Jump to content

des

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1,130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About des

  • Birthday 03/01/1960

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Mexico
  • Interests
    Animals-- dogs, cats, and saltwater fish. Current population-- 1 Corgi, 2 cats (Maine Coone and Siamese/Maine coone mix), 40 gal reef tank.<br />Snorkeling. Astronomy. Harry Potter crazy. :-)<br />Like to discuss religion with like minded folks.<br />I'm a special ed. teacher attempting to run private practice tutoring <br />with mostly dyslexic kids. (I'm a lousy business woman and am trying to get a real job.)<br /> I spent a long time reading and figuring out what I believed. I grew up in a strict Christian Science family. Went off as an agnostic for awhile; went to Christian encounter (encounter groups talking about religion), was in a private religious discussion group, read about Buddhism, and finally read Matt Fox (also attended several of his talks). His thoughts very much resonated, and I ended up at a UCC church he talked about in one of his talks.<br />I am mostly happy with the UCC church I attend, but if I am ever on the church council again.... Well just no way! <br /><br />--des

des's Achievements

Master Contributing Member

Master Contributing Member (9/9)

0

Reputation

  1. >Your comments are too kind. It was a combination of homoerotic and sadistic pornography of violence - a constant in many Gibson movies, including his newest. I saw the trailers and that was quite enough for my stomach and brain. The addition of anti-Semitic elements , I can't comment from my own viewing-- at least from what I read, was a nasty addition. >This thread was interesting with the intervention of a fundamentalist, what was that about. Gosh, I don't know. The thread was sort of already long dead, and he apparently was reading very old threads in the archive. This film was a big hit among fundamentalists who seemed to view attack of it, as some kind of anti-Christian statement. It's interesting that an administration with a fundamentalist base is supporting torture (signing the McCain bill was a lie, when George Bush did the most unconstitutional thing of a "signing statement" sayng he would basically follow it if convenient), given what was done to Jesus. --des
  2. >I think the point that we fundamentally disagree on is you think this life is about you. It's about your needs, your beliefs, your world, your morality, your god, how you treat peopel, how people treat you. It's not about you. Practically, you're only somewhat important to a tiny fraction of the world's population and can only hope to affect a tiny fraction. This creation is about God. That doesn't mean to say God doesn't love us and care for us even though we are so insignificant. If you want to find the real God you have to look outside yourself and your opinions. If you seek truth, you will find God. If you seek believes that make you feel better about yourself and satisfy your perceived needs, you will find some god I suppose. I challenge you to humble yourself before your creator and ask Him for truth. You don't have to. It's not going to affect my life. But if you feel not right about your life and this world, go seek your Father for if you seek with sincerity you will find. Jutan, well I couldn't stay away. And I appreciate that my ideas must seem odd to you. Believe me when I say that the ideas of fundamentalists are just as bizarre to me, and even offensive. You are not allowed on this board, by the rules, to try and convert. See above which I have quoted: (posts should be ) "presented in a manner that is respectful of other viewpoints, or seeks to convert, or coerce, or attack. " You come as a guest. I'm not the guest. I feel you are close to crossing the line. What would give you the idea that I only think life is about me? Because I disagree with your fundamentalist view? I believe we are profoundly interconnected. We're not only interconnected to God, but to each other, other creatures, and the planet. My feeling of that is as strong as anything you believe. I think you may be used to saying this as a clique response to whenever someone disagrees with you. However, I said several things that I don't believe it is all about me-- about beliefs of other faiths (or no faith), responses to justice in the world, and the Earth's well being, etc. But I am offended by your comments. You don't know me or anything aside from a small sampling of my beliefs. So quit looking at your cliques, when they clearly do not apply. Jesus said "Judge not". I sure believe that. --des
  3. Jutan, >Des, you are a child. I don't mean that in a demening way, I mean it seriously. We are all children of God. If we think that the 'be all and end all' is with us, then yes, God doesn't really make sense. But what happens if we aren't at the top. What happens if there is something above us? The questions I ask are quite rhetorical. I will buy into the great mystery. But what I wouldn't buy into is that "God doesn't really make logical sense", therefore "he" can do whatever he wants. Kill thousands of innocent people in the Great Flood-- fine. It doesn't make sense. (Of course, I don't believe in the literal event.) Making sense from a human standpoint isn't absolutely necessary, but at least God should have superior moral standards when put up against mere humans. >Does a parent let his/her child do whatever they want? No. Does a parent set down a bunch of rules for the child's own good? Yes. Then, does a parent punish his/her child? Yes. Does the child often think that the rules are unfair? Of course! Why? Because they child only thinks of themself or their own happiness. Of course, and some parents, as we know are incapable. Some parents abuse their children, for instance tying them to a potty seat for having accidents; hitting them with chains; or locking them in cages. Is God an incapable parent? Because as you define "him" "he" is. For instance: >Does God send people to hell? Yes. Does he enjoy it? No. Just as a parent doesn't (or shouldn't) enjoy punishing their children. Do we have a choice in the matter? Yes. So God created hell (or allowed it somehow) and sends people to it for basically, now I am not sure you believe this but for not accepted Jesus into their hearts (however you define this). This is my sister's, who is a born-again type believer's basic message. So eternally, forever and ever, "he" would send people to a place of unending misery and torment--something I doubt even the Nazis were capable of. The Dalai Lama, who is Buddhist and has, all his life taught compassion, goes to hell, but Pat Robertson who has lead a different sort of life, but is Christian, goes to heaven. There is just something profoundly insane in that view!!! :-} > You describe God as if He should let us do whatever we want. As if He is cruel and inhumane for punishing us. You get to decide whether you obey or not. You also suggest that perhaps God is impotent because people go to hell. God gave us free choice. And He won't override that free choice. So, no, He isn't going to force us to do anything. I don't think I really described God at all. I think God is beyond the limits of human comprehension and not describable, but what I do believe is that God is better than we are. A better than we are God would not have worse morals than humans do. I do not believe in a God that would be cruel and inhuman. If I believed in a hell, I would believe that the crime would fit the punishment so that maybe the genocidal killers in Darfur would get hell. And my less than outstanding sins would, I don't know, warrant a slap with a wet noodle or something. :-) Yes, we all fall short. But that's what it means to be human. I don't think our mere humanity is so horrible. I think that the acts of some individuals (and groups) is. >You talk of personal belief as if you are entitled to believe whatever you want and no one can tell you otherwise. Believe yes. Act, no. > Well, we're all stuck with each other, so our "personal" believes affect people other than ourselves. Only actions affect others. Beliefs have no affect on others. >If are all to get along, there has to be some sort of standard. Without that, there is only anarchy. God is that standard. Yes, and you see where that "standard" is going. A world where people are killing each other over their views of Truth. It's liberals that want to talk to our enemies and not kill them. > You can't get mad at the justice system for punishing you for killing someone just because you thought they had it coming. It's your personal belief the person had it coming, but it's irrelevant. There is more to life and morality than just one person. Oh absolutely. I would never/do not believe that you can do what you ever you want. And I would contend that to have a moral system you need not be religious at all. You could be an atheist. Go read Sam Harris' End of Faith. I don't think you would like it. I disagreed with a lot/much of what he says, but I would be hard pressed to say that he lacked as rigorous a moral system as anybody else. We might disagree with what those moral standards are. I, for instance, might place a higher standard on what we are doing to the Earth in making it un/less livable. And you seem to believe homosexuality is wrong. But I think we could come up with a core set of things from across multiple cultures and values and just about everyone on Earth would say they were right or wrong. I think the Golden Rule is a good place to start as any. So what would happen if we fall too short. I don't have an answer as I am basically agnostic (ignorant of/ not able to be aware of) what comes next or later. Does whatever goes around comes around occur ala a karmic system? Is there reincarnation? Do the sins of the fathers get passed to the children? I personally don't feel it matters much. What matters are our own actions in the here and now. We can definitely make this world better or worse. We can do justice, act compassionately, etc. BTW, I might not read any more on this topic. Or I'll try not to. Thing is, it is really impossible to argue this. Either you believe it or you don't. I think a lot of us have some kind of background with this type of view of the world, so you aren't introducing anything at all new. I personally have a sister who has been on this for awhile. It's one thing to want to know our position, but it seems that you are really more interested in changing it. --des
  4. So who metes out this punishment? Is it God? Does God send people to the most terrible place you couldn't even imagine for sins (or even for not accepting Jesus into your heart as your Lord and Savior).? These sins might be not really too big in the grand scheme of things or they can be really big. But it doesn't much matter. And what about those people who are born somewhere else, or at some other time? Does God have mercy on them? Another thing is that God sent his supposed Son to a kind of human sacrifice. (This is the same God that sent the flood so maybe. Of course I don't believe in the flood, or at least that one.) Ok, so it didn't end up so bad. Or is God merely impotent to stop you going to hell for these things? And if God is impotent to stop it how is he Omnipotent? This kind of God is not a very attractive figure, imo. He punishes people by sending them to hell for some personal beliefs (not really actions as you can do horrendous things as long as at some point you accept Jesus into your heart). And he is either impotent to stop this or is actually doing himself. I also don't buy the idea that just because we fall short of perfection we deserve punishment. No human court of law would ever punish ANYBODY to eternal damnation in a firey hell. This means to me that our own moral sense would be better than God's is. This seems highly illogical. I actually think there is something in the story that is more interesting (to me anyway). Jesus forgives his captors--even though they do this horrendous things, he forgives his crossmates (?!), he forgives God. Maybe instead of meaning to tell us that Jesus has forgiven us for all possible sins, he means that we should forgive others ourselves. We ourselves don't get an easy out-- we attempt to do justice and so forth. We are by definition not perfect. --des
  5. des

    "approach" Or "way"

    Bob d, you point about the I AMs in John is similar to what Spong says. He says that the term "I AM" is used for God in parts of the Hebrew scriptures. Therefore, perhaps, Jesus was talking about God, not himself. It resonates for me. It certainly makes more sense. (IMO, anyway). --des
  6. I think of the Sojourners as moderates with kind of what I have been calling "soft" literalism. I think that Jim Wallis takes the Bible literally but perhaps not every single word or story. For instance, I doubt he'd say Jonah was swallowed by a whale (or fish). But his politics are fairly liberal. Yes, he is opposed to abortion but would like to have a serious discussion on really reducing abortions (hey I'd like that conversation as well). And I think he is opposed to gay marriage but would favor something like marriages by churches not being "legal" and civil unions (of any kind-- I think two people though) being legal. Then churches could choose whether or not to marry someone, but that marriage would have spiritual signficance rather than be state sponsored. (I think it woudl be a good compromise.) He is strongest in the area of poverty, and not even so outspoken on the environment, though he does discuss it. I think he woudl be interesting to listen to. His book seemed very much like it was a set of sermons or other talks, and was redundant, but I bet he makes a good speaker. --des
  7. Sunday School lady, this is way way way off the topic, but your net name reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skits starring the "Church Lady" (who was Dana Carvey, I think). The Church Lady had hysterical skits. See: http://www.danacarvey.net/snl.html for a cute little one (I didn't say) about OJ and Madonna. And now back to our regular scheduled broadcasts. Sorry sorry. --des
  8. But Jesus never says to be nice, and he is quite specific about behaviors. The whole litany about the doing onto the least of these and so on. I don't see any of that kind of language in Paul. Paul is general in exactly the ways Jesus in not. He is specific in ways that Jesus is not as well (towards treatment of women, slaves towards masters, actions of women in the church, etc.). --des
  9. To me there is a dichotomy. Although it is hard to tell which are and aren't the real statements of Paul. Paul doesn't talk so much about actions as I think Jesus did. Even when he makes that wonderful speech on love and what love is, by listenign to it one wouldn't know what that means, what actions does one do for it and so forth. They are beautiful words (same with "there is no Jew nor Greek"). OTOH, many of Jesus' words were quite a bit more concrete. Another thing is that Paul emphasizes the resurrected Christ vs the live Jesus (only natural perhaps, given the date). But the Gospels (except for John) are very mixed and inconsistent about the resurrection. Jesus is a very much alive man who dies a violent death on the cross. There is an interesting link here: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/ Yes, Rayuson, very interesting site. Thanks. Of course you kept me up the other night reading this stuff. :-) --des
  10. >Michael Durall is quoted giving his vision for the UU church. I would like to respond to parts of that vision. >>"These churches will have no steeples. >I am not sure what problem people have with steeples. I don't care one way or the other about steeples, but I have seen churches that got rid of them in favor of some other kind of tall structure. One church reminds me of a pidgeon roost. :-) By all means we should erect large pidgeon roosts. >>no organs, >I am a progressive, and I welcome new things. But, I have not compulsion to get rid of the things just because they are not new. The organ is a much better instrument for worship than the alternatives I have seen. I don't think there is anything wrong with an organ, but it could be a guitar or a piano, you can sing with either of these. I went to guitar Catholic masses when I went to a small Catholic run college. I liked them quite a lot, but they were quite small. >>no pews, >What would they have instead of pews. Would people just be standing, or would they be those horribly uncomfortable chairs that some new churches have? Pews are much more comfortable and practical than the alternatives I have seen. I don't mind chairs either. And pews aren't known for comfort. I think they are an irrelevant detail. You sit on pillows (kind of hard on the old folks though). >>and no stained glass windows. >Are we giving up on beauty? I love stained glass. It doesn't have to be super pious scenes. We have a few stained glass windows: one is a stylized wine with bread; another the scales of justice; another a dove. They are beautiful, and let in nice warm toned light. Hey ever seen Chagal's stained glass window in Chicago? >> ... people will stay and share a meal together, a gourmet fare prepared by a first rate caterer. Potluck is a relic of the past... >Please, no. If anything in the traditional church is worth keeping, the potluck dinner surely is. I also like the tradition of potluck. But we did have a gourmet feast once. We didn't hire out a couple church members pulled it off. Otherwise you are paying money for stuff the congregation can do themselves. Rather silly use of cash. Give the money to social justice or church upkeep. Far from being a thing of the past, Potluck is done at many other kind of gatherings. Our Corgi club is having a potluck, and we worship dog. :-) >>Worship will be conducted to two to three languages, alternating from one to another, with the text of hymns and prayer projected onto large screens, so that all can particpate so to some extent... My problem with this that they never project the music on the screens, but only the words. It is much nicer to have the music in hand, so one can read the part that one is singing. When I have been at services where the songs are projected, the music has also been just insipid praise music, with no theological message. It is different, yes, but it is hardly progressive. I don't have much problem with doing translations, however, translation does lack immediacy-- I think most speakers of another language would choose to hear their services in that language. I wouldn't want to go to a service with an English translation flashed on a board. If you really had a multilingual constituent, I think it would be better to go to something like taize, where language is less important. As for music flashed on a board ala PowerPoint. Please say NO!!! I actually saw this once where I didnt' object to it, and that was at a new church that had not yet built their building. They would go to a local school where it was easier and cheaper to use PowerPoint on a laptop than bring in hymnals. Otherwise, sounds very distracting. Just sounds like a wild color and light show. Why not just present laser images, I think it would be more aethetically edifying? >>These churches will attract interracial couples, both straight and gay, bringing the mix we have never been able to achieve before". >The pews, the organ, the stained glass windows, and the pot-luck dinners have never been the reasons the churches did not attract interracial couples, both straight and gay. Nah, we already have all these and we have gay and straight couples and singles. >The style of music, architecture, furniture, etc are not what makes a church progressive. What makes a church progressive is an openness to new persons even if they are unlike us, and an openness to new ideas even if they challenge us, and a willingness to reexamine what we believe and what we do. amen. --des
  11. Bauer talks about this in Stealing Jesus, how fundamentalism betrays Christianity. What he talks about is the "vertical" domain, that which is separate and sacred space. He talks about how fundies mock mainline churches which can't eliminate the "trappings" but have no trouble eliminating doctrine, as if trappings were just trappings. I don't know how one does it-- but a traditional service, with elements like a 'dark church" (vs one flooded with artifiical light), stained glass, communion, hymns, etc (there may be equally valid other ways to do this) but they take the person out of the here and now workaday type world. I esp. love Christmas eve with the candlelight service as a way to really pull you out of the ordinary. Praise music, songs and dance and so on, are just ordinary. Like commercials on tv. Only it's Jesus Jesus! Instead of Pepsi, Pepsi! :-) --des
  12. I haven't seen any "clearing of the pews" type of thing. I think the church always was pretty progressive, has that reputation. Funny thing but many of the elderly members are quite progressive. I know one of them pretty well-- one of them has a gay son. I asked her if she became UCC because fo their stance on gays and she said "no, I was in UCC years before". I've talked to some of them in depth and know that some of these people have some of the same theological views I do. You might think it was the older people resisting progressiveness. But it's just not always so. I think some churches which have had more varied history might have more difficulty. I know some churches have resisted the Open and Affirming stance. Our church did debate and discuss it for about two years. I think, it was before my time, but it was more because they took it seriously, not that there was lots of resistance. Actually the church in Chicago, lost more people (a couple) when they took on inclusive language. I don't recall it was ever discussed at the one I go to now. OTOH, we stil say the Lord's Prayer "Our Father". The UCC in Chicago said "Our Mother/Father". --des
  13. Our church is really growing right now. I think there was maybe a downward trend for quite awhile (not helped by a long pastor search process). The last service where members were introduced was probably a record of possibly ten people. Every time they have a member meeting there are a few more people joining. The only people leaving are those who move, at least lately. We're also getting a more balanced congregation with a lot of young couples with kids. They want there kids getting a religious education, but not a message of fear.I think that's drawing them to progressive churches. I don't know if we are in a little rebirth of progressivism, but I think that these things may be cyclical, and we may be going thru a cycle right now. I think this is helped by the failure of the Bush regime and his Religious Right agenda and also of people like Bono and Jim Wallis (and others) who have written and spoken for the other side of Christianity. It makes people see there is a Third Way. And you can take moral stances without rejecting homosexuals, for instance. BTW, I've had an easier time lately saying I'm a progressive Christian without getting strange looks and that sort of thing. Of course, just that I CAN say it is something right there. --des
  14. des

    "approach" Or "way"

    >Are you saying that some of Jesus' words (as attributed to him in the gospels) contradict each other? If so, I don't necessarily disagree. I just choose to look at the contradiction and see if there is some paradoxical truth or tension going on (that might be considered contradiction at first glance). I'm sure there is some paradoxical tension going on, as I don't think the Ancient Jews were quite as dualistic as we are today. So it may have been paradoxical in some way (for instance the example I gave). OTOH, I consider the first three Gospels as more what happened or at least our take on what happened and John as more interpretative, not necessarily a bad thing though. I just have a hard time with some of John's attributions to Jesus. >I don't think Jesus would have considered your frustration to be petty or sinful. Jesus got angry and frustrated at injustice and hypocrisy. Oh that's nice to know. No sometimes they aren't. I get angry, for instance, when I can't teach because there is so much bureaucratic b.s.. I would guess that putting people first, though not worded like that, is an important scriptural message. Whenever it was a choice between healing someone, say, and rules of the Shabat, he took people. > Much of the "meek and mild" Jesus, imo, is our cultural bias being read into an Ancient Near East text. Plus I think many of Jesus sayings have been misuderstood. For example, the "turn the other cheek" situation. Have you ever read Tony Campolo's take on that? Very interesting. I haven't read Tony Campolo (I mean aside from the webpage). Yes, I think the meek and mild Jesus is almost an affront. >I don't think we are mostly getting exact quotes, even considering translations from various languages. >And I agree. >Like I said, I'm not an inerrantist. But what I don't do is look at the Gospels and say "Well, we think this has been added later (a redaction), and so has this, so lets 'take these out.' Plus this is a miracle, so we'll ignore this part too." I don't discard any of it. I look for the truth in it. That's all I meant Ok. I don't think it should be out either. But understood in context, however you do that. :-) I kind of wish Revelations hadn't made the cut, due to current wierdnesses. (It almost didn't.) But that's not the gospel, anyway. --des
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service