BillM

Arguments? Contentious discussions? Discord? Dissention? Where? Where?

David,

I’ve appreciated many of your points also. I’d probably define where I am spiritually as more of a “seeking” than a struggle, as far as community goes. As I’ve written in my profile, I’m seeking a community that affirms both the reality of God and the centrality of Jesus’ teachings, and these two affirmations would be, to me, what would make such a community the kind of “Christianity” that I’m seeking. Many of the Christian forums that I’ve either browsed or participated in do affirm the reality of God (usually from a supernatural theist POV), but they make either the teachings of the apostle Paul or of the Church central, and that just doesn’t work for me. To the other end of the spectrum, there are a few more liberal Christian forums out there, but because they are not “evangelical” in nature, by which I mean calling for both personal and social transformation, there is little interaction on these forums. From what I can tell on these forums, people have probably found a path that works for them, but the paths are so individualistic that people don’t come together to do anything i.e. they don’t have a mission to the world.

I suspect that we need two things in our spiritual journey as far as community goes. Because we are social creatures, the first thing we need is a group of “like-minded” people who believe or act much as we do, not in order to control us, but to give us a sense of social identity and to let us know, constructively, if we are going off the rails or not. In other words, this group would share a sense of bonding brought about through similar experiences, beliefs, and affirmations. This kind of community would give us roots to grow deep. We have the comfort of being part of a tradition.

The second thing I think we need as far as community goes is, as has been stated here, “a safe place” in which to explore ideas, concepts, experiences, and worldviews outside of what the first group of “like-minded” people usually hold to. This group might share a sense of bonding brought about through shared questions, but not necessarily agreed-upon answers. This kind of community might give us branches to grow out. We find the challenge to explore.

For me, I need both. I need to grow both deep and out. Deeper into God and into the kind of life that Jesus portrayed. And I need to grow out from my own narrow-mindedness and self-centeredness. I find myself still part of the Christian tradition, but I also want to explore.

How much can these or should these two types of groups overlap? That, I don’t know. But, in my opinion, TCPC is more of a resource center for the second-type of group than it is a church or faith-community for the first-type group.

Thanks for the Bob Funk references. I will certainly look into his stuff.

Best wishes to you, David. If you know of any of the first-type groups that you think might appeal to me, please give me a heads-up via PM.

Sincerely,

Bill

Welcome, Deb, to the forum.

The following is only *my* opinion and I offer it simply from my own studies and viewpoint. First, as a progressive Christian, I don't believe that Jesus was omniscient. Yes, the gospels say that he sometimes knew things. But they also say that there were plenty of times that he had to ask people questions or that he himself didn't know things (such as when he would return).

That being said, I think there is plenty of scriptural evidence and I find it reasonable that Jesus started out as an "eschatological prophet," as feeling that he was called by God to call Israel back to God before judgment fell. This kind of eschatology was right in line with the Zealots, which it seems that Judas Iscariot was a member of. The Zealots, of course, felt that God would "rescue" Israel from her enemies (the Romans) if they would pick up weapons and fight. But by the end of Jesus' ministry, it seems that he eschewed violence as a way to revolt. He was for loving one's enemies and doing good to them. And it is quite reasonable, imo, that Judas, in "betraying" Jesus, was trying to force Jesus into stepping into the "warrior messiah" role that some in Israel desired. Again, Jesus rejected this role and chose the "suffering servant" messiah instead. And Judas, perhaps feeling that he had bet on the wrong horse, threw his blood money back into the Temple. The sad but very human thing about all of this is that ALL of Jesus' disciples betrayed him in denying him and fleeing. It wasn't just Judas who misunderstood Jesus' message and mission. They all forsook him. And yet, Jesus returns to them with love and acceptance. It's my opinion that Judas wanted the right thing, God's kingdom on earth, but he misunderstood that kingdom and how that kingdom was to come.

How much Jesus may or may not have known about his disciples beforehand, we can never know for sure. But he was often accused by the Religious Right of his day of hanging out with the wrong crowds, of fellowshipping with people whom anyone else would have written off long ago. But the man had grace.

Christianity, for better or worse, is usually understood to be a system of beliefs. In our post-Enlightenment world, most religions (but not all) are defined by their truth statements, as truth is approached from a more conceptual approach than an experiencial one. This is why, if you go to most any "Christian" church, organization, website, or forum, usually the first thing you'll find is some sort of "What We Believe" or "Statement of Faith" that most people in that "Christian" group are supposed to give mental assent to. These lists of beliefs are meant to be snapshots of the concepts that that community holds to be truth.

In my opinion, that approach does not work well here at TCPC. TCPC is more about how we live than about a well-defined system of beliefs.

The other distinctive difference is that for most other "Christian" groups, these lists of beliefs generally center in defining, as much as possible, our sacred symbols such as God, Jesus, the Bible, the Church, even humanity. When beliefs are thought to be central, then defining those beliefs are clearly as possible is very important.

Again in my opinion, that approach does not work well here. TCPC is more about leaving the definition or interpretation of these religious symbols, or even embracing them, up to the individual. It relishes in giving people this freedom and/or responsibility. "Find your own path." You won't find that approach supported in most "Christian" groups. But, imo, that is one of the things that TCPC is about.

This is why calling this "Progressive Christianity" can be stupifying to some people. IF Christianity is thought to be a system of beliefs, then some people who come here want to know, "Okay, so what do progressive Christians believe?" And this question, while appropriate to other Christian groups, is, here, like asking, "Okay, so what color are flowers?" In my opinion, the 8 Points are more about "how people live" than about "what people believe" and this approach is, not wrong, but different from most Christian approaches. So this group is not, strictly speaking, a group of "progressive Christians." It is a group of people from all different backgrounds, some religious and some not, discussing Christianity and things somehow related to Christianity. In this sense, and this is not a criticism but an observation, this is not a "Christian" group. I wouldn't come here, in typical "Christian fashion" to find "a group of like-minded believers." I don't think that is what TCPC is about. It's more about discussing all the different colors of flowers and what we find beautiful about them.

Not so long ago, I used to be against all creeds, statements of faith, lists of beliefs, etc. I'm not quite so sure I am anymore IF (big IF) they are used as shorthand ways to describe "how people live" or "what people believe" that helps them live in a certain way. But I am against using them as tests of orthodoxy that are often just ways to determine who is in and who is out. I don't mind them as descriptive snapshots, much as we might use a book's table of contents or backflap to see if the book would interest us in further exploration. In this sense, I still have a need to find "like-minded believers," self-confessing Christians who share a similar paradigm to my own. In fact, I get most of this through my local church. But TCPC is not a church and doesn't want to be. Like the Emerging movement, I think it sees itself as more of a conversation than anything else. So to try to determine who is a Christian and who is not here simply misses the Points.

Welcome to the forum, Phil. Nice to see folks from across the pond joining us!

My favorite 'atonement theory' is that in God we live and move and have our being, that nothing separates us from His love.

Of course, we are not always aware of God's presence with and within us. This is where it helps to have our spiritual eyes and ears opened. And this is where it helps to have religious luminaries, such as Jesus, reveal this truth to us. In this sense, I don't think Jesus' death accomplished anything in changing our relationship to/with God. Rather, I think his death showed us that even in our darkest hour when it seems that all of life and even God Himself has abandoned us, we still call Him "Father" and can commit our lives and spirits to Him. We might feel forsaken, but He is with us always.

Raven,

Joseph and George have, imo, given some good, practical advice about this situation and I'm going to paraphrase it just a bit:

1. Be secure in your own relationship with God. Rest in that. Know what you know, in your heart. That way, you know that guilt and judgment is not something you have to receive.

2. Then allow others to be where they are. I believe we are all in God's hands, though not all at the same place in our journey. And oftentimes the best response (advice which I should follow myself) is simply, "Okay." This acknowledges that they feel as they do, but it doesn't mean that you accept their view.

Raven,

I also have a friend that I used to be really close to that, now that I am changing, makes our relationship strained. About once a year, she contacts me and tells me how much she misses "fellowshipping" with me. But after we've caught up on how our respective families are doing, she'll ask, "So, Bill, have you come to accept the King James Bible as your only standard for faith and practice?"

*sigh*

I still love her dearly and wish we could have a close relationship, but the first hurdle that I have to jump over with her is which translation of the Bible is really God's inerrant and infallible Word, a subject that Jesus himself never once addressed. And I know that if I ever told her that I did agree with her, then whatever is in the KJV becomes the long list of "don't's."

I think if she contacts me this year, I'll simply ask her, "What did Jesus have to say about this? How did he say that his followers would recognize one another?" If she agrees that the primary mark/fruit of a Christian is love, then maybe we could find some common ground and freedom to discuss other things. Maybe.

One of my favorite progressive Christian authors is Marcus Borg. I’ve read almost all of his books and, therefore, find it a bit difficult to speak of what Progressive Christianity means to me without something of Dr. Borg’s influence coming through. What I think Borg does well is to take topics and concepts of traditional Christianity and , through using both historical-criticism and mystical-metaphorical analysis, to put a new spin on the subject at hand to help make it both sensible and meaningful to people today. Therefore, many of his books are intriguingly titled, “Seeing (fill in the topic) Again for the First Time”.

For me, being a progressive Christian is embracing the present in which I live while also reaching toward the past and the future. I sometimes feel like the many-armed Hindu goddess Kali. In reaching toward the past, toward the Christian tradition which has been handed down to us, I seek to “test all things” and to “hold to what is good.” Dr. Borg has helped me to reconsider and reinterpret such traditional religious terms as the Bible, God, Jesus, and Christianity in ways that not only often make sense to me, but invite me to know God in a more personal and deeper way today, in the present. And because God is becoming more and more a present reality to me, my relationship with Him challenges me to live in such a manner that, in some small way, influences both the present and the future for good.

So that is what Progressive Christianity means to me – considering the past traditional Christian faith for what is worth holding on to, mainly found in Jesus’ teachings; trusting God’s presence and empowerment with me today as my source to be and live; and responding to God’s call, as found in Jesus,into a tomorrow marked by both personal and social compassion.

I couldn’t agree more, Jenell. I don’t think there is any doubt that many of us, if not most, growing up in Western Judeo-Christian culture, come to the Bible with our own preconceived ideas of what we will find there. And the Bible, being an anthology of different viewpoints rather than a monolithic treatise, is only too happy to oblige us in our endeavors to find justification for our beliefs and actions. I don’t think this can be avoided. This is why I get somewhat perturbed when someone says they have a “biblical” view of marriage or a “biblical” view of salvation. Which particular views in the Bible are they speaking of?

But I do think, as you have said, that we should be very careful about applying something found in the Bible that pertained to one group or one person in one culture or time period, and making it a universal truth that, supposedly, applies to all people for all time. Which raises another interesting question: are there eternal, universal truths found there? I think so. As a Christian, I find them mostly in Jesus’ two commands, but as to *how* we do or live out those commands, yes, I think that is culturally determined. As a progressive Christian, I think my beliefs and way of life have to, in some sense and at some level, go back to Jesus (or the best information we have about him), not to Moses, or to Joshua, or to Paul. Of course, I realize that Jesus was also a product of his own religion and culture. But I still see something of what we call eternal and universal truths about God, humanity, and the relationships bound up therein coming through the life and teachings of this Jewish rabbi. Nevertheless, you may well be correct that we find what we are looking for, and, if so, even my own ideas about Jesus are merely the constructs of my own mind. I hope not. I want to know the truth more and more. But I’ve been around enough to know how slippery it is, even within Christianity.

Regards,

BillMc

Yep, God’s will, tricky stuff. While I wouldn’t say that the young lady stalked me, she did “pursue” me for a while until, I suppose, she gave up. I did tell her that I was engaged (which I was at the time), but then, as this Bible College never certified women to be preachers, most were probably there to pursue their “MRS” degree.

From a religious perspective, looking back, maybe she was God’s will. After all, the young lady I did marry and I were divorced about 7 years later.

A couple of years after that, I sought counseling to try to deal with some of the baggage left over from the divorce. The pastor I counseled with told me, in no uncertain terms, that I would never, ever be in God’s will again in my life unless I remarried my first wife. That was a rather difficult prospect as she had married 1 month after our divorce was finalized. I was not about to interfere with her new marriage, even if it meant violating “God’s will.”

Thankfully, I found God’s “present will” a couple of years later and our 25^th anniversary is coming up.

All of this to say that, just as now, I don’t think everything in the Bible is an accurate reflection of God’s will, even when people claim otherwise. Imo, I just don’t think God controls the universe in such a way that everything falls into the dualism of “God’s will” and “not God’s will”. But, yes, I do question things which seem to go against the spirit (and Spirit) of Jesus’ teachings on loving our neighbor which, of course, includes everyone. I don’t doubt that Jesus was faithful to God. But even he challenged the religious notions of his day that the forgiveness of sins could only come through blood or animal sacrifice. For Jesus, all that was necessary was repentance.

Regards,

BillMc

Jenell, could I offer a couple more random thoughts on this?

Disclaimer: What I am about to say represents only *my* view and understanding, I impose it on no one else, and it is just my attempt to honor what the scriptures say while, at the same time, being true to my experience of God and what I believe about Jesus.

When I was in Bible College, a young lady approached me one day when I was practicing piano and, after greeting me, she blurted out, “Bill, I’ve prayed about this a lot and God told me that you are His will for my life.” Hmm. Well, this young woman was not unattractive, but I had had no particular attraction to her, and, to the best of my knowledge, God had said nothing to me about her. But who was I to go against the will of God?

Even today, turn on almost any Christian television or radio program and some “man of God” or “woman of God” will tell you that it is God’s will that you send your money to their particular ministry.

People just love to speak for God, don’t they? Especially religious people. How are we to know what God is really like or what His will really is? Can we?

I think we need to be very humble about this predilection we have to speak for God. To me, there is the reality of God…and then there are our very human ideas, conceptions, and perceptions of God which, again imo, always fall short of the fullness of the reality.

Based on my studies, I don’t think the Jewish religion dropped from heaven with all of its laws, rites, and liturgies intact and God-sanctioned. Imo, it grew out of other pagan religions and, therefore, shared in the notion that the gods could be manipulated or appeased through sacrifice, usually of animals or produce, but sometimes of humans. Sacrifice was one way to “share in the life of the god” in order to, ultimately, have that god’s favor in order to ensure the survival of the tribe.

Therefore, and going back to my Disclaimer, I don’t think God ever demanded sacrifices, especially of blood and/or humans. Others will probably disagree. Some might say that God “evolved” along with humans and learned that what He really desired was mercy, not sacrifice. Freedom of thought, right? But, for me, I’d rather attribute it to faulty human perceptions of God, just as this young lady had and as televangelists do today.

Again in my opinion, though some New Testament scriptures do portray Jesus as a human sacrifice to placate God’s wrath, the bottom line of the NT story is that sacrifices came to an end. The Temple with all of its bloodshed and rites was burned to the ground in 70AD, ending the sacrificial system for the Jews. Some futurists think that it will someday return, but I doubt it. PETA would have conniption fits.

Finally, while not intending to offend my Jewish brothers and sisters, I find the whole notion of the Passover to be nonsensical and immoral. God had to actually see blood on the doorpost in order to know whether or not to kill someone in that house? God punished the innocent children of Egypt for Pharaoh’s stubbornness, especially with the notion that God was somehow responsible for Pharaoh’s hard heart?

We humans have all kinds of ideas about God and what God’s will is. To me, I think we see God’s will best reflected in Jesus’ teaching about loving God and loving others. Of course, knowing God’s will and doing God’s will are two different things. But I tend to think that when God’s will is truly done, we see compassion realized, we see the fruit of the Spirit. Unfortunately, not everything found in our scriptures lines up with this understanding of God’s will (such as killing breakers of the Mosaic code or killing one’s enemies, etc.). And this is where, for me, Paul’s advice to “test all things, hold to what is good” is very helpful. We should, I believe, test what we find in the scriptures. And if Jesus was right, if he was indeed good, compare what we find there to how he lived and to what he taught. This won’t solve all of our exegetical problems, but it is, imo, a good start.

Thanks for listening (and for the great questions).

Regards,

BillMc

There is another aspect of Jesus' sacrifice which, to me, makes better sense than substitutionary atonement or than the idea of Jesus' death as an offering to appease the wrath of God. I recall the Sadducees saying, about Jesus, "It is better that one man die than that the Romans come and take away our place." Sorry, I can't remember the reference. But, in this context, Jesus was gaining quite a following and the Sadducees would have been nervous about any "messiah" that the Romans might interpret as a threat to their dominion over Palestine. Jesus' popularity, coupled with his condemnation of the Temple as corrupt, probably led to his death as being evitable. In this way, his death is a sacrifice because he choose to die rather than lead an armed, violent rebellion against Rome, which surely would have resulted in at least his closest followers being executed.

So I see his sacrifice more as choosing to stand for what he believed in, much like Dr. Martin Luther King or like Archbishop Oscar Romero. Seen in this way, Jesus' death is a sacrifice (making sacred) of his life, not to change God's mind about us, but to change our minds about God. And I suspect that his teaching that we should all take up our own cross and follow him leads to self-sacrificing ways in our lives also.

Well, my friends, after much consideration and contemplation, I think I’ve pretty well pinpointed my sense of restlessness and what I need to do about it. The problem is, well, me. As many of you know, I came to this forum around 2006. It was through progressive Christian authors such as Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, and Brian McLaren that I discovered a "new way" of being a Christian that was, in fact, an old way -- a way of simply loving God and loving others, of doing whatever I can to make our world a more just and compassionate place. Many of my conversations here have helped me grow in this new way, especially as related to the Eight Points of PC. For that, I am and always will be thankful.

But based upon what I’ve observed in many conversations here over the years, it’s my opinion that this forum is generally leaning more and more into the Buddhist tradition, which essentially takes an atheistic view of God and a detached view toward the world. This leaning, to me, renders many discussions of God, the teachings of Jesus, and the problems of the world essentially useless. Based upon numbers alone, I have no doubt that Eastern religion works well for many people. Blending these religions with some concepts from Christianity may offer some a spiritual path that they enjoy and find satisfying. But this is not the path for me. I suppose I am too much a creature of the West and of the Enlightenment (of the scientific reasoning and rationalism kind, not of the mystical or supernatural kind).

I've experienced the reality of God and I believe that Jesus was right that we should love God and love each other. And I continue to seek and work for God's kingdom of compassionate community because I believe it can and will change us and our world for the better. While I’m thankful for the many conversations that I’ve read and participated in here that have helped me further along in my journey, it’s become clear that my own views and convictions put me at odds with the leadership of this forum and with the general direction I think this forum is taking. Being a good progressive Christian, this doesn’t mean that I think that someone or something here is objectively ‘wrong’, just that it is not ‘right’ for me. Therefore, it’s best that I simply wish everyone well and move on to whatever or wherever else my journey will take me. Thanks to all for allowing me to be part of this community for a time and for the understanding and support that I’ve been given over the years. I wish all of you the very best.

If anyone wants to contact me, you can "Private Message" me through this forum's Messaging service.

Sincerely,

Bill

Back when I was growing up, my parents liked only two kinds of music – Country…and Western. While my friends at school were enjoying music from Linda Ronstadt, America, Chicago, and Boston, I was relegated to listening to Hank Williams Sr., Patsy Cline, Lefty Frizzell, and Loretta Lynn. So I was elated when, for my 12th birthday, I received a GE transistor radio. I could finally listen to the kind of music that I wanted to listen to…as long as I wore the single, little earplug that made all the music sound like it came from inside a tin can. But, it was still freeing to explore my own musical tastes.

The problem was, we lived out in the boonies, in the back-wood sticks of upstate New York. I found it extremely difficult to find a rock or pop station near us that was static-free. The hills were too hilly. My antenna, the cord to the earplug, was not long enough. And if I did find a station that was relatively static-free, if I moved in the slightest, I would lose the signal. To this day, I probably don’t know all the words to my favorite rock songs because of all the static and interference that I had to deal with in trying to listen to my music. Then again, I don’t think I could discern all the words in a Bob Dylan song if he was three feet from me, singing straight to me. But I had such a love for music that I learned to listen closely, blocking out as much static as I could. As a result, I taught myself to play guitar, piano, and accordion in my teens. Few things lift me up quite like music does, so I guess I’m sort of an audiophile in wanting my music as static and distortion-free as possible.

If only life itself came with a static filter. I’ve heard it often enough and clear enough to know that life makes a beautiful music all its own. But, in my experiences, the music of life can sometimes be filled with so much static, noise, and distortion that I just want to turn it all off. Do you know what I mean? Or it’s like one of my father’s old 8-track tapes where two tracks (songs) play at the same time. It used to drive me crazy.

Perhaps it is because I am a fairly simple person and can’t really think about or process information on a higher or multi-tasking level, but I find that times of too much static make me want to withdraw. It’s like sensory overload for me. For whatever reason, I like things pure and simple, even though I know cognitively that life isn’t really that way. But when relationships and situations get too “static-y” for me, I have to get away.

It’s this way in my religious journey also. For me, the pure music of Jesus’ gospel is that we experience God’s love for us, love him in return, and be like him in loving others. Though there are many overtones and harmonies found in this simple melody, I still enjoy listening to it and singing it to the best of my abilities to others. But, for me, religion, the Church, and the Bible often add a lot of static and distortion to the music. And, just being honest, I haven’t developed a filter to block it all out yet. My natural instinct is to withdraw, to turn it all off or to look for a clearer station for a while.

Of course, my own life is no symphony either. I’m sure I generate a fair amount of static and distortion for others. But I want to do better. How? I’m not sure yet, but, going back to my memories of my transistor radio, maybe my heart is something like the tuner in that little box. If I can tune my heart to the life-giving frequency and music of the Spirit, maybe my life can be a little more static-free. And maybe if I make it a practice to tune to that station more often, I can tolerate a little more static in other areas of my life. I’m pretty sure some static and distortion is inescapable, but I also think that there is “heavenly music” in our hearts that is always there, if only we can tune to it. Ears to hear, as Jesus said. Not physical ears, of course, but ears of the heart. Ears that allow us to hear the music of the Spirit and of life centered in compassion, music that relegates the static to simply what it is…static.

To all my friends here:

For reasons that I can't currently explain, let alone fully comprehend, I'm experiencing some sort of shift in my soul at this point in my journey. I've tried to pinpoint the cause or reason for my sense of disquiet, but I haven't been successful in doing so...yet. I suspect (and hope) that it is because there is something God wants to teach me or something he wants me to understand better or deeper. He's never left me during these times of shift before, so I trust that he won't now. But neither do I know exactly what is behind this feeling that I am currently experiencing. Therefore, I'm at a loss to explain it.

What I do sense, however, is that I need a time of sabbatical in my life right now. Not from working (my wife would be rightly-concerned) or from raising my family (though my children might wish I would), but from religious involvement (church, Bible studies, forums, etc.). I get these from time to time, periods where it is just me and God sorting things, talking things out, sometimes even arguing. These times are not usually "enjoyable" for me, but they also seem to lead me to some new growth or in a new direction that helps guide my life and my journey.

So, therefore, I won't be active here for a while. Okay, keep the clapping and 'hallelujahs' to a minimum, please.

I appreciate all the great conversations, the openness, and the encouragement in my journey that I've received here. I especially appreciate the gentle disagreements because even those help me to grow. This is a wonderful community and I wish it nothing but the very best for now and the future. I thank God for each of you. May each and every one of you be blessed and be a blessing to others and to our world.

'Til we chat again...

Still in His care,

Bill

Thank you, Joseph, for that clarification and definition from the APA. The fact that the APA considers that sexual orientation is between adult men and women, and has emotional and romantic components, imo, goes a long way in helping me feel that my family would be safe in a "welcoming community."

Bill

I’d like to make a couple more small comments about this for the sake of clarity of my point-of-view, and then I’ll back out of this particular subject.

First, I fully support accepting GLBT people into our society and religious communities in all levels.

Second, what I have a problem with is the wording “those of all sexual orientations.” In our time of “political correctness”, we often use words without considering what they mean. Words carry ideas with them, meaning, and the meaning of “all sexual orientations” is not, in my opinion, “healthy adult relationships” or “loving commitments.” The meaning of “all sexual orientations” is, to me, “No matter how you like your sex, you are welcome here.” As the word implies, it is about “sex”, not about relationships. Therefore, no sexual act is off-limits. ALL are welcomed, no matter how or where they find their sexual gratification. To me, any society or community that had a policy that ALL sexual acts are welcomed and considered to be normal would not lead to a healthy society or community. To me, “all sexual orientations” includes pedophiles, rapists, and the chronically promiscuous.

In closing, let me be clear: I support the full inclusion of GLBT people into our society and religious communities. But in our efforts to be inclusive, I don’t agree with the wording/language of “all sexual orientations.” I believe in having an open-door policy, but using the words “ALL sexual orientations” means that there isn’t even a door, everything is permissible and allowed.

Thanks for listening.

Bill

No harm, no foul.

I like that, George. That’s why I said, imo, homosexuality in a loving relationship is not a sin. To me, a sin is something that is intentionally harmful to another. I would no more persecute a person who finds fulfillment in a same-sex relationship than I would someone who is left-handed, though most of us are right-handed. It is just something that, by its very nature, cannot propagate the human race, not that we really need it with just over 7 billion humans currently alive on the biggest rock in our solar system. So, seeing as we don’t really need to worry about propagating the human race at this point (our need for survival has been satiated), I see no reason that our need for intimate relationships cannot be fulfilled through same-sex partnerships as well as different-sex partnerships. As you say, no harm, no foul.

Hey, Jenell, if you like Celtic Woman, check out the band Iona. They've been doing Celtic/spiritual music for a couple of decades now.

http://www.iona.uk.com/

Neon, again an interesting contrast between Paul and the Jesus of the gospels. In what Christians call the "Great Comission" found at the end of Matthew 28, Matthew has Jesus telling his disciples that they should baptize -- in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But Paul says that Christ didn't send him to baptize. To me, the only obvious thing I can say about it is that the "Christ" that Paul met on the road to Damascus is not the same "Jesus" that Matthew portrays in his gospel. I don't know how else to account for the discrepancy.

George wrote:

I think there is a huge difference between sexual orientation and psychological pathologies.

I don't know where the line of demarcation is, George, that's all I'm saying. What is "normal"? I know of heterosexual couples who think that any sex that isn't used for the purpose of procreation is sinful. I also know of heterosexual couples who, while enjoying sex, limit it to the "missionary position only" because anything else is considered to be aberrant. One person's normal sex is consider aberrant by others. And it's possible that what we might consider psychological pathology today may well be considered to be normal sexual orientation tomorrow. In the Christianity of my youth (which I no longer agree with), homosexuality was considered to be, at worst, a sinful choice or, at best, a sickness.

You mean openly as a rapist and a pederast, or openly committing incest? I have no doubt that there are rapists, pederasts, and those who commit incest in the church all ready.

Agreed. But they are not there because our churches are "welcoming of those of all sexual orientations." They are just there because people are people and, thankfully, we've haven't yet got Big Brother installing cameras in our bedrooms.

As far as homosexuality, I am skeptical about the Biblical "laws" against it.

So am I. I don't think it is a sin, especially, as has been stated, it is between two caring adults. On the other hand, I don't think it is the natural orientation of nature either. I agree that it exists, even in nature. But I think it is the exception rather than the rule and that if it were the rule, none of us would be here to discuss it. So while I don't think it is a sin, it's my opinion that it is not the natural orientation. This in no way makes hetero-sex morally superior to homo-sex. To me, hetero-sex is superior only in that 1) it seems to be the natural way and 2) it is hetero-sex that reproduces the race. But my point-of-view is from pragmatism, not from morality.

I find it terrible that we need to even have this discussion because no one seems to care about the sexual proclivities of heterosexual (adultery, divorce, extramarital and premarital sex) in the church.

I agree. Hetero-marriage is in no way threatened by homo-marriage. It is the other things that you cite that are threats to hetero-marriage (adultery, rampant premaritial sex, selfishness, poor communication skills, etc.).

To me, there are two dynamics at work here.

1. Homosexuality used to be considered to be aberrant sexual behavior or orientation. It is no longer considered to be so by many (if not most) behavioral psychologists, sociologists, and geneticists, etc. "What we know" (or what we claim to know) about homosexuality has changed, requiring a change in how we deal with people of that sexual orientation. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing stopping us from seeing a similar paradigm shift with these other sexual orientations (pedophiliacs, rapists, those who commit incest, sadomasicists). As with homosexuality, it is very possible that "what we know" about these other sexual orientations will change in the future and that we will reach a point of acceptance of those sexual preferences also. There is nothing in place to stop this. The Pandora's box has been opened and it will not be shut again. Perhaps pedophilia and rape will still be considered to be aberrant, but incest and sadomasicism will be okay as long as it is between two consenting adults. Once we say that "people just are the way they are", there is no going back.

2. On the other hand, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that pedophiliacs, rapists, those who commit incest, and sadomasicists will be seeking to join religious communities any time soon. Religious communities (most of them) are known for standing for conservative sexual orientations. But then, religious communities are themselves odd entities. My own religious community, the United Methodist Church, is struggling right now over the issue of homosexuality. And yet they allowed a family member of mine to serve as a deacon in that church, despite knowing that he had committed incest with his own daughter for about 10 years. So you can't serve the Church if you are a homosexual, but incest is ignored. Odd things.

I differ, I think we must be drawn toward God by His love, not have hell scared out of us by fear of His terrible wrath.

I'm with you on this, Jenell. I wouldn't let young children read the Bible alone. I would read it to them. But, first, I would pull a "Thomas Jefferson" on the Bible so that they would only be exposed to the "loving parts." They could then explore the other "stuff" later.

My initial problems with the Bible came when I first started reading it unaccompanied at age 12 and saw that God destroyed the world in the flood. Hard for a kid to comprehend that - *everyone* was evil? *every* thought was wicked? *everyone* except for 7 people needed to die? God, through Noah, saved scorpions, spiders, snakes, grizzlies, and maybe sharks and piranhas...but he killed babies? And then, what did God do to ensure the next batch of humans wouldn't go bad? Nothing. Hard stuff for kids' minds and hearts.

So I wouldn't even mention some of Jesus' more "fiery" messages to kids. I would want to keep their little hearts as tender as possible until they are ready to really tackle the hard stuff.

Putting Jesus Away

Well, this afternoon I finally did it. It was a little bit sad, but I knew it had to be done. I disassembled our Christmas manger scene and put Baby Jesus back in his box. He's been out now for a little over a month, so he's had plenty of exposure. I couldn't leave him out all year long; he might get dusty, or the cat might knock him off the shelf, or, God forbid, my kids might decide to play with him. We couldn't have that, could we?

So I gently wrapped him up in tissue paper and carefully put him back in his box where he'll be safe until I let him out again next November. I think it's better for him that way. I mean, I'll do my best to keep Christmas all year long. Peace on earth, good will toward men and all that. But this Baby Jesus is so cute, such a little cherub. He needs to be preserved just like he is. Besides, it's better for me to put him back in his box. I've found that it's much easier to worship the Baby in the manger than it is to try to follow his teachings as a grown-up. Besides, being a good Protestant, I have a few empty crosses around the house that remind me of what he did for me. Granted, I don't have much that reminds me of what I should do, but who would buy that kind of symbology anyway?

The only thing that bothered me while I was putting away Baby Jesus this year, something that I hadn't noticed before, was that whoever put the final coat on him overdid it just a bit on his face. It's odd, but the flaw in the finish almost looks like a tear on his cheek. Funny how we imagine things, isn't it? I wonder, with this imperfection, if I can still get my money back on him?

-- Bill McCracken

Harry Mudd would definately be interesting from a comedic viewpoint. Mitchell, to me, blah. Trelaine, yes, I would love to see him developed as a pre-Q Q! "You will hang by the neck, Captain, until you are dead, dead, dead."

I haven't seen anything on ST writers either. Looks like Ridley is pinning all of ST on Roddenberry.

And the Frankenstein story, yes, truly a timeless classic. In fact, I just received in the mail the Hallmark version of Frankenstein which I though was closer to Shelley's novel than any of the others I've seen.

I got an iPhone for Xmas, so, yes, I now need to go "Trekify" it!