des

Thanks, Aletheia for your colorful remarks :-) They are very useful for discriminating meanings of these key terms. But I wonder when fundies speak of inerrancy if they mean the *new* covenant or the whole Bible. I'd have a hard time believing that someone really believes rabbits chew their cuds, for example. Perhaps they might write that one off as a mistake in translation or something. I also wonder if someone who is "literal" about the Bible truly means there is no allegory. It's funny what these literal believers make out of Revelation. I don't know where you put that-- where there is highly symbolic language and they turn it into some type of factual event. It isn't exactly literalness. Otherwise they'd think the Beast will be some actual beast with horns and so forth-- but I have heard different explanations, like it could be "tiny beasts" like virii, etc. Or it could be the monetary system becoming unified, etc. So what do you call that? I'm not quite sure the definition on mythology quite works. I think the problem is "ancient". If we defined it as any stories ancient or modern (or maybe that term is mythos), I think it works better. The story of creation isn't really told by either Genesis 1, Genesis 2, or the Big Bang. Each gives part of the truth, which I am guessing is more awesome than we can imagine. And each tells the story thru the symbols, ideas, etc of its time. My old friend the Missouri Synod Lutheran (and astronomy major) who would say things like "well the six days aren't really days they are eras" or "in the story light is created before the sun" (is it "light"or LIGHT), reminds me of what a professor once said, "We walk in multiple mythology universes". I liked your comments re: inspire. Yes I would say 1-6. Your point on allergory is well-taken. --des

I'm not sure just how controversial this would be on this board, but we do have a few more conservative members... Yesterday I went over and read about the rapture index and then actually saw the index. I thought it was pretty bizarre. Anyway, I also thought about what some fundamentalists think about the environment; that people were actually happy about the tsunami (!); about what's going on in the middle east, that some actively are against the peace process. The whole idea is, the end is at hand so "bring it on". HOWEVER, these same individuals will not vote for liberal candidates, be for gay marriage (or just ignore it), be for legalizing drugs, etc. Even though this all would supposedly bring on the end. Do I detect a bit of NIMBY in all this!? Since conservative politicians have done an excellent job of finding oil companies to sponsor "science" that disagrees with the whole concept of global warming and heck that's a few years off anyways (even if it isn't). So the issues that are "close by ones" like having gay marriage or liberal candidates they oppose. But those that are far away like the middle east or the tsunami (I'm sure that's a minority that actually thought that was good). Still they are far away. Ergo NIMBY on the index. Still things like clean drinking water are sort of NIMBY too. I think it is more how the conservative politicians tell people exactly what they want to hear. Take a look at the index and see what you make of it. www.raptureme.com Also included are such fun items (?) as the Armageddon clock. BTW, I tried to read some Revelation last night. Yikes, and these guys don't interpret the Bible?! Supposedly Rev. 17-18 "predicts" the World Trade Center bombing. (!?) --des

BroRog quotes the article by Bill Moyers (btw, isn't Moyers a Baptist preacher?) Yes, and he was laughed at. Now people in fair nos. actually believe this-- and as Moyers says they are in high places. (Not sure what extent the popular novels have had to do with this.) Both today and yesterday I have heard very critical factual (yes it is beyond the theory stage) info on global warming, re: on effects to coral reefs and ice caps. In this climate, nothign is likely to be done. As I have posted here before, people with the best "Christian conservative" record have the worst environmental records. They are really NOT interested in the environment as they will be raptured away anyway. And actually hope for it. Yikes, I looked up this bizarre thing (the rapture index). Has things on it like floods and so on but here's one of the wierder ones: "32 Mark of the Beast: Wal-mart is falling behind in its plan to bar code all products with radio tags." Wal-mart-- I thought the Beast was Micro$oft!? Also included is the "Plague index" which discusses the non-plague (unless you are a horse, of course of West Nile Virus). BTW, the rapture index is 154, I thought it was supposed to blow at 145? --des

Beach, I don't think there is any progressive litmus testing being done. I woudln't be surprised if not all progressives don't buy all 8 points.I would guess there are differences on political positions, for example, I think that a progressive could be against abortion and still be progressive. I do not believe that everyone here would agree that there was no literal resurrection (I am speaking of progressives). There is no progressive "hell" where people who don't agree with us on every single doctrinal point go. And as far as doctrine, most liberal/progressive denominations don't really have a set doctrine. If you identify yourself as "progressive", I have no problem with that. I would not have a problem with you giving your views on some of these things at all. As for the difference between liberal and progressive, this is a new one for me. I always thought I was a liberal. I think the difference is that there has been some attempt made to discuss "spiritual" concerns as well as social justice (social gospel) ones. I'm guessing that many liberals would consider themselves progressive. They, like me, just never heard of the distinction. Also I do think there is something of a spectrum on these things. One could be very progressive actually practicing alternative religious practices (on another thread someone mentioned Zen ), does not believe in any sort of trinity, or even any sort of resurrection etc. To someone who would be fairly conservative in some ways believing in the literal trinity and most standard doctrine, but believes in tolerance/welcome of/to other belief systems and social gospel. I would still consider the later to be a progressive. Besides as Xian says, "we like you". And there are people on this board that aren't even remotely progressive and they stay if they are polite. --des

Any of you see the 5 Evangelists on Larry King. One of the guys was pretty liberal, I thought. There were a couple wierd things though. When LK asked about the environment though, one of them answered that the environment wasn't of concern because "it had gotten better". Gosh, I wonder why that is? It wouldn't be due to 20+ years of environmental regulation. (I had just seen a whole thing on the destruction of coral reefs in the Florida Keys.) The liberal guy said that people should get to know homosexuals-- that was his response to questions about gays and gay marriage. LK was actually pretty tough in his questioning, much more so than usual. I was surprised that more of the callers weren't going "Oh halleluah" and so forth. --des

Yes, me too, but I don't think they are supposed to make your head hurt. If you try and untangle them logically you can't do it. I think I like the idea of playing with your puppy instead. BTW, I think Matt Fox says that his dog is his spiritual advisor-- because he keeps me grounded. I'll buy that. Also very aware of the silliness of taking oneself too seriously. I really like my avatar, because however serious I wish to make my posts, I know that in the end they are really about as important as a dog lying on its back. :-) --des

Yes, it's a plot. We are trying to wreck you. :-> Well, I don't believe anything was "conveniently" lost. (uh, oh I think this is one of those ironic things.) Anyway in any event the "inerrancy" from the original texts wouldn't explain all the contradictions. I would agree that the Bible does describe accurately inspired people's relationship to God, as observed from their own culture and in historical context. But I also think that some things were never meant to be anythign aside from allergory, and I also think that some things can ONLY be taken as allegory today (ie Adam and Eve). Anyway, no one had ever known Adam and Eve, and they were (even as the conservatives maintain still thousands of years back). Actually the above was quoted and should be inside a quote. Not sure how to do that! I go back and forth on the trinity. Currently, I feel there is a kind of harmony about it, but I don't take it as a sort of God in the three in one oil (as someone described it-- I think Soul on Ice?). You have Creator God; God in humanity as Christ; and God in the Mystery, something that you can only glimpse but never fully know. But one could also describe other "aspects" of God-- say "God in creation" or ... But as to Jesus' divinity, I don't think you have to be trinitarian to believe that. I'm not sure that Jesus was actually God, but Jesus expressed God in humanity the most highly or most developed. More writing for ya. --des

I think I got off the last topic and want to put it here instead. So I'll quote myself with some heavy snips. The idea is that modern science is feared. My feeling that it can add to our awareness of the awesomeness of creation. For example, If the universe had been 1 degree hotter, it would have expanded to the point of not collecting into anything, and if it had been 1 degree cooler, it would have not expanded at all. (I think I got that right.) I find it much harder to believe this is coincidence than there isn't some kind of order to the whole thing and that we weren't made be right from the start. I don't have to make this the "10 thousand year old universe" to make it make sense from a spiritual standpoint. The billions of year old universe isn't LESS than the 10 thousand year old one, it is MUCH MORE awe inspiring. True there are aspects of science that are pedestrian and mundune that really have nothing to do with any kind of meaning. But not everything has to, imo. I think science is a way of understanding the world, but I think in the end it asks more questions than it can ever answer. To give an example, (I think it is outdated to an extent, but the big bang say. Well they said that it happened, creating the universe. So why did it happen? I mean REALLY why? How come? etc. You always get back to that. Even if you take an entirely evolutionary point of view on the creation of life. (I think Darwin is a little outdated at this point.) But anyway, in the end you still have the big WHY. Any thoughts on all this. --des

I'm adding this as a new post as it is totally unrelated to my last one. Lolly said (I think) I agree that there are limits to science. But what I was commenting on was a sort of abandonment of modern scientific thought, as if you can't be spiritually minded if you include modern scientific ideas. It's why Newton, et al, where so feared. I think it is utter nonsense. (Not what you said, but this generally idea). In fact, my first real experience with the feeling of God's presence, as an adult, came from science. I took classes at the Planetarium and read everything I could about cosmology. It is so awesome. In some ways, many people's idea of God is teeny by comparison. And then there are the "coincidences" that make the universe what it is. If the universe had been 1 degree hotter, it would have expanded to the point of not collecting into anything, and if it had been 1 degree cooler, it would have not expanded at all. (I think I got that right.) I find it much harder to believe this is coincidence than there isn't some kind of order to the whole thing and that we weren't made be right from the start. I don't have to make this the "10 thousand year old universe" to make it make sense from a spiritual standpoint. The billions of year old universe isn't LESS than the 10 thousand year old one, it is MUCH MORE awe inspiring. Here's another. In hemoglobin we have a circle of I think it is atoms (not sure of what) with an iron atom in the center. In chlorophyl we have the same circle with either magnesium or mangenese in the center. How are we so alike as living things, yet so different. I don't have to deny this aspect of science to think something is amazing and awesome. Doesn't it make it more amazing and awesome??? True there are aspects that are pedestrian and mundune that really have nothing to do with any kind of meaning. But not everything has to, imo. I think science is a way of understanding the world, but I think in the end it asks more questions than it can ever answer. To give an example, (I think it is outdated to an extent, but the big bang say. Well they said that it happened, creating the universe. So why did it happen? I mean REALLY why? How come? etc. You always get back to that. Even if you take an entirely evolutionary point of view on the creation of life. (I think Darwin is a little outdated at this point.) But anyway, in the end you still have the big WHY. --des

I don't consider Wicca or neopaganism to be New Age, per se. I think it is only treated that way sometimes. There are rather more serious followers who kind of take it as one of several traditions that the mix together. (Along with Native American, etc.) (BTW, I don't think that NA is wrong per se either. I don't agree with a lot of the ideas, but do with others. I accept the more or less deep ecumenicalism that Matt Fox and others have talked about, in that I feel there are things to be learned from other beliefs.) It's just I don't think that Wicca is NA. I think that it is only NA in the sense that the original Celtics and other followers of magick were so utterly demolished by Christianity that there really isn't any old tradition to follow any more. Various people have, from what I understand, tried to recapture the old beliefs. (This is true of Druidism as well.) I suppose some beliefs were driven underground, and never really lost entirely. But to say that it is in anyway identical to that practiced by the folks at Stongehenge, well that would be quite a stretch. It's a fascinating hx, but I can't claim to know too much about it. As for the differences between Zen and, say, Tibetan Buddhism, I think Lolly pretty much nailed it. If you want to learn about Tibetan Buddhism the most fun way is a movie called "Little Buddha" that you would find in a arts or community type video place. It is about a little boy in Seattle that is supposedly a reincarnated (and yes they take this quiet literally) lama. He ends up going to India with his family. There is a side story that I found at times annoying, of the life story of the Buddha. (There are other stories like "Seven Years in Tibet"-- to which a good friend of mine answered, I wouldn't mind spending 7 years with Brad Pitt :-)). There are several different schools of Buddhism and you couldn't find two more different than Zen and Tibetan. How much of Tibetan Buddhism is purely cultural is anyone's guess.

From some blog somewhere, with apologies to Pastor Martin Niemoller: “First they came for Bert and Ernie … and I said nothing because I was not a Muppet. Then they came for Tinky Winky, and I said nothing, because I was not a Teletubby. Then they came for Sponge Bob and Patrick, and I said nothing, because I was not an asexual cartoon sea creature. I’m just wondering who’ll be the next target of the Righteous Conservative Wrath Against Imaginary Creatures…” posted by, --des

My feeling about New Age is something about the more or less indiscriminate (or perhaps I should say personally discriminate) picking and choosing of symbols. You take a dream catcher here, a crystal there, perhaps even a cross. You might go on a Vision Quest, then maybe cast a circle, etc. IF cystals, say, are part of the practice of wicca or some form of paganism, it wouldn't be New Age, anymore than the cross would be New Age in part of the religious symbology of a Christian. I don't know enough about wicca (to say nothing of ecletic witchcraft). Astrology and fortune telling were part of many prescientific traditions. The Magi were likely Zoorastrians who were well known as astrologers. The thing is there was no difference between astronomy and astrology. (The same thing with alchemy, etc.). These were presciences. I think it is interesting how 20th century people will willingly drop science in favor of prescientific notions like this. (The same as fundamentalists believe the Earth is something like 10 thousand years old and that dinosaurs were on the Earth at the same time as humans. YIKES!) Perhaps there is a feeling that science diminishes mystery (although I would argue they don't know much science. About the strangest thing there is is quantum physics!) Anyway, one could argue that neopaganism really wouldn't be involved in these prescientific traditions, unless they had decided to drop current scientific understanding. I love your story of the kid with 6 pentagrams. I saw a car that had a couple pentagrams, and some other pagan symbol, and I wondered if the driver was yanking some chains on being a Satanist. (Given that I don't really believe that there are many Satanists, have never met anyone who claimed to be one, etc.) A number of years ago there was a Northwestern student who got kicked out of a dorm for putting a pentagram on her window. In retrospect I would guess she was a pagan, and not actually a Satanist. There are amazingly silly books on witchcraft. I have personally seen the bookstore's crop which includes titles like "Witchcraft for Dummies" (part of the cottage industry-- wish I had thought of it); "Love potions", etc. I don't know why do you feel bad using the term witchcraft? Imo, it is a serious belief system (in some cases). I think there are a lot of myths. Christianity's answer to it was much more shameful, imo. --des

Well the only Science of mind kind fo theology I know about is Christian Science. It fits in many points to the versions today that are in many cases off-shoots (For example, Unity is definitely an off-shoot. The founder left Mary Baker Eddy way back when.). I think they differ in language. CS has kind of the late 1800s feel to it. (That and the use of medicine, say.) I don't know of other differences. I'd say that CS fits point one as seeing that CS must live according to the precepts of Jesus, though tending to really interpret that to mean mainly the healing of the sick. Belief in point 5. But not fitting the other points. For example they are quite dogmatic; believe that only they have got it right; do no work for peace and justice; and have never reached out to people different from themselves (mostly white, mostly very affluent, etc.). There has been a anti-gay streak that not everyone in the church has agreed with. However, it is possible that other science fo mind type churches would be more interested in the 8 points. I know that Unity is known to be an inclusive church, for example. It's possible that the grandparent of New Thought isn't very influential anymore. --des

Oh gee, burn her at the stake! Just joshing you. :-) Just rather recently I read a fanfic (on Harry Potter universe) that was written by a Wiccan, I gather anyway. I thought it was pretty fasinating, and obviously a lot more real witchcraft than Harry Potter has (which is about 0). I think Wiccans (and other neowitchcraft type beliefs) have captured that mystical element of the sacred that a lot of people are searching for. I gather that's why Matt Fox wanted a witch on his staff. --des

Well I didnt' find either Spong's book or Bawer's to be particularly shrill, but it may be from the situation I have come from with a fundie sister that is always trying to convert me. It is rather cathartic to read these types of things. But to someone who isn't hearing that all the time... BTW, I think Spong's book of the two is more "serious" and scholarly. There is a bit more reaction and pure commentary is Bawer as when he describes a megachurch. One thing he doesn't mention is that many fundies dislike that type of church too. They think of them as Christianity "lite". So his reaction to them might be shared by more conservative people as well. I will have to get a hold of this book you recommend though. --des

Well some translation "errors" I think had to do with "agenda" perhaps and some where just errors. They get passed along, repeated, something like the game telephone. As a matter of fact, to quote some person that lived a long time after the book itself was written (and it wasn't even written as a book-- the way we think of today), telephone is perhaps an apt analogy. It was all word of mouth and oral tradition. One thing that Spong points out in "Rescuing the Bible..." is the saying about the rich man entering the Kingdom of heaven, that "its harder than a camel going thru an eye of a needle". He points out that that's quite a wierd metaphor. Even tiny camels don't go thru needles, so the probability is that it is a translation error where "camel" is very close to the word "cord" or "rope". Ropes don't go thru needles either but it is a better metaphor. (I still like camels, I get quite a visual picture from that!) So some of them just are translation errors. I'm not sure about the way "sodomy" was translated as homosexuality. There was no organized (or other groups) of homosexuals, as there are today. I'm sure that it was quite rare to see it as it is done today, with two loving individuals in a committed relationship-- it just wasn't the way things were. Funny thing is that the MORE normal and healthy the type of relationship-- towards monogamy and union, the more anti the right becomes. Hence all the bruhaha on homosexual marriage. --des

Funny that capitalization thing happened to me a couple times. It was when I mixed capitals and non-capitals in the subject line. Sorry I haven't read the book. Don't even know who he was. --des

Thanks guys (gals), I am aware of the problems with who authored Paul's letters from Spong's book. I go in to reading the Bible fairly critically and even if they really are Paul, they have to be seen in light of the culture and times. So when Paul argues against false doctrine and false teaching, I would take this as a sign of the various and sundry people who might have been pretending to be Christians and weren't. No doubt that was big back then with a new movement. I'd say there are false prophets and doctrines right now. I'm not sure that everyone would universally agree as to what these are. --des

I left this in so you can see what happened. But it did successfully upload. Unfortunately for some odd reason it is impossible to see. I tried several different ways of doing this from making a file that was within the 65X65 pixel limit to using a regular unchanged photo. The results are what you see, a teensy tiny photo. The original problem was that the photo was not named a jpeg. If it is properly named it works. But is teensy. Ooops I spoke too soon. It's ok. Resolution is really poor though. --des

Darby, I don't think that progressives take as much stock in some of what Paul said (as compared to Jesus), as he said some fairly heavily anti-female things (among other things). The other is what is "false teaching" and you end up with very much of an argument of who's Christianity is more authenically Christian. I believe there are other kinds of harm. For example, it often takes ex-Christian Scientists a long time to get over using denial heavily as a defense mechanism, and many ex-CS feel they were neglected as children, which can be psychological rather than physical. OTOH, when people say there is harm in somethign, I think that they have the obligation to show the harm done. For ex. I have heard some say Wicca is harmful--- well then I think they need to show that it is. It isn't Christianity. I do not accept the position that Non-Christians are somehow in harm. You would have to do better than tell me they would, say, go to hell for their beliefs. --des

Joseph Smith didn't rise from the dead. No and neither did Mary Baker Eddy. But they had a phone there just in case. It is a rather infamous story, and all the more so because it is true. Some ex-CSists say she is the woman who never called back. --des

I'm curious as to how many others (besides myself) have either dabbled with or been involved in any non-Christian religious experiences, and if these were negative or positive. (This would include atheist or agnostic, Buddhist, Baha'i, Judaism, or any unusual Christian type experiences). Some of this is in my profile, but after leaving Christian Science, I was prob. an agnostic (I was so agnostic-- I wasn't sure if I could say I was agnostic :-)). I don't think that was a particularly good experience as it was more of a reaction, than an action. I got interested in eastern thought thru doing karate. I particularly liked doing katas (forms), which when done alone and repeatedly are kind of mediative. I did read things by the Dalai Lama and other things but never actually became seriously involved in Buddhism. The involvement I had was positive in helping me calm my thoughts. The katas actually helped me control epilepsy which was not under control. I did considerable reading and the wildest thing I was ever involved with was Christian Encounter, which I don't think exists anymore. It was sort of like encounter groups with a Christian focus. I wouldn't say they were particularly positive. There was a lot of energy, like encounter groups, that didn't think anything of tearing someone apart. Actually the weirdest experience was going to what I thought was a UU church. Well it was but it was a UU pagan branch. I should have known when I said to someone that my allergies were bad, the gal said that there was a lot of "negative energies" around. Hmm. ANd here I thought it was leaf mold. Then they cast the circle. I was too wierded out to actually leave or anything but I never went back. I wonder what the church that rented the space woulda thought? :-) --des

I LOVE that picture of SpongeBob with the Rev. Thomas. I just got an email today that says basically the same thing: "SpongeBob is welcome here." I'll see if I can get him to come to church with me on Sunday. . :-) BTW, Seeker is right that sponges are asexual. The Onion (satire paper) did a hilarious thing about how anemones are being censured right now as they are asexual and are involved in fetish sexual behavior. (Of course, if the Religious Right found out about clownfish, I think that Nemo would have to join their cartoon parade. Clownfish are all born male and when in groups of two will somehow decide which one will become female. Then one will turn into a female. Shocking, huh?) --des

Re: ACM is only useful for fundamentalists and not really for anyone else. A cult is, to them, someone who is not a fundamentalist. Yikes. I think they totally go overboard on the Satanist thing. I would guess there actually are Satanists. I have never met one (but I haven't met a snake handler either). But if it were as common as the fundies say, I should know lots of them. Also the beliefs of Satanists are not what fundies normally think, sacrificing and eating babies. My understanding is that they are basically hedonist. And worshippers of sexual and other pleasure. To put Wicca and NeoPagan in the same group as Satanist is absurd. If the harm is that they are leading people away from Christianity, then I guess it is "harm" but otherwise I don't see it. At least, as I see it, most neopagans and wiccans are more respectful of the environment than a lot of people. I see some values as good, even if I might not agree with them on everything. To put Unitarian in there as they don't believe in the trinity (although that is no doubt an exaggeration as you say), is to put a humungous value on doctrinal and religious purity. I really dislike the whole heresy argument. If we do this we might as well be burning people at the stake ala Salem Mass. (That might be next at the rate some in the US are going.) I think I'm inclined to go along with religioustolerance.org I think you have to define harm very specifically, in order to decide something is damaging. Handling snakes is dangerous. Drinking poison Kool-Aid is dangerous. Not believing in the trinity is harmless. Nature worship is harmless. --des

I have a version that predates the www! :-) Amazingly it still works. (2.5) I have an updater somewhere, I guess I'll look for it. --des