthia, Hey, no laughing at the uneducated Christian! In JW world, there is only one pulpit/lecturn thingy and it is called a PODIUM.

Whew! Cool. Thanks guys.

A Radio Pilgrimage with Thich Nhat Han This was posted a beliefnet. Thought I'd share it here. Enjoy.