GeorgeW

I regretfully must say goodbye. Last week, I resigned as a moderator because a serious disagreement with policy as determined unilaterally by The Global Moderator. At the time, I hoped to continue to participate as a member.

Now, I have been silenced on an issue that a number of pastors are speaking about from their pulpits because it is not relevant or appropriate to a progressive Christian forum, as determined by the Global Moderator.

Now, while recognizing the authority of the administrator to censor whomever and whatever he wishes, as a matter of conscience, I find it difficult to contine participating in the forum.

I wish you all the very best,

George

It was not deleted but was unapproved so it is visible to moderators only. You will receive a PM explaining.

 

Joseph

So, you are not willing to give a pubic explanation so others can benefit from my sins?

George

Joseph, Did you delete a post I wrote this morning in response to Dutch's #43 above? And, if so, will you explain why?

George

Our responses - primarily our conversations - is what will change our culture. To get stuck on any single factor - such as large capacity clips - is to miss all the other things that must also change.

My hope is the culture will change such that one of the effects would be that people would no longer want to cling to their high-capacity clips. These are for the purpose of killing humans. I would hope that the desire to kill humans would no longer be present. I would hope that people would no longer feel the need for high-capacity clips to resolve problems. I would hope that people would no longer want to "stand your ground" with the assistance of a high-capacity clip, or any g*n for that matter.

Until that day, if I were king of America, I would deny them the ability to possess w*pons of mass destruction designed for the purpose of killing humans. We deny children access to dangerous instruments. Maybe we should deny an immature society dangerous instruments.

George

We all pledged individually to contacting our local representatives to share our concerns and volunteer for organizations that can help.

 

I imagine there are similar events happening in families all over America.

 

I see that as a hopeful sign.

That is a hopeful sign.

George

Less than 50 years ago our indigenous peoples had no entitlement to compensation to the land that was taken from them upon white settlement, and had no rights to the land whatsoever. Most of society probably thought that was logical, even fair. In 50 years the tide has turned entirely. I can only hope that the US may experience a similiar cultural and mindset change toward firearm possession.

Someone has pointed out the dramatic change in attitude toward smoking that occurred over a couple of decades. Maybe a similar thing can happen with g*ns. If enough churches, like the ones in Cincinnati and Atlanta, made it a cause, maybe there is reason for hope.

George

In my view, we are a diverse society with many wishing to identify using words or labels differently as a means to define themselves or institutions to give meaning to such words rather than to separate.

Identity is a human universal and we couldn't eliminate even if we wanted to. It also can, but not necessarily, be a basis for discrimination. When the Other is denied rights because of identity, then it becomes, in my opinion, pernicious. Whites, 50 years ago, could claim "identity" and diversity as a basis of denying African-Americans civil rights. Today, some heterosexuals claim marriage as an exclusive right because of their identity.

George

In my view, we are a diverse society with many wishing to identify using words or labels differently as a means to define themselves or institutions to give meaning to such words rather than to separate.

Identity is a human universal and we couldn't eliminate even if we wanted to. It also can, but not necessarily, be a basis for discrimination. When the Other is denied rights because of identity, then it becomes, in my opinion, pernicious. Whites, 50 years ago, could claim "identity" and diversity as a basis of denying African-Americans civil rights. Today, some heterosexuals claim marriage as an exclusive right because of their identity.

George

DrDon,

Very good thoughts. I think you have identified at least part of the problem that gays, and we as a society, need to overcome. I think there are several underlying issues that motivate homophobia and the exclusivity that you discuss, is likely one of them.

This idea that gay marriage "cheapens" heterosexual marriage is so illogical on the surface that it can only have some deeper psychological motivation.

George

Here is an article about a g*n buyback program at a church. Hopefully, this kind of action, although I don't think effective in practical terms, will help change the culture.

http://www.nytimes.c.../19land.html?hp

I was at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta several weeks ago and they were planning a similar program. So, some religious people consider the g*n issue relevant to Christianity and important to our culture.

George

For what it is worth (and not much), I think there is an important link between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. The historical person gives authority to the one of faith. The more conservative a person is, the more important this link is, and probably essential.

Even the most progressive of Christians, and many non-Christians as well, refrain from disagreeing with any of the Jesus sayings in the Bible. When we disagree as a matter of faith or theology, we don't say "Jesus was wrong." Instead, we reinterpret, argue mistranslation or misattribution. This way we also implicitly accept the historical person as authoritative. As an example, on this forum, there have been many disagreements with the person of faith (as understood by someone else), but I have never, ever read anyone who disagreed with the historical person.

George

The historical Jesus, by contrast, is one of us. The focus of his teachings is not on his personage, but on God's kingdom, on wise living in order that heaven might come to earth.

This is the view of some scholars, notably those of the Jesus Seminar. However, it is far from a consensus view. Other scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, think that Jesus (the historical person), was apocalyptic and believed that the end of days was imminent and justice would be served with the righteous rewarded and the wicked punished.

George

The nation of Australia had a gun buy back program where you would turn in your gun in exchange for free money and it's my understanding that it was widely successful over there. LA has also started a gun buy back program recently.

According to Wikipedia, "Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States, Australian gun buybacks of 1996 and 2003 were compulsory, compensated surrenders of newly-illegal firearms."

There are several significant differences. First, the Australian program was in connection with a ban on newly-acquired guns so one could not replace the turned in weapon. Second, it was national. In LA, one need only drive a few miles to acquire a replacement. Third, it was compulsory.

I am certainly in favor of these programs as they may take a few weapons out of circulation. But, I don't think they are any substitute for good, national gun-control laws.

George

My two bob's worth - just start, somewhere. Display stickers on your cars - "Guns Kill Kids". Start petitions. Blog and protest against ridiculously violent films. Support the government in any move to restrict/ban military weapons. Talk about guns in your churches and schools.

Paul, I am not optimistic about anything meaningful happening. But, I will say, that, at least for now, there seems to be more public awareness and interest. Walmart (one of the largest purveyors of weapons) was invited to meet with Vice President Biden to discuss this issue, but their executives were too busy with other matters. Apparently, because of public reaction to their decision, they reversed the decision and will condescend to meet with the Vice President of the United States of America.

George

I was in Ebenezer Baptist Church (MLK's home church) in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago. This issue was brought up by the pastor. He pointed out that while the nation is grieving (justifiably) over the Newtown massacre, thousands are dying every year from gun deaths on the streets of our major cities. He didn't say, but implied, that these are mostly poor, minority children about which our nation doesn't seem to be as concerned.

The church is planning to coordinate with other churches a gun turn-in program and they will symbolically bury them in coffins. I don't think this will be practically effective, but it may be effective as another means of highlighting this issue and discouraging the proliferation of guns.

George

Count me as skeptical. I can imagine all sorts of social problems with jealousies, favoritism, issues with parents and children, etc., etc., etc.

The nuclear family is a cultural universal, but, as far as I know, this is a form that has never developed, at least, on a wide scale and maybe for good reason.

George

hi i was looking at Bart Ehrman books today and was wandering which one to start on - you would recommend the one you mention above? I'd prefer something fairly easy to get into for the theology newbie, and something relatively short as my reading opportunities are few and far between!

Jonny, I would concur with Ron about Ehrman's "New Testament." It would establish a good foundation to venture out from. However, it should be noted that this has very little to do with "theology." Ehrman is a historian not a theologian and will not make a case for any sort of belief system.

George

In the religious history category: The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark.

George

Ron,

Since you are interested in second-temple Judaism and early Christianity and I know you are a reader, I think you would really like Murphy's book that I referenced a couple of posts back. It is a little pricey, but you could probably get a used one for around a day's wages (mine, not Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney).

George

Welcome. I am pleased that you found this forum. I think you will be quite at home here.

George

A couple of points need to be made.

First, dualism was very much alive in Judaism in the second-temple period. The Essenes were extremely dualistic. Perhaps one could speculate that they got this from the Greeks, but of all the Jewish parties, they would be the one least likely to have foreign influence. In fact, they were extremely anti-Hellenistic.

The Pharisees did believe in life after death. This is attested by Josephus and in the New Testament Acts 23:8, "For the Sad'ducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all."

Regarding the Essenes, according to Murphy in Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus, "The sect's beliefs concerning the afterlife are unclear. There are no unambiguous references to resurrection; some passages seem to imply it . . . Josephus says that the Essenes did not believe in the resurrection of the body but in the immortality of the soul."

George

Nor

The whole notion of a literal heaven and hell come directly from Greek mythology - NOT Judaism. In fact, belief in an afterlife is a relatively modern notion in Jewish religion. And the apocalyptic message of modern Christianity is about as far from Judaism as you can philosophically get.

 

NORM

This is not a modern concept in Judaism. Only the Sadducees in the late second-temple period did not believe in life after death.

George

I heard an interview several years ago with an American Jew (secular, as I recall), who attempted to spend a year complying with all 613 miztvot (commandments). It was not easy, in fact, it was almost impossible to do and live a reasonably normal, modern life.

One thing (among many) that I have failed to determine is when Christianity deviated from the agreement at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:19) which requires kosher meats. Both camps of Jesus movement signed up to the deal. I also wonder how modern biblical literalists justify violating this restriction.

George

Don’t some scholars feel Mark was written prior to the 2nd Temple’s destruction?

I checked three sources and they give dates for Mark roughly in the 60-80 CE period which could place it before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

BTW, there is no "blasphemous territory" here as long as one is not dogmatic or demeaning of other views.

George

Willkommen, Himmel Suchenden (Hopefully, Google translate is correct).

George