pacigoth13

And the reason why such people can't be arrested for disturbing the peace is...?

I'm writing this because I feel sad and melancholy every single year at this time, because I know what took place 60 years ago on August 6th and 9th respectively. So I want to say a few things and make a few stands... 1. All war is hell, all war is sin. 2. The very existence (let alone usage) of atomic bombs is a slap in God's face - it is also a bigger threat to the idea of creationism and/or intelligent design than anything Darwin related. 3. Anyone who would justify atomic bombs for any reason believes in and worships a different god than I do. 4. By being the first nation to use nuclear weapons, the USA set a precedent it should not have set. The bombs targetted civilians, an act that we happen to define as "terrorism". In 1945, the USA lost its to combat "terrorism". The plank is still in our own eye... 5. George Bush is an evil person and is himself a "terrorist". Bush is in favour of the a-bomb and the h-bomb. Furthermore, he wishes to develop Bunker Blasters, a newer form using nuclear technology. It is complete ignorance and stupidity to underestimate the threat that such "weapons of mass destruction" still pose. 6. We owe apologies not only to the people who have suffered in all wars and all acts of mass violence - but also to the land. This includes not only Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also New Mexico and the Nevada test site, and Chernobyl and the list goes on. We can only hope and pray that the earth can forgive us. 7. Following Jesus means following ways that lead to peace and opposing wars like the war in Iraq. Flower power to the people - ban the army. Make love not war. Listen to music that exists for the ideological purpose of educating people about war and violence so that peace may sought - both old hippie antiwar songs from the 60s and 70s but also modern bands that are relevant to current issues, like Funkervogt, an awesome German antiwar protest movement. Live, love, be, believe paxigoth

Wreath of Barbs by :wumpscut: holy burning hand of wrath piercing forever through the heart and this flaming orbit of shame ravages and splits the path grinding binding taking away needles above the prey wreath of barbs the injection of religion has a comalike effect and bodies lay in decay dreaming of a greener day grinding binding taking away needles above the prey wreath of barbs open eyes reading nothing a sky harsh blue grins black and i bleed and bleed in this wreath of barbs and i run and run but i don't get far www.wumpscut.com

I take the preterist option out of the three. I also think there is rich symbolism that has meaning for the Church in any age, but in terms of 'literal' future happenings, I don't believe in any. With one exception... A de-mythed understanding of the 'second coming'. I believe that we have to have hope that the gospel will be successful, that someday God will be 'all in all' and that Jesus' presence will be felt everywhere. That's really all I have to say on this entire issue.

There is much about NT Wright that I like and agree with. I have read most of his books and have been to lectures that he has given. Of course, I don't agree with him on everything, but then again I don't agree with any scholar 100% (not a bad thing). Honestly, I think Wright's positions are unique. There are some liberals who may say that he is a fundie/evangelical, but I don't think that is accurate. Then there are fundies who say he is a liberal, and I don't think that is true either. He gets the conservative label because he seriously believes in the historicity of the resurrection, the virgin birth and the miracles. However, he gets the liberal label because of what he says about atonement theology and more specifically the second coming. I was very much into 'Jesus and the Victory of God'. If only his view on eschatology and apocalypticism was accepted by conservatives, we wouldn't have to deal with all this 'left behind' hysteria. I also liked The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. Wright is not a traditionalist, he totally challenges the evangelical concept of hell on more than one occasion. At one level, Wright is in entire disagreement with other scholars like Crossan and Borg... in the sense of how historically parts of the gospels are understood. However, that seems to me to be primarily an academic dispute. The implications of what one believes matter more to me, and (in my opinion) the book Wright and Borg co wrote reflects this very well. In regarding what it means to be a Christian and follow Jesus, it seems to me like Wright and Borg are in basic agreement. And I get the same impression when reading Crossan. We can argue over whether or not the resurrection is literal, symbolic or both but what does it mean? That is, ultimately, where I think progressive Christianity has to take the issue. There has been much discussion about 2 different ways of seeing Christianity, and sometimes it is drawn on the line of literal vs metaphorical debates, and, while the debate is not entirely unavoidable, that is not ultimately where I draw the line. I would agree very much with Borg who draws the line between a lens of purity issues and a lens of Christlike compassion. Is Christianity mainly about a culture of dos and donts, of heretic and orthodox beliefs, and using things like war to force ourselves on the world? Or is it about becoming Christ like through transformation and love? Since I take the latter option, that shapes how I view everything. And that alone is enough for a true fundamentalist to fork me over into the 'liberal heretic' camp. If you asked my old fundie church about where I went 'wrong' it was when I started going to Tony Campolo seminars. It was there that Christianity became real for me. And ultimately, meaning is found in praxis not theory. Therefore, I can read Tony Campolo and NT Wright and Mother Theresa and St Francis of Assisi and John Crossan and Marc Borg and Henri Nouwen and John Spong and Jim Wallis and (etc etc) and when I do, I find agreement and unity not division and disagreement.

I loved that book, by Bruce Bauer. I lent it to a friend and they loved it so much they haven't returned it... :-)

Ok... I'm fine with the whole being a progressive who sees Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Jesus is God. Sure, we're sinners, redemption is found thru Jesus, that is heaven and the alternative is hell. We have to be reborn. Fine. Now, that being said, I interpret this existentially and not fundamentalist...

I certainly would agree that one can be a born again progressive. I consider myself one. Of course, there is an issue over terminology, and fundamentalism has over used the term. The biblical reference they back up the doctrine with, from Jesus and Nicodemus, I would translate as meaning 'born from above' which is, entirely, metaphorically. But true. We do need to be born from above to see the kingdom of heaven. If I remember right, in Marc Borg's the Heart of Christianity, there is an entire section on understanding the metaphor of being born from above thru a progressive lens. So yes, I'm fine with that. And people really do have experiences of renewal and experiences with God.

Well, if Canada isn't a likely scenario... Europe?

I can't believe we're stupid enough to re-elect Bush. This is all just so stupid and ridiculous and infuriating. Maybe some people have a higher tolerance level than I do and can take this crap for four more years. But I can't. My family supports me 100%. We all want to spend the next four years somewhere else than America. Bush won't have to use the Patriot Act to stip me of citisenship for speaking out against the government, I'll strip myself of citisenship. Not only did we re-elect Bush, but we also gave the Republicans a stronger majority in both houses, and all 11 hate laws against gay people got passed. The next thing I know they'll be bringing back the pink triangle and making gays wear it so that they can put them in gulags. Everyone say hello to World War III and Neo-Nazism. I can't believe people are so stupid. This is all f*ck*d up beyond any repair. Ok, so maybe I'm being an extremist. Or maybe I'm just doing what most people here aren't doing... thinking. In either case, 2004 is the last year my family is American. We're not exactly sure how to go about it. I'm kinda here fishing for suggestions. I know a lot of people have gone to Canada, noteably during Vietnam. And that the religious right keeps saying people like me and Michael Moore and Tony Campolo and John Spong should go to Canada, or France. But the question is this: how? Any ideas?

Well I definately agree with those who say the gnostic writings are an important find, relevant to historical search and personal devotion. I'm not so optimistic about the content of the gnostic writings. When I first read John Dominic Crossan's 'The Historical Jesus' (1991) one of the things that I remembered the most was him saying that he could understand the transition from 'Jesus to Christ' but not the transition from 'Christ to Constantine'. I agree. The transition from 'Christ to Constantine' is/was unwarranted. In fact, I agree with people like Campolo who say the transition did more to damage Christianity than help it. Most of this talk over 'alternative Christianity' and re-discovering lost faith seems to me to circulate around aspects of Christendom that seem to be obviously... well, unChristlike. I think the theological arguments (though some things are real issues of faith and doubt for people) tend to go hand and hand with the practical arguments. In other words, it may very well be true that some have a hard time imagining a literal resurrection of Jesus, but what fault can be found in those who believe in it? Unless they are viewed as also believing in such things as... Bashing and subordinating women, tormenting gay people, going to war against people/ violenting forcing faith on others, etc. These (social) issues seem to me to be the real issues. Of course it is reasonable why some are attracted to versions of Christianity that seem more affiliated with bieng humane than inhumane. Karen Jo Torjeson's book, 'When women were priests' is a great example. However, we can't exchange one type of blind acceptance for another. Let's be honest, people are fed up with 'traditional creedal Christianity' and in many ways, for good reason. There are many who blindly accepted whatever version of Christianity they were given without realising that they were not necessarily delivered 'the' Christian faith. So I guess it all re-opens certain questions, doesn't it? I return back to what I said about understanding the move from 'Jesus to Christ'. As a Christian, who sees Jesus as the Christ, this move is not only understandable but desirable. We are trying to learn and discover Jesus because we know that our ability to be transformed into Christians depends on it. However, we can't blindly accepted something like the gnostic gospels. Sometimes they can hardly be called 'gospel' at all. We have to be consistent with how we treat ancient sources. Crossan says that our four gospels are a 'lamination of history and faith'. I would agree. So is something like the gospel of Thomas. I'm not (personally) convinced any of the Jesus sayings are exact quotes. I tend to lean more towards the pink vote for them, that the meaning of Jesus is expressed through the voice of the community. Furthermore, every source developed in layers. Crossan sees Thomas as having at least two layers. It is the first layer (which is very Q-ish) which pre-dates Mark. I'm just saying... we can't let an emotional reaction against something like a male-dominated church to skew our thinking. I'm sure we have much to learn from Thomas and the Nag Hammadi library, but let's not learn more than is there.

I'm trying to collect as many statements/letters/etc. made by prominent clergy, in any denomination, who have voiced their opposition to the war and/or Bush. I've already come across the Pope's statements, as well as what Rowan Williams has said. The presiding bishop of the ELCA has spoken out against the war and Tony Campolo (a Baptist) has made his views well known. I'm still searching for voices from other mainline denominations, but if there are voices from evangelical/non-denom places, I'd like to know about those as well... Can anyone help me out?

You mean all the ex-gays who go off and hang with the fundies for a few years and then later come back admit that their orientation has really been gay all along?

Biblical... no question about it...

The Cross... However did such a symbol of violence and death come to be seen as redemptive? Maybe the question answers itself... To say the cross is redemptive is to take the symbolism of violence and hate out of it. The early church concluded, rather quickly, that Jesus 'died for the sin of the world'. But what did that mean? The statement used temple oriented language and put Jesus in place of the temple. It isn't going to be animals that die for sin now... it is Jesus who died for our sin. In the post-easter community of followers who came from a Jewish background -- it was the only meaning they could give 'the cross'. The conclusion: If it is Jesus who died for our sin, the image of the cross as gruesome can be replaced with one of redemption. Thus, it would make no sense to kill animals and/or other humans because of our sin. Furthermore, Jesus did, politically, take the place of his own people in that death. His way of peace, and self sacrifice, 'saved' them. But Judaism always had a world wide outlook. If Jesus died for their sins - he died for everyone's sins. The gospel is the good news that there is a better way to live life and that death has been overcome. The early church did have an 'atonement theology' but it wasn't cast in the terms of what 'atonement theology' would become. Jesus, God, was martyred for God's kingdom, showing us the way to be saved from this world and from ourselves. The way of life that Jesus lived is the life more abundant, the life eternal. We learn this from the resurrection. We can be saved through the power of the death and resurrection of Christ just like they could back then. It isn't so much about escaping hell as it is being invited to becoming human. The problem? Somehow the symbol of cross reverted back into vengeance and violence. If you look at Constantine slaying people under the cross or Hitler gassing Jews or the Crusaders slaughtering Muslims: the cross is what it always was - a symbol of violence and hate. Perhaps we should all wear crucifixes. A crucifix makes a statement about Jesus. But it is up to us to understand - and relate - the meaning of the cross as being truly redemptive. Later 'atonement theology' that boils down human cruelty as appealing God is kind of sick. In Jesus' parable about his own death upcoming, the one about the vineyard, this is not at all the picture you find. In Jesus' parable God sends the prophets and the people kill them. Finally, God sends his own son, Jesus, and he is rejected and killed as well. Jesus did forecast his own death as taking place because of the 'sin of the world'. He, Jesus, was innocent. The sin of the world killed him. By recognising this, we can see the death of Christ as atoning when we choose to respond and live in its meaning without giving way to morose forms of 'atonement theology'.

The entire dispensational/Zionist/Christians for Israel/etc. whatever you want to call it... That entire set up is one of the most ludicrous excuses for Christianity I have ever encountered.

Hey. I'm curious, have you all seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet? If so, what do you think about it? Let me know. My wife and I have seen it twice this week and we've decided to find a new country to belong to if America re-elects Bush.

I agree... we have forgotten what the Kingdom of God looks like. We forget that claiming Christ as King is subversive to human kings and leaders and rulers. We forget that the Kingdom of heaven transforms the world through the spiritual--that it is not something that is ever "forced" or established in the way human "kingdoms" are. As was the case with the idea of "Roman Christianity" as the official religion, the idea of so-called "Christian America" is a joke, a cruel one.

I just hope we all go and vote and that we, as a nation, vote Bush out of office. One term was bad enough...

BrotherRog, That is exactly why the whole rapture/Left Behind thing scares me. It's not just that I disagree with Biblical interpretation ... on most issues I'm content to let people believe what they believe and leave it at that... I've been so outspoken in the past against the rapture et. all because of where it leads. If people want to believe in a kooky understanding of the future and the end of the world, then that is their perogative. But I don't want them leading the country and making choices about nuclear weapons and human life based on such an understanding. Sometimes I think they want Armageddon so bad they will make it happen with their own weapons and destructiveness, just to prove themselves right. :

People are that unforgiving with Bill Clinton?

Interestingly... My wife and I (we just got married) are reading The Powers that Be by Walter Wink together right now as our devotional book... and his message is really clicking with us... Oh hey... I heard that John Kerry may be bringing Hillary Clinton on as potential vice president... have any of you heard about this at all? If so, let me know. I think we need to start having female presidents, but female vps would be a start... what do you think?

Is Jesus God? The answer to this question depends, entirely, on how you define 'god'. When people try to answer this question, the biggest roadblock in a positive affirmation is the bizarre idea that 'god' refers to a being somewhere. It is hard enough to accept this 'god' in our post-modern world, it is harder to conceive of this 'god' becoming a human--it just sounds weird. When people try to conceive of Jesus as God, they often feel as though they are being told to accept mythology (and indeed, sometimes we have been guilty of presenting it mythologically). One would rather read about Zeus coming down from Mt Olympus, having sex with a human, and then making a demigod as a result: because that is exactly what people feel is being said when we say "Jesus was God" and/or "Jesus was the Son of God". The importance that we place on the "virgin birth", making it a fundamental doctrine, doesn't help either. I say we scratch our pre-conceived notions of what or who god is, and work it the other way. What does it mean, for me, to say "Jesus is God". The word god means ultimate reality, ultimate existence, that which is beyond all understanding and existence and yet IS. God is IS-ness, being itself. To say Jesus is God, is to say that in the person of Jesus, perfect being is found: Jesus is the way to construct an appropriate image of God. Although Jesus was bound by finite constraints, the infinite was in him. I agree with St Paul, God was in Christ. In Jesus we see perfect love, perfect life, perfect light, etc. Take it a step further, for Jesus, God was Abba, Jesus was at one with God. This means that 'Abba' is the best, most accurate human anthropomorphism to understand existence beyond existence. Abba does not just mean parent, existence is not just from/of God; Abba implies intimacy, love and closeness--the God beyond god is intimate, loving and close to us. God is not personal, God is transpersonal. God is immanent, emmanuel, God with us. Transcendence is caused, not by the separation of a being from his creation, but by sin that blocks the heart to love. When we enter into the being of Jesus, his love, his acceptance, his giving, we enter into what it really means to be. And, of course, we enter into the being of Jesus through the Spirit. The trinity need not be a mythological mystery: it is God in perfect relationship to creation. The Spirit teaches us who Jesus is and Jesus gives us the courage to be who we were always meant to be. The word 'god' means so many different things to so many different people. It no longer works to conceive of god entering into human existence. We must look at Jesus, who he was, what he did; his compassion and his acceptance of martyrdom...and then we must be still, we must rest at peace, and know that this is God.

1) What are your thoughts concerning the resurrection? Personally, I believe that belief in the resurrection cannot be dependent on the disprovable. Asking, "what happened to Jesus' body?" is the wrong question to ask. The real question is this: "what did the early Christians experience?" I believe in resurrection, but not in recuscitation. I do not know what happened to Jesus' body, the empty tomb is irrelevant. I do not know if the body was buried, stolen, transformed or eaten by wild dogs for that matter. But I do believe the disciples (and later on Paul) experienced the risen Jesus. And I believe that they experienced Jesus' resurrected body, a new body, in physical form. The resurrected Jesus ate fish, was touched, etc. The resurrection is real: it happened. This alone explains the rapid rise of Christianity, why people still followed Jesus after his death and why people would die for the Lord "whom God raised from the dead". 2) How did 1st century Jews view resurrection? For Jews living in the 2nd temple era, resurrection meant re-embodiment. Resurrection was life after death, it was "life after life after death". The physical body would die, be buried and corrupt. In fact, it become no more. Resurrection was still possible, it meant re-embodiment. The essence of who the person was would take on a glorified, resurrected body. Furthermore, they also believed that the "last days" would come about by resurrection. Even though the early church invented the "second coming" it is reasonable to see why they did so: it made sense, if they really believed that Jesus had been resurrected (not recuscitated) then they would translate that event to mean that the "end" was coming and that the general resurrection would follow. But Jesus had left them. So, the "second coming" was invented to explain how Jesus would be present as King after the general resurrection. Then that generation cherished their mythological import so much that they projected it back onto Jesus himself. Then it didn't happen like they expected so they abandoned it. 3)Was Jesus' resurrection physical or spiritual? Properly understood, both/and. 4)Literal or metaphorical? Again, both. 5)Real or fabricated? Real. Regardless of how one understands resurrection, it is the only reason why Jesus' teachings meant anything to people two weeks, let alone two millennia after his death (NT Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God). Christianity would not have lasted had it been fabricated. 6)What were the early Christian beliefs concerning Jesus' resurrection? That God raised him from the dead, death had been conquered, the "end" was at hand, and all the righteous would be raised from the dead at the Lord's return. See 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4.16-18 (the verses of which have nothing to do with the rapture, and of which the 'second coming' is not the main point). 7)What were the early Christian beliefs concerning a future resurrection of their own? Initially, that it would happen in their own lifetime. At first, Paul seems to think he will be alive and will be "transformed" into his resurrected form in his life time--towards the end of his life he realises that that is not the way it will happen. By Revelation, the belief in resurrection has been expanded. There will be two resurrections, of the godly and of the ungodly. Also, dying and rising were used metaphorically to refer to their daily lives. Paul spoke of "dying and rising with Christ". Resurrection came to take on metaphorical, symbolic and mythological meanings early on. 8) Does the resurrection of believers result in a life here on earth or a life in an other-wordly place called heaven? Yes and yes and no. We have a glimpse of resurrection when we partake of Jesus and salvation. In a metaphorical sense, we are "resurrected" from the old into the new. Also, we find glimpses of resurrection throughout life. Every Easter is a time to let the truth of the gospel rise again in our hearts. We experience the 'dying and rising' Paul talked about. There is no place called 'heaven'. The word heaven, means sky, ouranos, and was used metaphorically to denote exaltation. The promise of Jesus and resurrection is that Daniel's vision in 7.13 comes to pass. It us who come to Jesus, not the other way around. The earth comes to God and is renewed, God does not come to earth to destroy it. The followers of Jesus, Israel, we have been persecuted by the domination systems of this world, like Jesus was in his day. Ultimately, the wages of sin are death. But we are presented to the Ancient of Days, to God; and like Christ, we are vindicated. "Coming on the clouds of heaven" denotes exaltation, not return. In so much as we share in the enthronement of Jesus as King, we share in the kingdom of God. The promise is that one day, God's kingdom comes true, that Jesus really becomes 'Lord of all' and God becomes 'all in all'. Then it really will be true that it is 'on earth as it is in heaven' to speak metaphorically, of course. The result of this is that THIS earth is renewed, creation is recreated in process to be that which it was always meant to be, existential estrangement is no more, and we live with Jesus as resurrected people of God. Resurrection is hope. This is why John had Jesus say "I am the resurrection and the life". This is the life more abundant.

RB, The question does not seem to be so much "did the resurrection happen?" as "what does resurrection mean?" One thing that such writers as NT Wright, Marcus Borg and JD Crossan all seem to agree is that, regardless of what one means by "resurrection", the resurrection of Jesus is vital for Christian faith. Did the "resurrection" happen? Yes. Early Christians really did have experiences that inspired them to continue on following Jesus, and even to be killed for faith in Jesus. Without the idea of resurrection, Christianity does make little sense. But we return to the question, "what does resurrection mean?" Perhaps we could have a post board dedicated to saying what 'resurrection' means to each of us personally?