BillM

The company that I work for has just come out and said, at least internally, that we need to and must support our GLBT members of our workforce and that intolerance will not be tolerated. I applaud them in taking this stance, but I question as to how they will incorporate this policy into practical measures.

This company, like many nowadays, is big on "diversity." It realizes that people come in all shapes and sizes and wants everyone treated fairly. But, and this is my opinion, it interprets diversity as "sameness." In other words, if the company truly believed in diversity, it would allow everyone there to express their uniqueness and all the variety that comes from blending different cultures and personalities. Instead, it tries to remove the distinctions, it tries to downplay the differences. To me, this is not diversity, but homogeneity (sp?). It doesn't celebrate the differences, it tries to ignor them.

What it does do, in its efforts to be pluralist, is to encourage people to hold to the same values - integrity, safety, respect for others, accountability, etc. How people arrive at these values is, I suppose, mute. But it wants a workforce that is diverse because it, at least at some level, knows that everyone has something good to contribute and that no one should be persecuted for different beliefs, culture, etc.

Thanks, Neon, that's very helpful.

Nick, Yvonne, I appreciate your input on this. Further thoughts are, of course, welcome.

As I mentioned, I'm reading some stuff on post-modernism while, at the same time, questioning whether I should continue going to the Baptist church (a question that, I suppose, only I can answer). This church is a good church, as far as churches go, but I'm not sure it is good for me. It could be described by, in Brian McLaren's words, a Type 1 church. It is for "finders only", for those who pretty much agree that they have the truth and seekers are welcome only insofar as they are "convertible" to Baptist doctrine and faith. Yvonne, this church certainly holds to what you call the traditional beliefs of Christianity, but seems to allow for one and only one interpretation of these traditions. And I guess that is the rub for me.

At the other end of the spectrum is what Brian calls the Type 2 church. It is for "seekers only" and they are usually quite opposed to Type 1 churches. Everyone is welcome at "seekers only" churches - atheists, agnostics, pantheists, monotheists, convinced, and unconvinced. But if you find yourself more committed to something or Someone specific, you can find yourself out of sync with this church. Type 2 churches can turn people from seekers who are trying to find something to seekers who are subtly pressured not to find anything. I've visited a couple of this type of churches in my area and, while "nice", they just seemed...blah. The only belief that they seemed to hold to was that, when it came to religion, they agreed not to agree. I guess this safe-guards them from dogmatism, but I need more than a "seek-and-don't-find" church.

So I'm wondering how pluralism or relativism plays into this.

Does pluralism mean that all religions are equally true? Does it mean that it doesn't matter which religion you follow as long as you are sincere? If it does, then what do we make of the particular claims of religions that they are the true ones (for most of them do this)?

I've been doing some reading on post-modernism recently and thought I would ask, do you see a difference between pluralism and relativism? If so, what?

I'm not looking for dictionary definitions, just personal experience. How would you (or would you) differentiate between pluralism and relativism?

Concerning practicing Christianity:

"Strangely, we have come to a moment in human history when the message of the Sermon on the Mount could indeed save us, but it can no longer be heard above the din of dueling doctrines. Consider this: there is not a single word in that sermon about what to believe, only words about what to do. It is a behavioral manifesto, not a propositional one. Yet three centuries later, when the Nicene Creed became the official oath of Christendom, there was not a single word in it about what to do, only words about what to believe!" - Robin Meyers, "Saving Jesus From the Church"

“You don’t think your way into a new kind of living, you live your way into a new kind of thinking.” – Henri Nouwen

…in the comic book world, anything is possible J

...As long as, in the Star Trek world(s), Kirk gets the girl!

I might share some of the core thoughts from the episodes here on this thread, if that's okay.

sbnr1

Rivanna, there is a new show coming on the Science Channel done by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator, etc.) in which he (and probably others) discuss the influence of science fiction writers and visionaries in our lives. Some of the names mentioned are Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, HG Wells, George Lucas, and, of course, Gene Roddenberry with Star Trek. The name of the show, if I recall correctly, is "The Prophets of Science Fiction." Ridley intends to examine how these people and their creations have influenced our lives, for better or worse.

While it appears the much of the show might center on the development of technology, I'm hoping the show will also consider the social and political aspects of good science fiction. Science and technology have always been a part of good science fiction, but so has social and political ideologies advanced in some of the better books and shows.

It looks like Star Trek will figure prominantly in this new show. I hope so as Star Trek almost always challenged us to critique our advances in science and technology against the backdrop of the benefit of our world and, within the milieu, the universe.

I believe the new show starts in November.

I haven't read Rob's book (yet) but enjoyed "Velvet Elvis" and many of his Nooma videos.

I "attended church" (Southern Baptist style) with my wife this morning and the pastor, though having not read Rob's book either, was quick to say that Rob, because Rob thinks that love wins in the end, "obviously ignores the teachings of Jesus on the judgment of God." Listening between the lines, my wife's pastor was warning his congregation that Rob was no longer orthodox. And this pastor wondered, aloud and publically of course, just what "God" Rob thought would win in the end. Surely, said the pastor, this wasn't the Father of Jesus Christ. Yes, said the pastor, God is love, but we must never lose sight that God is also holy and that no one can stand to be in God's presence without faith in Jesus' blood to remove/cover their sins. I.e. only conservative Christians will go to heaven.

I had to wonder if this pastor ever read the gospels.

The same Christians who insist that Jesus was literally God, if they read the gospels, would have to admit that no one spontaneously combusted into flames due to being in Jesus' holy presence.

What Rob Bell is good at, IMO, is (like most of the Emerging Church movement) allowing for us to bring questions to our faith that orthodoxy either will not allow or has insisted were answered hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. Why? Because people in the EC and in the PC movements know that faith, such as it is, is characterized by each generation seeking God and meaning within its own context and culture. Answers, or at least claimed answers, almost always anchor us to the past. Questions pull us into the future. And orthodoxy does not like questions. In fact, orthodoxy's goal is to discourage them and to insist that once-and-for-all answers have already been revealed.

I certainly don't agree with everything Rob Bell says. But then, I change my mind about things almost weekly. What I appreciate about folks like Bell, McLaren, Spong, and Borg is that they have the guts to ask the hard questions. Rob has the...umm...wherewithal...to ask if God really is love and, if so, what would love do? I may or may not agree with Rob's answers. But he dares, as a Christian, to ask questions and to challenge people to explore the character of God.

Heard this today and it made me laugh:

"God has given each of us the gift of reason, but some of us just can't seem to get the box open."