des

Funny thing, I went to a Presbyterian PCA church (not exactly the same as the USA brand!) anyway while there was a lot of the Jesus died for my personal sins bit and all (you know i am not fond of the idea of child sacrifice particularly for my miserable little sins ;-)). But funny thing was I found the thing that bothered me most was I go to a very urban church and this was so utterly suburban. You know everyone had a recent manicure but me. :-) The theology seemed important, but that suburban thing just got to me more. --des

Yes, I don't know that you would want it in a creed?? But doubt is an essential part of most belief. (Prob. not fundamentalist belief-- but most other belief.) --des

Thanks, I think this works. Didn't even see where I could do that. But I did find it. --des

>You noticed, of course, that the pic was from 1968. Even I looked pretty good back then. Yeah, me too. ;-) --des

Something I read today: You should raise your children up in a religion so they have something to rebel against later. :-) --des

I don't have kid people in my house. But if I did, I guess I would take them where I go, and let them make their own choices when they are able. You know of course that children will take their own way anyway, esp. in adolescence. My sister and I used to go out during the church service (Christian Science) and we did sometimes go into other churches (it was church alley!). Many a fundamentalist will have liberal children while liberal parents might have fundamentalist children. You just never know. Look what happened to my sister and I. She is working for Campus Crusade and I about as far left as a Christian can be. --des

I lurked there last night. I would not be welcome either. OTOH, I couldn't knowingly participate in a conservative forum just to rock the boat. (I know some of you entered it not knowing). I don't see anything wrong with using an online Bible, a Bible is a Bible. But I wouldn't go there just to annoy them. --des

I always thought of Tony Blair as kind of a Bill Clinton (without the sex!), in fact during his first run there were many comparisons. Bill Clinton was a rather conservative-moderate Democrat (hence welfare reform, free trade, etc.). Some Democrats do not believe they can win without being more conservative. I believe that with the exception of the Southern Democrats, the Democratic party was once much more liberal. There is also a history of progressive thought in some areas. Liberal is practically a dirty word these days. I hope you don't end up with our situation-- demorepublicans and republicodemocrats. OTOH, I miss Bill Clinton. :-) --des

I just heard on, I think Washington Week on PBS, that Sharon (sp?) negotiated trading a Hezbollah prisioner for an Iraeli one not terribly long ago. The new Prime Minister has no military experience, and appears to me to be "playing tough" for political purposes. As Dr. Phil might ask "Is it working for him". I think it is a truly frightening situation, and no good for Israelis either. Could anyone argue Israel is safer today? I don't think any of us would argue that Islamics (I mean fundamentalist Islamic persons), El Qaeda, or Hezbollah are not terriorist or doing terrible things in the world. However, I am fully able to look at a situation like this and see it not in black and white (as our president does-- bad axis of evil vs Good US or God Israel). I think the world is crying out for the US, in particular, to be able to be fair when assessing situations like the Middle East. BTW, I agree that others in the world may not share the US' version of the all pure well behaved Israel. Most of Europe for instance. If you watch BBC (on PBS), you will get a different view of the news than the big 3, CNN, etc. --des

There are at least *two* Crosswalks having to do with religion. I believe you must have joined up with http://www.crosswalk.com. This particular group declares someting that sounds like a literal view of the Bible--- a virgin birth, inerrant scriptures, a literal trinity, etc. From your short time on the group, I would not think you would mix too well with this! I just did a little lurking! YIKES. http://www.crosswalkamerica.org does not have a forum. If it did, I doubt you would be kicked off, since it was started by some UCC members (I think, at least one). UCC is the most liberal/progressive of Christian demonimations, allows the ordination of gays and lesbians, and is not creedal (iow, there is no statement of what you must believe). Here and there, however, there are conservative denominations, since there is no central authority. This group is attempting to walk across the US (from Phoenix) passing by and talking with and interacting with as many people as possible giving them a different inclusive vision of Christianity. Here is a summary of the Phoenix Affirmations: http://www.crosswalkamerica.org/pa.htm --des

Happy birthday to the crazy Viking chick. :-) --des

Like Flow, I live in the desert Southwest. We have "farms" of wind turbines. There is a lot of popular support. Also lots of houses have solar panels, and someday I might get passive solar panels (don't store any heat-- the other kind are prohibitively expensive, imo). (Of course, next year I have to replace my swamp cooler--which is a kind of air conditioner that cools the house with a big fan running over a giant sponge-- this would NOT work in Missouri!!) I am all for any alternative energy, but dont' think of them as esp. good looking. But not bad looking either. The old style wind mills are rather quaint. ttp://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2003/renew-energy-batt/wind-turbines.html There are several different designs and NASA is working on it. --des

I've heard it said that in Europe that conservatives are more like the moderate (middle of the road) wing of the Democratic party. That there really is no good correlation in Europe to conservative Republicans. Don't know enough about that to know if it is true or no, though I watch BBC News. I guess Margaret Thatcher is the exception that proves the rule. Of course, Europeans are much less religious than Americans. I think those with fundamentalist genes moved to America in the 1700s. My sister is in Europe proselitizing to Europeans to give up their secular ways. --des

Mow, though IF one truly takes the Bible literally then what do you do with those verses? Fortunately, the vast majority of people do NOT take them literally. --des

I agree, loveapple. I'm not sure that what you are sensing from the US is more of a recent thing. But there is strong pretty much unilateral support for Israel, and no doubt funding by Israeli interests, to both political parties. There is some current "promised land" sort of thign going on. Fundamentalists who believe in the rapture (GW Bush I think) have a special relationship to Jews in Isreal, as the rapture is supposed to happen after Jews have rebuilt the temple (at which point Jesus comes and all Jews must convert or die gruesome deaths). It's worrying, imo, to have political leaders with these kinds of views. Not sure they have them- but if they do the current one sidedness to Israel makes sense. I think Clinton was more even-handed. I feel that this administration is so one-sided towards Israel that they can't see any provocative behaviors by Isreal at all. I feel this is an esp dangerous situation. One country in the nuclear club that is more dangerous (ie more likely to use the bomb than Iran, imo, is Israel). Not that I don't think Iran is a more horrible place worse leaders and all, but that Israel has had a history of using overwhelming force (as has the US for that matter). --des

Welcome to the group, loveapple!! :-) --des

You can appreciate the courage of young Huck Finn (and perhaps Mark Twain as well) when they said, "then I guess I go to hell". Chosing doing the right thing (not turning in the run away slave) over the fear preached by some of these holy rollers. I didn't get the hell and damnation speeches as a child in the Christian Science church, but they had their own form of abuse. The idea I got is if I couldn't get a healing from God from various childhood diseases, there was something wrong with me. It also tended to shrug off my own experiences and insights if they didn't match what the church taught. > must admit that American politics have got pretty scary to those of us viewing them from across the Atlantic Ocean. I am hopeful that there is a more liberal regime next time around! You can say that again. I find it particular scary that there is a growing theocratic trend, with GW Bush espousing a fundamentalist view of government. Now that really scares me. --des

In God's Politics, Jim Wallis writes movingly about the Palestinian plight. It's a terribly sad situation with no winners, only losers. --des

James: RE "the rule of thumb" Whether there ever was a "literal" rule of thumb, I wouldn't argue that. There has historically been a tacit one though. Think about the treatment of women in nondeveloped parts of the world (although perhaps it is WORSE than the "rule of thumb"). Since I think more metaphorically than you do-- hence our beliefs, it stands to reason that I may not think that the "rule of thumb" has ever been literally written or stated somewhere. Basically the idea was that women had historically been "allowed" to be beaten if it didnt' cause too much damage (and even to damage or death). It sadly goes on all over the world. So my comment stands: what Paul said about caring for your wife was a more humane view than the prevailing one since we assume that the ancient societies of the time did not have enlightened views about women. Paul's view would be relatively enlightened, but not exactly feminist. :-) Nevertheless your links were interesting. I never knew where that all came from etiologically speaking. >>The celebration over the first women leader of the Episcopal church doesn't imply that that we would now be upset if a man were to be elected next!! In many of our views it is a milestone, more similar to the first woman astronaut or something like that. It doesn't mean we wouldn't want any more male astronauts. >Perhaps, and perhaps I'm reading more into it than I should. But it feels an awful lot like a consolatio prize for not being able to get a woman elected as Pope. Maybe, but I tend to think that there will be more male heads of the Episcopal church and no one will be upset. But that one wouldn't automatically not consider a woman now that one has already done it (much as there are male and female astronauts). >Now now, be nice. After all, you are free not to comment if I have become so irksome as all that. A fair comment. Though I think AR makes a lovely Viking. :-) Mow: Funny thing, btw, about the term "literally". It is often meant to mean metaphorically. For example, consider the phrase, often heard: "I literally was climbing the walls". Now unless you would be my late Siamese cat :-) , she LITERALLY climbed the walls, you would mean you felt edgy or something of that sort. This sort of thing drives the English teacher in me crazy. OTOH, maybe the word itself is transmuting. The linguist in me gets that sort of thing, so I am torn. But I think it varies with different progressives. Some progressives take more things more literally. I tend to be one who sees things quite metaphorically, as I think even the concept of God is a metaphor for the transcendent that is not really expressed well in verbal language. It is like the Buddhist saying about the finger pointing, though I can't recall it. (A 50s moment brought to you by our sponsor. :-)) --des

I also said something in my first post related to the topic. Maybe you would take the clue though. The fact that the thread degraded (or progressed! :-)) means that maybe not too many people were all that interested in discussing it. Some of us, myself among them, see little point in arguing with conservatives. My sister is one, and I tire of that pretty fast. Most of us did not get on a progressive board to rehash conservative ideology or debate. If you consider the texts mentioned divinely written and infalable your point of view is going to be highly different from those who view the same texts as written by men-- human and flawed. I don't see even any grounds for common argument on that particular point. If you want to discuss what to do with that faith then that might be a more worthy topic. I think Viking games are more interesting than debatign you. --des

Thank you for posting your picture. Will you marry me? ;-) Oh sorry sorry. I'm sorry. I'd say the devil made me say that, but too bad I don't believe in the devil. --des

I think I started a post like this quite awhile ago. And although I personally reject and find problems with some of the more conservative elements of Christianity, I do see the draw of it to people and as Dr. Phil might say "it seems to be working for them". You take some of this conservative stuff out of the language of Christianese and atonement language (ie Christ died for your sins) and I think we might agree with a great deal. Its hard to get around the language issue though. And I admit the atonement thing is a bigger to get around. But if I worked at it I could put it in metaphorical language and be pretty happy with it. It's a lot of work though. Not sure that I am making sense, so if not just ignore this as the rantings of a half crazed individual. :-) --des

AR, your summary was dandy. I think I'm too lazy. Anyway, yes it is Hagar the Horrible. All my "knowledge" of the Vikings (except for National Geographic). Of course the horned helmet is a myth, but I wouldn't think that would stop us all from evaluating the mythiness :-) of the whole thing, being Progressives and all. For instance, perhaps it was a nice analogy of the machoness of the Vikings--- who were not lost like Colombus and really did know where they were going and didn't take on slaves or cut off too many heads. Another might be that they went out with out any women on board and were horny. --des

>.If you have either of them, I would be interested in reading them. I'm curious. RE: new creed A New Creed (from the United Church of Canada, 1980) We are not alone, we live in God's world. We believe in God: who created and is creating, who has come in Jesus, the Word made flesh, to reconcile and make new, who works in us and others by the Spirit. We trust God. We are called to be the Church: to celebrate God's presence, to love and serve others, to seek justice and resist evil, to proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen, our judge and our hope. In life, in death, in life beyond death. God is with us. We are not alone. Thanks be to God. I like this, with only a few problems (as opposed to multiple ones with the Nicene creed or Apostles creed). For instance, I am not to fond of the line about Jesus being our "judge", all line about life beyond death, and then I'm not too sure I'm a Tritarian. OTOH, I really like the linews about God created and is creating; about seeking justice and resisting evil, etc. --des

AR (hey I like that, cuts out trying to figure out how to spell it), I really like your alternate avatars (I have picked one and stuck with it) but this one is the best!!! Of course, except for one memorable program on the Vikings discovering America on National Geographic, what I know about Vikings is pretty much summed up in a cartoon (can't recall the name). :-) Flow, I love devolving (or perhaps progressing) this thread! (normally I am not for it so fast). Can we discuss sexism in Vikings? LOL!! --des