JenellYB

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

Yvonne...ditto what Dutch said!

That's VERY good! It resonates as coming straight from the heart and spirit within you!

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

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.

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

Neither "natural" nor "normal" are really valid criteria for determining what is optimal, positive, or good, or the opposite.

Many things that may be "natural" are deleterious, even dangerous and threatening to health, well-being, even life. Diease causing pathogens are natural. Toxins are found thoughout nature.

"Normal" merely means conformed to the norm, a common standard. An IQ of 100 is the precise norm, or normal. One with an IQ of 130 is as far from the norm, as "abnormal", as is one of 70. Anamoly doesn't imply inferiority or dysfunction.

"Normal" in the context of social norms, which are human structures, may include many things not neccesarily healthy or conductive to well-being.

To difference between such "anamolies", deviations from the norm from those that may be designated "abnormal", whether in biology or considerations of mental health, the determining criteria are function/dysfunction, positive/negative effect, comfort/distress, benefit/harm, etc.

Homosexuality was removed from psychological.psychiatric classification as "abnormal" because the condtio or state itself does not inherently create any of those negative affects, on the individual or others. The only "harm" involved was the suffering of distress through social attitudes.

The pathologies listed above generally would not pass that criteria for at the very least, lack of harm. At least three of them involve violation of, toward another. In the case of pedopjilia, even if the child is 'seduced', they are not psychologically competent to give consent, and that is reflected in our societies standards and laws. While some have argued incest is an exception, but it has negative effects and deleterious consequences, as well. In addition to the increased risk of birth defects and deformities of offspring, it also undermines the social order crucial to family stability and well-being. While one might argue conception could be avoided through birth control, that would add both a burden of condtion, how do you enforce it? As well as there being no 100% reliable birth control. Some argue the incest restriction should exclude only under age children (pedophilia) ignores the often fragile trust relationships of even of-age family members. Even say, a daughter, reaching age 18, is both still vulnerable to parental authority relationships with men in their family, and, the mother/wife of a man who starts eying his daughter with lust by the time she's 15, just biding the time until she's of legal age, to indulge in the act, doesn't do much for a stable family situation.

Perhaps in some primitive culture, harm toward others is not so well developed a social concern, but in ours, it is, and its a very important one. Its why any of us can walk around feeling reasonably safe in most situations in our society. Many of us take that for granted, don't realize that is a social luxury. On many cultures past and even some present, people cannot travel with any degree of safety without some kind of defense, protection, either weapons, or in company of suffcient others to mount defense against attack. to make rape socially acceptable would mean females having to be kept under lock and key and protected at all times, lest a man jump her where ever he finds her unguarded. Rape, what we would call rape, IS accepted in some societies, even still, under certain specified social situatuons, such as where marriages may be arranged without the female's consent or cooperation in consumation. In some societies, some women of low status are ever at risk of rape that will not be prosecuted, is allowed to some men in a society. I don't think any of us are ready to move toward that, as far as the world has come away from it.

Jenell

Spirit in the Sky was my late sister's choice for the closing song at her funeral. She had been a hippie, was always a free spirit, it was so "her", totally appropriate. And in its lyrics, is echoed the title line of "What a Friend I have in Jesus" which was also one of the songs she had chosen.

Jenell

As i feel about baptism, or any other of the rituals we may have brought out of our backgrounds, any "meaning" is what we appply to it. For some of us, such as baptism still holds some content of meaning, signficance, to certain elements of our faith. I do not beleive any ritual or ceremony or cited words have any power of any kind in themselves, and that to make any such thing an "ordinance" beyond mere human valuation is idolatry.

No ritual has any meaning or power in itself. I personally do not believe water baptism makes one whit of difference in our 'salvation' or anything else. I gave above a scriptural response to the question that was asked, does the bible support the idea of water baptism as neccesary to 'salvation." And, i think it is a valid and effective one.

But human valuation IS a real and valid reason to continue to engage in, respect, some ritual or ceremony that is meaningful to US." Where for us, personally or socially, some ritual or ceremony still holds a content of meaning that is important for us, still holds symbolic signficance in something for us, it has value and reason for observance.

Just as we know, rationally, all the ceremony with which we surround such life events as entering marriage, funeral services for the dead, have no power or value in anything of themselves. But they still carry signficanct content of meaning for many of us. In that sense, the are still valid.

I've had two baptisms in my life, the first at age 12, the second at age 50. The first was terribly dissappointing. I really beleived it was somehow really going th bring some kind of change in me, for me. I had great anticipation for its power to do so, and it was quite a let down when nothing really happened.

My second, however, was a very different experience. I had just entered into the greatest transformative and life-changing period of psychological crisis and spiritual awakening of my lifetime so far, and i entered into it with full understanding of it as meaningful to ME, a symbolic surrender to a transformation process I felt I have been led to by something beyond myself, even kicking and screaming in protest at times, but that i had recognized and accepted as a stage of transformation and growth I had been readies for. the event of my baptism was marked by my total surrender to that, and as a result, it was a powerful experience. As i entered the water, I felt such a total sense of surrender, of "letting go" of the old way of being, and as I emerged, it was as if a power switch was thrown, I literally felt as if there were a powerful surge of almost electric like energy within my entire physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual being.

I knew then, and I know now, the actual act, that ritual had no 'power' in itself in that, the power came entirely from within what it symbolized for me.

To Gervais, perhaps its was that baptism of the Holy Spirit that i experienced in the process of that water baptism at age 50. I know that many new gifts opened within me, quite powerfully and suddenly.

Jenell

After a some months haitus from my fledgling first attempt ever at doing an online blog, I'm feeling its time to take it back up again. Knowing that the focus will be changing from as it began, I considered either begining an entirely new blog, or deleting all the earlier posts. I decided against both those options. I'm choosing to leave those old ones in place, for they still reprsent a stage of developmennt I was in then, and, while the focus will be changing, it will still be very much still in the direction of seeking truth and understanding.

The new focus will be more toward social and political issues in the world around me, though I'm sure to stray off onto side jaunts now and then. I've begun "reactivating" my blog, Truth Seeker's Journey, by transferring some pieces I've written elswhere, the first ones being some I've done on my Facebook as notes.

If any would care to check it out, here's the link:

http://truthseekersjourney.blogspot.com/

Jenell

Most of this discussion took place long before i entered this forum. I don't think I've even read it before.

Quite simply, I do not see the offensive behaviors toward others listed in the original post here as having anything to do witg "sexual orientation." They are violent, disrespectful, and unloving acts of violence against another weaker than oneself.

Can I "love" a pedophile, rapist, etc? No. I can love a person that may have engaged in such behavior and action, but not "as" a defining element of who they are. To hate the sin but love the sinner, all that line of stuff. Even in that, to allow of love of the person, does not mean allowing for their unrestrained contunance in offensive behaviors, of this nature or any other. Love for the pertetrator of serial rapes does not negate or over ride love for the victims/potential future victims. It would not be a failure to love the rapist or pedophile to restrain such a one from further offense, to protect others from further assault. Love for all demands that effort at restrain.

Jenell

The argument against the neccesity of water baptism to secure salvation that I've heard at times in my life is that as the thief hung on the cross beside Jesus confessed his sins and accepted Jesus at hus savior before he died, jesus told him that today, he would see him in paradise. That suggests the man's 'salvation' was secured, without baptism.

Jenell

..()

.( .)

( .. )

Jenell ==< ( ) ( ) ( ) ----------> Yvonne!

Gotcha!

Light freeze here tonight, but no precipitation

_{Did dumb things. Learned a lot.}

Walked off into muck. Got out.

My most immediate concern is how i might try to support and stablize this family member, as she comes to grips with this, as noted, she has a history of mental health issues, including bi-polar..something I've mentioned before, I and others in my family have had all too much expereince with this kind of thing among us. The realities, are real for us. She has been suicidal and hospitalized more than once in the past. Something like this can knock anyone a loop, one with a history of instability makes it potentially very dangerous.

Jenell

One of those really hard situations with some others devasating lfe experience, that for me, probably most of us, is one in which in our own common sense and learning in life, and our postion of emotional detachment from the matter, we can see was the result of such stupidity, poor judgement, ignorance, and failure of common sense, we can't imagine how they got themselves into their mess.....but they did, they are devasasted, they've suffered losses of many kinds from emotional to financial, and all we can do is try to be spportive, even comforting, without letting ourself say it...Omg, how could you be that stupid?? Because you care about them, and you know, that is not what they need right now...they are without much doubt having to face for themselves just how foolish they've been.

A childless couple in my family, in their late 20's, unable to bear their own child, entered into "an agreement" with a single young pregnant woman, that was already the mother of a child several years old, to adopt the baby as birth. At Christmass, we were told the baby was due anytime, probably within a week. One member of the couple had received a moderate insurance settlement following an auto accident last year, and they had decided the use most of it to do this, provide care and support for the young woman, whose actual medical care was supposedly being mostly covered by Medicaide, and adopt the baby, as the opportunity to do so popped up shortly after they'd received the money.

I'd had misgivings and concerns about this from the start, I really didn't feel this couple is matured, responsible, or mentally/emotionally stable enough to be taking on a baby. At least one member of this couple, the one that is my family member, has some pretty serious hisotry of mental health issues, bi-polar to start with. But, after simply expressing my concerns, I stayed out of it, tried to be supportive when it came up, it was their decision, their life. I didn't ask much details, neither did others in the family, as this couple knew others were not keen on such an idea, and pretty much keep what's going on in their private lives to themselves anyway. Other than several had seen the lavishly decorated new nursery, and a sonogram posted on Facebook, we knew little else. Some in that family closest HAD expressed concern they had been given so little details. But, I guess no one really saw this one coming.

Well, long and short of it, the young woman had notified them her doctor had scheduled a C-section for last Monday morning at such and such hospital at such and such time.....they arrived at the hospital, where no one had a clue what they were talking about, no one by that woman's name had been admitted, and no doctors had a C-section scheduled. The young woman has moved out of the apartment she was in, her cell phone disconnected, and its looking at this point like she hadn't even given her real name.

My family member in the couple hasn't even spoken to her mother or other close family members about it since the first day, I was able to get her to answer my calls, and as far as i know, i'm the only one she's really told much about just what has happened. I think on top of other hurt, she's so embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated, and expecting that OMG how could you have been so stupid?? Because honestly once I has more of the story, that's exacly what most anyone would say...that she just can't bring herself to face them. I've managed not to say it, as she began to lay out the story to me, even she kept saying, why didn't I press on that? Why did I believe? That looking back now, she can see all the red flags and warnings that things were not right....all I can say to that, we've all done things that in looking back, we could only wonder what we were thinking at the time...I guess when you really want something you can get so caught up in wanting it to be true, really happening, that we blind ourselves to even the obvious....

Ho boy. This one's tough.

Jenell