JenellYB

rhanks, Paul...from your list , there are a couple later ones I've missed....I used to read a lot more fiction than now....in some ways, 6 yrs of college experience severely damaged some of my reading enjoyment. Kind of like years ago I took up pet grooming because I loved working with animalsm spent nearly 30 yrs at it...still love my animals, but my dog's shaggy coats and long toenails are shameful. Jenell

Yvonne....for REAL? Jenell

On a very personal level, yes. I do take my concerns, feelings, for others, and the difficult times they may be going through, may be suffering. Often as much for as much just offerring up my compassion for them to God, the universe, the ground of being, my sincere want to help draw peace to the matter....perhaps even send out my own 'energy' in thought to offer toward them my love, my caring, toward a hope for their peace, comfort, and in all, what only God knows is best for them, that I cannot. And at times, share a prayer time with them, in their presence, in the same focus... Often that is just a few minutes of quiet time, privately, in meditation...but occasionally, in a more intentional and intensely focused way...sometimes setting a setting, perhaps a candle, a photo or other meaningful objects I connect to them, even toward moving into a meditative 'visualization', that may be of some light or energy of peace and healing directed upon them, even a few times, a very intimate visualization, of my being present with them, laying my hands upon, stroking their pain, or passing my hands over their body as in the actual motions of administering a Reiki session were they in my physical presence..seeking to draw off pain and negative energies, transmit more postive ones..a form of 'spiritual or energy distance healing' ritual. But that is something I've had to learn to be careful with, and do not engage as often or as quickly and easily as I once did at another time in my life, for I am a too empathetic person, I too easily take onto/into myself, the pain of others. I was told by a couple of my instructors in psychology, who either were or had been active in clinical and therapy applications, these are gifts that at once can make one a most insightful and effective counselor or therapist, but also at once, that is usualy not a good direction for them, that many such are fast burned out, their own lives troubled, for that very same reason....just as we cannot give to others what we do not have ourselves, neither can we really help others rise up out of the depths if we are instead by it pulled down into those depths with them. and yes, as bobv2, I try to seek what I might be able to do, in any practical sense, that would serve as intermediary in taking to them anything within my own abilities and resouces to give. Jenell

Terry Brookes, especially his Shannara series, did that for me....after Tolkien, anyway.... Jenell

But, couldn't this be extended to medical non-intervention in any situation; let nature/God take its course. George Actually, George, throughout much of Catholic church histroy, it was. the whole fabrication of what witches were was constructed by the church in its enmity toward those that practices 'healing arts', mostly women, that used such things as herbs and compounds of other natural ingredients, as well as physical practices such as manipulating broken bones back into place, even attempts at sterilization through cleanliness, to help heal. Midwives were especially targeted, for their work involved not only helping to releive the pain and trauma of women giving birth, which was interfering with God's intended suffering upon them, but interfering in ways such as re-positioning the infant to save the lives of both mothers and infants, that in the church view, God had intended to die. The practice of male physicians attending women's labor and delivery actually arose out of a history in the church of requiring the presence of a priest at delivery and birth, whose functionn and role wasn't anything involving assisting the birth, but merely making sure there was no assisitance given, that nature took its God willed course, and to be on hand to administer last rghts were things to go badly. Later medical advance met similar objection from the church...medicine and other interventions that helped prevented and helped survival of diseases were preventing God's will. Early development of proceedures that treated the deaf, allowed them to hear, was terribly blasphemous in light of scripture that says salvation comes first by HEARING the gospel, the Word, and God had not intended those deaf people to HEAR it and therefore be 'saved." Jenell

Is the prohibition against birth control also a remnant of the "sex is only for procreation not pleasure" attitude? Dutch I think this might be closest to the truth root of it. Pleasure, most especially physical please, is bad, wrong, evil. But, also, perhaps to take a step further, sexual pleasure, to its connection to the idea of sex as being "the orginal sin.' And that woman's punishment for that being her suffering in childbirth. Which of course, proceeds to the pain and risk of pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the burden for care of the child, a "punishment" in itself, both for woman being woman, and for having sex to begin with. and darned if God intended people be so "punished" for having sex, we shouldn't be trying to interfere with, prevent, the carrying out of God's punishment! Perhaps the allowance for "natural rythym method" is some measure of God's merciful reward for it's merit as inducing humans to exercise at least some effort at controlling how often they engage in that sinful sex act. and of course, since its the woman's responsiblity and burden to keep yp with all that monthly cycle thing, she can also take the blame for the burden and hardship she brings upon her poor husband for having yet another hungry mouth to feed. In all the poilical/social flap about it right now, I think some of that is still there, you play, you pay, but also, that it is less about convictions about birth control than about people feeling they have little control over their lives, and it is just one more thing to set up as how government is somehow trying to control their lives and curtail their freedoms. yeah. I know. cynical. Jenell

Is Jean Auel's Earth's Children seriies the same as, by another name, Clan of the Cave Bear, Valley of Horses...? Or different? Jenell

So many interesting possibilities, so little time! Jenell

Thanks, Dutch. Synchronicity at work again. Man, do we have some connections going on in this community, or what! Jenell

My own thoughts on this are tracking closely to those of both Joesph and Yvonne in many ways. While I don't find much value or use for ritual, I do, as Yvonne suggests, find it helps me to take time specifically set aside to spend in intentional contemplation and meditation, and yes, what could be called prayer, a personal communication, with God. I say personal communication with God rather than to God, because it seems for me that in verbally expressing thoughts to God, even asking questions, in a verbal prayer as "speaking TO God", aloud, though usually privately, I often have a sense of "response" to that either within my time of contemplation, or if I stay tuned in and aware, within the normal events and observations of my life soon after. And, i do find that setting aside such times both helps me to not get so caught up in other things i "forget" to take that time, and, that time serves as a kind of "tuning session" that helps me stay more connected and aware the rest of the time. While I place no inherent value or 'power' in ritual, I do find there are things I can do that help me focus, and go toward where I need/want to be mentally, spiritually, emotionally. Such as some might use the prayer beads, a rosary...touching each bead helping them draw their focus clearly upon a single matter. Or to use a music analogy, as one might pick out the sound of one particular instrument to instrument to focus on and follow in listening to an orchestra, tuning out the sounds of all the others. With practice, this can be further carried to as the director of the orchestra, who becomes able to do that with each and every instument in the entire orchestra, pick out in turn, listen to, evaluate, the performance and contribution of each musician with each instrument in the group. Jenell

I guess I'll be the first to comment on Ch. 3. I think this is at the core of the difficultly many struggle with, in both directions, in the matter of any importance, relevance, of religion, particularly Christian theology and doctines of "salvation" through belief in Jesus, which requires first knowledge of the Jesus story. I think it is at the core of controversy and often discomfort among Christians toward such texts as Romans, particularly Ch 2, and the book of James. I know that it has been a crucial element in my own journey of faith, and feeling my way toward reconciliation between my beliefs and my faith. Jenell ps..I'm a bit disappointed in myself that I had not read Tillich before, having put it off...I'm finding so far his views and ideas are tracking quite closely to those I have come to, as well. .

rivanna wrote: Just a couple further responses on chapter 2. I wondered if Tillich uses the term “New Being / Creation” as equivalent to the “kingdom of God/ Heaven”—to avoid the cultural baggage associated with the word kingdom. Or is there a distinction of meaning? I'd have to agree with you on that idea, both in what I think Jesus meant, and how I think Tillich is presenting it here. Jenell

Yvonne...ditto what Dutch said! That's VERY good! It resonates as coming straight from the heart and spirit within you! Jenell

Maybe the key before that one is to realize you're caught in a cycle to begin with. Until them you don't even know there is something amiss, that you are not actually sitting in that still point in the middle. Jenell

I am a bit behind the rest of you in this project, but working on getting caught up on both the readings and the comments others have made here. So forgive me if I refer back to Ch 1, and matters of forgiveness here. Something that emerges from this for me is in the casting of the "righteous" against the "unrighteous", the sinner. That we are not to discredit the righeousness of the righteous. But neither is the righteousness of the righteous itself of any matter in forgiveness. In reading and considering upon this in Ch. 1, it seems to me that this aparant contrast between different people actually applies to any of us as an individual. By that, I mean, I can see how I have been in both 'roles', or 'postions' and that this may be true of all of us. I see in myself a tendency to take the role, position, as the righteous in some matters, being more judgemental and unforgiving toward those I perceive as being "less righteous than me" in those things, and feeling myself quite "right" in doing so. On the other hand, in matters in which I may feel or have felt "judged" it seemed fairly or unfairly as being unrighteous, a sinner, I tend to be more accepting, forgiving, of others with similar weakness, while at the same time more actively seeking some ways in which those that would 'sit above me in righteousness' in some matter in which my own sin, weakness, is evident, are themselves unrighteous in other ways, generally in ways where I would see myself as being the "more righteous." I.E, I try to find reason to see them as hypocrits, righteous in some way I may not be, but less righteous, even sinners, in some way I percieve myself not. If all that convoluted way of saying it makes any sense. I'm recognizing this as very much related to my feelings of hurt and rejection from within the religious traditions and community of my life experience. I "fell" early in life into some kinds of "sin" toward which that community is traditionally very unforgiving. For example, within that community, one ever divorced, even worse, remarried to another while the first spouse still lives, is never fully forgiven and reinstated as a "first class citizen" within that community. No matter how many years past, no matter one's life since, one ever divorced can never be allowed to participate fully, such as hold positions as missionary, teacher, preacher, deacon, etc. In response to that feeling of rejection, lack of forgiveness, I have found ways in which I can see their unrighteousness in other things. Such as even their very attitude of unforgiveness and judgementalism in this very matter. So this Ch certainly does open up to me some new areas I see in myself that need some work. Jenell

National pride day? Maybe kind of along the same line as the US 4th of July? Sounds good to me! Jenell

Thank you, Bill, for letting us know...I will be glad to see you when you come back, hopefully, refreshed and renewed. I can fully understand, i've experienced plenty similar times myself, and yes, very often after we've taken in a lot of new input, a lot new to consider, and it needs to just 'simmer' for awhile. Take care, Jenell

romanpantera, while that was for me, too, the religious envirnoment and community into which I was born and place within the circumstance of my life, it was one I was never able to accept or embrace or really ever feel a part of. I was always standing outside the door, excluded from that world, I knew it, and so did they. So it is really very hard for me to try to put myself in that place of "other", those that do or have previously accepted, embraced, and been accepted, embraced by, that community. As in my post above, as I was never a part of it, neither is it a place i have come from, come out of, to become as I am now, "progressive". For me, "progressive" is just a recent tag upon what i already was, of faith as I understood and embraced it. Jenell

Something I've thought about, this being a "progressive" Christian idea....discovering others of similar perspective and views to my own among what are called "progressives", or even "liberal", whether as Christians, or even social/political, my progressive or liberal views really did not originate within such a designation, and most of what I and in general around us is now called progressive or liberal, didn't really seem to be thought of or called that until recently. I've basically accepted the mantle of liberal/progressive because that is what has been laid upon me over recent decades of changes in our society, politics, and it seemed, many Christian religious communties. Actually, the differences I percieve in myself and recent/present general social/religious/politcal trends pretty much how I had always thought of how being a Christian, Jesus, His teachings and message, and just a general good, honest and moral citizen and good neighbor was "supposed" to be, or "should" be...at least as the ideals toward which I or any might strive toward. Until recently, I didn't think of myself, and I don't think others that knew me thought of me, as a "progressive" or "liberal" Christian, but simply as a Christian. And if I thought anything of how those more fundamentalist saw things we now are calling progressive or liberal ideas, they would have been more often associated with "modernism", and some of those communties aversion to that as opposed to their ideas of "that good old-time religion", the nostalgia of an idealized "old-fashioned" better time. Jenell

WS wrote: It is just something that, by its very nature, cannot propagate the human race, Well, not actually. The preference of same-sex partner, in relationship of physical sex performance, does not render the homosexial person infertile. Throughout history and even today, homosexual men and women can and do engage in heretosexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction. In many periods of history, it was neither uncommon nor considered unusual for a person of homosexual oritentation to maintain both a long term herterosexual marriage, and one of more homosexual relationships at the same time. In such as the Greco-Roman cultures, it was common and accepted practice of men, especially, to maintian an active bi-sexual life, often the primary relationship of affection and intimacy being with another man, while heterosexual sexual intercourse with a wife provided reproduction of children, and heirs. And of course in such cases, their wives were usually free to maintian intimate relationships with other females, since there was no threat to the paternity of the children she bore to her husband. Even outside maintaining relationships with persons of both sexes, significant numbers of homosexuals may choose natural heterosexual intercourse with intent and purpose of having biological children. I remember once reading a sci fi/fantasy novel, in which a deep space exploration craft was destroyed, leaving the surviving crew members stranded, probably forever, on a distant habitable planet. The only males among the survivors were an older man no longer sexually functional, and two homosexual men in a deeply commited relationship with one another. The others were women, and one of them soon discovered she was already pregnant, by a crew member that had perished. The author handled the matter quite sensitively, when the survivors decided they should establish a community, and reproduce a next generation toward colonizing the plant. Biological capacity to reproduce is really a separate matter from intimate, personal relationship. Those that claim a homosexual relationship invalid based on inability to reproduce rarely have a similar problem with the many heterosexual relationships and marriages in which whether for reasons of biology or choice, the couple remain childless. Jenell

As re the observation that the Hindu woman's religion had "failed" her, in that she didn't know something about it, I would say twothings...first, no matter what the religion, or at least in most religions, there is not some practice of forcably holding people down, opening their heads and pouring knowledge of the religion into their brains. there is going to be a wide range of variation in just how educated any are in termsof their partiucalr relgion. Most Christians have little real knowledge or understanding of even basic Christian principles and doctrines, and really give little thought or effort to gaining that, as well. I would agree that before one ventures much off into looking at, studying and trying to understand other relgions, it might be best they take time and effort to first understand their own. First, without that, you don't HAVE any way to compare or relate your own religion to another, and second, its sure to lead to a lot of confusion, disorganized thought, about either the other or your own religion. I recently sat silently and listened, (yes, I refrained from input!) a conversation among a little group of fundamentalist evangelical Christians in a public place, on the doctine of Blood Atonement. My initial thought, no, sure they don't mean....no,surely they aren't talking about....but yes, they were....they were discussion the MORMON doctine of Blood Atonement as they are accepting it as a CHRISTIAN doctine! Jenell

George, i did not mean to seem dismissive, I was in error in saying "as you call them", but it was unintended. I spoke that out of place, for not being aware that this is a proper term in linguistics. My apology. But even still, while they are granted social authority, the words themselves "do nothing", have no power of their own. It is still only the power we, as humans, have granted to their use in our social systems. What they "do" is dependent upon the human authority granted to those speaking them. That is really what I meant when I exampled children saying marriage vows or baptism statements, there is not power in the words themselves, only in the authority granted through our sociial systems. Jenell

Some things that bother me about that passage of text are that other than here, Jesus isn't given in scripture to have baptized or even instructed his disciples to baptize with water other than possibly in this one passage. A text sometimes cited to claim he did.... John ch 4:1 When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and BAPTIZED more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself BAPTIZED not, but his disciples,) seems highly suspect, for that throughout the gospels, 1) other than that that 'great commision' statement, and this, Jesus didn't speak of water baptism or instruct hid disciples to perform it, all baptisms connected to Jesus are spiritual, not water, 2) as the () around the words of vs 2 here indicate, these are recognized as an expository, words added much later, as a supposed clarification of the meaning, and 3) although that commision is presented as being given, personally by Jesus, to his disciples, ALL His disciples, there is little evidence that any but the few specifically mentioned in tests other than the gospels, ever performed any water baptism, and no specific mentionn of any of them at all doing so within the Gospels themselves, other than this one I question here, which as already noted, is not considered 'original', or later, following Jesus' ascention. Most of His dicples just quietly diassapeared into history, and that seems strange if Jesus had Himself given them such a holy directive for action. Additionally, another area of problem, as I see it, with the "Great Commission" is in the directed "target" of that command, as "the Nations," rather than "people" or even "believers." First, how would you water baptize a "Nation"? You sure can't dunk a whole Nation, and if it were to be interpreted as to baptize every person in that Nation, then it would meaning trying to dunk every person in that nation without regard to whether they had become beleivers or not. Second, the relationship of Jesus and His message with/to humans was entirely personal, a one-on-one relationship, experience. Individuals are "saved" and therefore potentially submitted to baptsim, whether of water or Spirit, NOT Nations. The only biblically supportable idea of God in a special relationship with any Nation/peoples was that of the Nation/peoples of Israel. Israel on that basis could be called "God's people", "God's Nation", but there can not even be such a thing as Jesus', or Christ's Nation, used in any similar sense to that of Israel's status. It is otherwise recognized that any "Jesus' or Christ's Nation would be that of "the church", the spiritual, faithful church, the body of believers, as they would be found scattered among the peoples of nations everywhere. the "Nation", or people of Christ, would be created, constructed, one by one, with the conversion of new beleivers, there's nothing in that idea to support "baptizing" any existing Nations. There can be no such thing as a "Christian nation", as has been a popular idea that has arisen among some later European Christian doctrines, some have claimed that for England, many right now claim it for the United States. the simply isn't biblical or consistent with the very foundation of "Christian." as a personal one-on-one relationship with God. At this point, my only possible resolution for these discrepancies and problems are that the "Great Commission" statement was added much later, as Christianity began to take form and be shaped by the common practice at the time of religion interconnected with powers and authority of state, which of course eventually worked into Christianity being formally declared the official state religion of Rome and other nations, replacing (and often incorportating) previous state religions as they had existed. Christianiy in Rome didn't actually "replaced" previous Roman pagan religion, it merely merged with and was incorporated into the Roman religion. All of the trappings we associate with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, the grand cathedrals, ornately decorated prayer chapels, magnficent art and architecture, as well as systems of pope and heirarchies of of bishops and cardinals and priests and whatnot, the pompous and elaborate dress and ritual and ceremony, were all simply incorporated from the Roman and Greek pagan religions Christianity as an idea became incorporated into. jenell

George, actually, no, even those "speech acts" as you call them, do nothing of themselves. It is still only the meaning and authority WE give them that is of any effect. Consider that even children playing grown-up go through such motions and recite such "speech acts" as might be used in weddings, but nobody on whom they pronounce them are in danger of being actually married. and if the words "I baptize you in the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost" are "speech acts" that actually DO something, then my sister and I and many other children "playing church" which naturally often involved baptizing each other, were effectively baptized many times over by the time we entered kindergarten. Jenell

Thanks, WS. Yes, enjoy Celtic Woman, enya, a few others in that genre....but then,lol, I like LOTS of kinds of music, very eclectic. I'll check them out. Jenell