des

I *really* dislike the term cult, as I think it is used primarily as a way of stigmatizing other groups that don't agree with you. The term cult makes no sense at all when applied to some of the groups like Buddhism (!), Islam (!), Judaism (!), Roman Catholism (!), etc. etc. These are groups that are very large and, in some cases, predate Christianity. Some other groups are quite large and have many followers, like Baha'i which is really kinder gentler Islam. :-) (At least these days). They has been extremely negative actions against Bahais in Iran. It makes no sense when applied to Native American religions, which also are ancient. (As are Shintoism, Taoism, etc.) And it is only just that UU and Progressive/liberal Christianity are different/opposed to fundamentalism that they get that label (by fundamentalist groups and nobody else, btw)/ The term is more fairly applied to Christian Science, JW, or LDS, say which have their charasmatic leader, special books, etc. But lets be fair. As Aletheia (I think pointed out), Christianity has Jesus and the Bible. Religioustolerance.org does not ever use the word "cult". I would kind of keep it for very small groups that engage in dangerous practices or bizarre practices (to the most people), like handling snakes, following ufos, commit mass suicide, etc. CS might be one of those, since they don't go to doctors. --des

Things change over the years. Congregationalists came out of Puritans/Calvinist. They were once a strict sect. Like Presbyterians they had a belief in predestination, that only a few were really chosen to be saved-- it had nothign to do with belief or good behavior or anythign like that. Congregationalism has changed over the years, and tends to be more about how the church is organized (though tending towards moderate to liberal) than about doctrine. I think that Unitarians have changed to be sometimes not even Christian. In fact, some participate in pagan practices. JW, LDS, and Christian Science (for a few) have been considered Protestant. However, they differ from Protestantism by having a charismatic leader who has taken on a larger than life face. For example, Mary Baker Eddy is worshipped by some of her followers-- although most CSists would never admit to this. There is also A book that is really thought of as expanding on the Bible. I think they are admitted as Protestant mainly as they are usually respectable citizens, and ecumenical groups tend to like to play nice, tending to label someone as they wish to be labeled. CSists have always had an exaggerated fear of the Roman Catholic church but it is not a protestant type of thing. It is based on Eddy's fear of the church. (She was a major paranoid type.) --des

It's a Photoshop file. I don't remember gif in there but I have not really tried saving as a gif. It is a jpeg which as I recall is one of the types of files this allows. But I'll try it and see. --des

Hey Darby, I hope you don't leave, even if you may disagree with many of us. For one thing, I sense you are a nice guy. And they are always nice to have around. :-) I'm not sure that I would stick around if just about everyone disagreed with me, so I admire your stand of gently bringing things up in a true ecumenical spirit. As for your points. I think two things: a. I do think Progressives and Liberals are more likely to bring out the positive side of Jesus. Perhaps some of this is a reaction against some of the more negative elements we read about (End times, hell, etc.) But the point still is we have to know why there is evil in the world, and what we do about it, and what Jesus' (and God's) response are. It is a fair critism, for whatever the reasons. b. HOWEVER, since we don't take every word as literal (or even as spoken by Jesus necessarily) some of the quotes that you give are not, imo, literal: discussions of hell fire and the like (in fact, 99% of them are in, I think, Matthew). So why are they there? (that's another subject). Repentence. I think it is fair point that Progressives and not quite as interested in that as we should be. Just because I dont' believe in a literal "hell" doesn't mean that repentence is not an issue. Should we only believe in repentence to "avoid hell"? Surely that would be a very shallow reason. I think to let the Kindom of God come into our lives and hearts is a good reason-- and we should be more interested in it. Hell, without the hell fire bit are really us separated from God, imo. I think we have discussed this quite a lot, but I don't think it is maybe such a key part of progress. theology. And prob. in error. Also I think I might tend to interpret these things differently than you might. However, I see some of the verses as not likely to have even been spoken by Jesus. But I agree that it is good to figure out which we don't think is, and why and not eliminate something because we might not care for it. So I think it is quite a fair comment, about being more attracted to the positive comments (not all of which I consider to have been really spoken by Jesus either). I'm glad that at least one of us could figure out where he was on the basis of the Evangelical discussion. :-) Yes, I think that if I understood what it was you might be more that. :-) (Too bad, I'm not sure what it is still.) I think you're a brave guy, which I admire as well. --des

Have a question. I thought I could make my own avatar. I think this is not true. I tried uploading one (the right size and everything), but I can't do it. It's a shame as it is much better than the one I selected. If I can't create my own are their websites of them or something? --des

des: "But, I have found that very few people in the pews of most churches have any grasp of the statement of faith of their denomination." Did I say this? Gosh, I don't think so. Maybe I said it. I don't remember saying it. Maybe it was late. :-) >Jim Wallis is a Liberal Evangelical Christian. Pretty cool huh? He is taking the term "Evangelical" back from the Fundementalists, he says. Yes, I think it is cool. I'm not sure that liberal/progressives are really up to this though. I would like to be. I've found some people who are excited by the Still Speaking campaign of the UCC church. Sure it is not evangelism the way the conservatives think, but it is reaching some people who have been turned off by Christianity (or at least organized Christian churches) or hurt by churches. I understand the point, it is the very point that the term has been used to imply fundamentalism. However, I think maybe we should concentrate on terms like Christianity. The media, even liberal media, has taken the term Christian to mean fundamentalist. If you say to someone you're a Christian, you have to qualify it don't you? --des

I do recall the P&G thing. The latest bruhaha I heard was that there was some satanic symbol on the Celestial Seasonings (now owned by Heinz or something?) box. I looked and looked and couldn't find anything. But perhaps it was a moon or star(s). --des

I thought that simpliest definition of evangelical is that it is "spreading the good news". Of course, that presupposes that meaning of words doesn't change over time, which it does. Liberals have almost always acting on the idea of spreading good news, as pursuing justice in the world, while conservatives do this mainly by spreading the good news verbally by conversion. In fact, both aspects are in the Bible. I think that liberals *could* evangelize, but almost always feel that their way isn't the only right one. It is a little hard to evangelize (ie verbally) if you feel that you don't have the only way. I think that the old term is still used for example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church is a moderate or even liberal church. One of the sermons in my very liberal church was recently about evangelism! That there are many people around that have no beliefs and are seeking. (I agree). But I have always felt uncomfortable about being aggressive (ie like my sister). BTW, I thought that Sojourners were liberal/progressive? (Though maybe not as liberal/progressive as some of the folks here.) Another term I have heard bandied about is "reform" (reformed). I think that could roughly be applied to any non-literalist. I dont' think it's too useful. I might agree with the terms: liberal, moderate and conservative. Oh gosh then we are going to be figuring out what they mean. :-) --des

Jeep, I'm glad we have a physicist among us, but I don't think that the rapture would ever be meant to tie into the events that you are describing. I think that it is reasonable to assume that the earth will have an end at some point (some billions of years or so), just as it had a beginning. I think the Biblical stories (and other religious stories) are often cosmology as it existed at that time (Sun rotating around the Earth, the Earth at the center of the universe, stars as points of light--and that's it, etc.). They were honest atttempts, but not Truth. They were only Truth to the extent that we know that at some point the Earth began (and I believe Truth in the part of having a Creator). But as for the end of the Earth, as described by physicists of the Earth eventually say going into the Sun (or I should say the sun expanding to encompass the Earth), well we aren't talking about people being pulled out of their cars and other silliness. I doubt there will be people. (Maybe cockroaches will be pulled out of their little roachmobiles :-o). What physicists talk about is not an anthropocentric or even geocentric view of the universe, and since nothing can be proven basically what you deal with are scenarios. Mostly Christianity doesn't deal with it. I think Matt Fox has made a decent attempt to deal with it, and even has a physicist on his staff. There's a little book called "The Universe is a Green Dragon" by Brian Swimm. One of the things Swimm talks about (not sure in the book) is sacrifice and rebirth by planets, stars, galaxies echoing the sacrifice and rebirth by Jesus. A friend and I wondered re: the actual physics in the books and whether they really followed post-Einsteining physics. Bear and Co. is the publisher and it's prob. only off the web?? --des

Ok, I knew I recalled these from somewhere. These are nos. of the Beast jokes. I also recalled there was a cold medicine called 666. (I suppose it was 6 symptoms, 6 hours, 6 active ingredients??. ) Very strange. (Might use it when you have a hell of a cold?) They forgot OS of the beast: Windows666. Which reminds me of a really funny joke about B.Gates in heaven. :-) http://www.commonplacebook.com/humor/relig...gion/beast.shtm And then there are the infamous "sh** happens" jokes. I could do a better Christian Science one. (And prob. a better Congregational one.) http://www.office-humour.co.uk/item.cfm?itm=2027 --des recycler of old jokes...

Hi, I brought this up in another discussion, and thought I would rephrase it here. See if there were any good comments: I read recently that "hell was in" and "angels were out". I feel there is some truth to this and wonder why it is. Are these just generally gloomier times; is because of some works of fiction that sparked imagination (on the liberal side I see "The DaVinci Code" sparking other kinds of interests); did "Touched by an Angel" just finally seem to cloying? Is it increased popular support for the Religious Right? Was interest in angels really "Christian" interest? I feel at least some of the interest was "spiritual" and not strictly Christian. Certainly the angels in "Touched by an Angel" were not portrayed as being (necessarily) angels from a Christian tradition. Just some ideas. BTW, in full disclosure :-), I don't believe that angels are any more literally true than hell, but they are at least nicer. :-) Comments? --des

Well I took a look at the reviews from Amazon. Interesting. I expected the worst critics to be those of fundamentalist beliefs. But no, the worst ones were people who might not have been Christians at all (under any definition). The reviews sounded like I might have trouble with it. NOt the idea of preterism. (I had to look this up as I am not as theologically savvy as some of you'll.) I don't particularly care for it-- as it still takes the whole Revelation thing as "factual" rather than symbolic. I, like you, Beach, appreciate than someone has written a book to counter some of this end times stuff. Beach: Hmm, I haven't decided on the resurrection, if I think it is literal or symbolic. But it isn't because I think you can't disassociate it with threats fo hell fire. I feel that it is a part of many myths and cultures (didn't Mohammed supposedly ascend into heaven?) Then there is the rebirth aspects of many pagan religions. BTW, in regard to all this. I am really enjoying Spong's book: "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". There isn't anything, so far as I can tell, on Revelation. I wonder if he will write something, now that there is all this hype. I wonder what specific cultural event has people hyped up on the rapture? Is it the book series itself? Political power of the Religious Right? etc.? I think that would be interesting from a socialogical standpoint. I think there were other eras where end times were "big". I read recently that "hell was in" and "angels were out". I don't know what made angels in in the first place. Only thing I can think of is the tv series "Touched by an Angel" or was it hte other way around. And why angels are out these days. I suppose this might be a new topic. BTW, Seeker, the reason you confused this with the Sponge bob thread is that Sponge Bob is the beast. :-) --des

I wasn't commenting on your views but on James'. I tend to agree with you, as well as the feeling that we have/are executing innocent people. And that we always will, unless justice were made to be somehow perfect, which it can't be. I won't continue debating either that nor abortion, because it ends up as an "is so", "is not" sort of thing. We could go on and on. I will just say that I think BOTH sides have tended not to want to try to reach common ground as it is a highly divisive type issue. Conservatives are afraid that to give at all means to lose their side and liberals see it the same way. I feel that in our political atmosphere, it will be hard to reach any consensus. I think that might be the case on this board in some cases. >As far as the capitalism vs socialism thing goes, I think that having some idealogical fixation on the way resources are distributed is silly. I think we need to decide what kind of society we wish to live in and then figure out how to get there. Free markets or redistribution of resouces are some of the tools we can use to accomplish our goals. As soon as people get fixated on economic systems they seem to lose all sense. I think that's the case, that there is some kind of "higher economics" is kind of far fetched. Both socialism and capitalism have some points in their favor, and other detracting points. But they are both human systems. Both use, in practice, cynical systems to get to their goals. Capitalism uses the unrestrained market to "allow" questionable practices like sweat shops and going off shore where environmental laws are weakest. Socialism in practice allows government to take powers away from people (although we should distinguish socialism in Russia with socialism in Sweden, say). --des

Haven't read the book but that shouldn't stop me from commenting on it. :-) I don't think much of Revelations (and any other end time type script) as anything BUT symbolic. When you start talking about "new heaven" and "new earth", what the OLD heaven wasn't good, perfect, etc. enough, you need a new one. I think they are quite nonsensical on the literal level. But, and I haven't spent that much time on Revelation to be honest, I am quite sure on the symbolic level it is quite rich. --des

Hmm, it seems I can't edit my post anymore. Anyway, the point I was making had to do with how or if we affect God and wasn't really meant to answer the other kind of questions. There seems to me to be a fallacy in the argument somewhere too. --des

RE: Capital punishment. Your argument would be fine maybe *if* the state did not make mistakes. In Illinois (when I lived there) 11-13 people were found to be not guilty. No, it was not due to the wonderful justice system, but due to the work of some law students. The Governor ended up halting the use of the death penalty in IL. Many other states are doing the same, or effectively have done it anyway. There have been several dubious cases of people that were actually put to death, and Texas under GWB was the fryingist state of all. There was a retarded guy put to death who had something like a 65 IQ. I see you did qualify your statements, but I dont' see anyway that states will NOT make mistakes. Scott Peterson not withstanding the majority of people on death row are poor and minority with sometimes incompetent DAs. The comparison someone made between capital punishment and abortion isn't quite right. I think abortion is a bit more complex, because there is the whole question of when the zygote, embryo, fetus becomes a human person. Some people view this quite strictly, as after implantation (or even before). I think late term abortions, except to save the life of the mother are not moral. How late that is, I'm not really sure, but I'd say for sure if the fetus is viable. But what about abortions after say a failed contraceptive, say one day after intercourse. Is this an abortion at all? What about the fertility proceedure where the clinic fertilizes many eggs in the assumption that some won't make it and then chooses the most viable ones to implant. Are the ones not used considered "aborted"? And if you do implant them all, the chance for miscarriage is very high. I think this is quite a complex matter and any amount of reading the Bible or the Catechism (as I am not Catholic) wouldn't convince me otherwise. I also feel that if "pro-lifers" weren't so extreme in their positions, that there could be moderations of the current policies to say make late term (say 3rd trimester abortions) illegal. But I think many people are afraid that if we go back a little that people will be going back to using coat hangers and drano. I think there are all sorts of liberals who are opposed to late term abortions. I agree that war is sometimes necessary. I dont' agree that as a citizen I have no understanding or ability to say whether a war is necessary or not. THis has been GWB's argument (or that this is a time of war so it is unpatriotic to question the Commander and Chief-- well actually since the reasons for the war have constantly shifted... No WMD, ok we just wanted Husein out of there. He was a very bad guy, but there are other bad guys and bad governments. I understand now that Iraq is a breeding ground for terriorists who come there to learn. I think the use of torture is wrong. The Bush administration thru the new Sec of State has redefined torture to mean only something that could kill the prisoner. We are told these are different times... I don't feel things like pollution are secondary. First of all, we aren't just talking about "living conditions for humans" we are talking about life of the planet itself and all other creatures. I think environment is as worthy a moral topic as any. --des

This is admittedly from Matt Fox, the idea that since we are God's creation we share in "creating with God". (Not a quote of Fox's, just trying to get the idea. So that the way we affect God is that we share in one God has/is doing. Like the phrase in the doxology (the one we sing anyway), "Praise God for all that love has done". We are part of what love has done/ is doing-- we are, as I have heard said God's hands and feet in the world. Actually Fox talks about co-creating with God. I'm not sure that this poses a fallacy for your question but it is a possible answer. But it is an answer that rephrases the question. --des

United Church of Christ isn't at all related to Church of Christ. They have entirely different roots, where UCC derived from Congregational, Christian Church and two others. There may actually be two new additions to the group in coming years. I am not sure of C of C. I think there are several different CofCs though, but most have in common that Baptism is believed to be required to go to heaven. I think they tend to be rural (or at least draw rural born people in the city). In the ads, the announcer cleverly said, "We're the United Church.. of Christ." I still wonder how many people went in the local C of C and wondered.... --des

Fatherman, I'm happy you recognized how hard this one would be/is! I haven't really tried this, though I have really more or less done the "I'm born again" (I think I am, but maybe not in their sense) and try to find commonalities. This worked several days with my sister but only for so many days. Then she tried to figure out what I read. I hestitate to tell her Spong, Fox, the Dali Lama, etc. :-) Then she will try to get me to read things she likes. etc. She has sent me books and videos. If you honestly believe that your family member is goign to hell and burn their for eternity you are going to have to work hard at this! Much harder than we do. So you come into any kind of exchange like this at a disadvantage. You have really no ax to grind, since you are nto worried about what happens to them. Even though I don't agree with fundamentalism, I feel that they have the right to find truth as they see fit. Your tolerance can actually work against you. I can imagine my sister's comment to this: "Yes I care about you and I want you to find Christ. [in my terms]". But it might work with someone who is not so adept. :-) BTW, my sister has converted my mom, which kind of encouraged her. I think it has helped my mom (being not so "blame the victim" as Christian science), but I doubt my sister has informed mom, who has dementia and doesn't get all the fine points, that dad is now roasting in hell. The church my mom goes to is a conservative Presbyterian and they aren't very fire and brimestone. --des

I'm sure there can be an excess of anything (that includes water, which actually one *can* have in excess). But there are many traditions that call for emptying, including some in the Christian tradition. Many Buddhists practice emptying meditation for years without any ill effects. You are not literally emptying of everything but of random thoughts, associations. Some of the Christian mystics talk of "sinking into God". I think what actually happened to the woman is a. something of excess to the exclusion of other things, so that she may have lost touch with reality, however briefly. I don't believe mystics in whatever tradition would advocate doing ANYTHING to that extent. b. That meditation will actually change your brain waves. Some people lose their feelign of control with high amts. of alpha waves in wake. Actually I know this as this happened to me, not to any extremes. But meditation on something doesn't do this as it doesn't change your brain waves the same way- in most cases. I don't take the whole demon possession thing seriously, I mean as factual. Prescientific peoples had to have a way of explaining the inexplicable. Things like epilepsy were thought to be demonic possession because they had no terms that would explain something like this. Letting "demons" go into a bunch of pigs would have been an acceptable explanation of events for Jews around Jesus' day, pigs being unclean creatures. Anyway at the end of the story, which I have no doubt could be true the woman leads a more balanced life with walking and eating 3 meals, etc. The idea I get is that she is too obsessed to do any of these before. Even monks, both of Christian and Buddhist backgrounds, that lead contemplative existences dont' meditate and pray all day, they usually have some type of physical work and sometimes what is considered meditation in work where you focus all your energies and thoughts into work. --des

CC, You might be interested in books like "Stealing Jesus" Bauer, "Original Blessing" Matt Fox, etc. I'm sure there has got to be a list somewhere. Bauer talks about legalistic Christians rather than fundamentalists. I agree that since I tend to think that everyone will find their own path (or at least hopefully) that some people's paths lead to Fundamentalism. So I can at least accept their viewpoints for them. I guess what bothers me is that they would tend not feel that way for me. Yes, I would make the differentiation between things like human society (being difficult and not created perfectly, will tend to create problems). I also think there are some genetic issues to evil behavior. I have met kids who were hurting animals, kicking people in the head at age 5, etc. I have since found about attachment disorders, where children cannot relate to others normally. Sometimes this is due to alcohol in utero. They've found mass murderers have drastically different brain patterns than normal people. Basically they have poor working of the frontal lobe, which has to do with judgement and curbing of instinct. I also think that a lot of negative (I don't mean real evil things that go on) but the daily types of "sins" that people do-- well a lot of them are based on misunderstanding, fear, etc. I recall an incident in which a fellow workmate and I just couldn't get along. We were not very nice to each other and said nasty things, back and forth. The boss couldn't take it, so she basically made us talk to each other. After awhile, we got to know each other and respect, if not like, each other. We came from very different backgrounds and had differing world views-- which I think created the tension when we had to work with each other. I'm not saying by this that I think there is no evil in the world though, or no sin. --des

I'm aware of much of this. The thing is that in the current political climate where everyone is trying to either claim either they are really tough on crime (or drugs) or afraid they won't be tough enough. I think not allowing its medical use is less than principled, but isn't likely to be touched when the drug war is aragin'. --des

I didn't mean to imply that New Age was meditation or Yoga (or actually even eco-friendly, etc.). I think that the NAers tend to grasp at all sorts of random things, so I am not even sure there is anything like a coherent new age belief system (even to the extent of the 8 points). I'm familar with Starhawk. I believe she is Wiccan (and didn't she cause Matt Fox no end of trouble :-)). I wouldn't strictly speaking say that Wiccan is NA. Although from what I have read the Wiccan beliefs are attempts to recreate older Celtic and perhaps lost forms of worship. I tend to agree that NAs are trying to reach those mystic states/connections whether thru crystals, or Native American worship, or bits and pieces of eastern thought. So I feel the desire is worthy. As for Protestant worship being devoid of mysticism I woudl tend to agree. However, when there is an attempt at individual congregation level, it is often very good. The church I attended in Chicago had a powerful communion service, which succeeded as some degree of connectedness. There was no attempt to recreate the Catholic concept that we were literally eating the body of Jesus. --des

Hi BR, Yes, I have Aspergers (though maybe PDD-NOS would have been a better fit). I believe there is a continuum from normal to severely autistic and everything in between. I had serious problems in childhood and early adulthood, but learned how to get around my difficulties to a great extent. No, I don't take the Bible literally. Though some autistics are fundamentalists (I know a very Orthodox Jew), I actually think taking it literally requires a lot more working around. There are (too me) clearly absurd stories, though they have resonance at some level often. For example start taking apart the stories of Noah (with five mile water and animals coming on two by two, etc.). I am very interested in science and to take many of these stories as literal requires you to give up science and more rational thinking and "believe". There are also many inconsistencies. I think it is a bit ironic. OTOH, I think for someone with a scientific bent, if not aptitude, it is *hard* to read the Bible as literal fact. I think taking the Bible literally is something of a leap of faith (which I don't agree with). I've also found that fundamentalists tend to be opposed to things like evolution, the Earth and universe being millions (if not billions of years old), etc. People (verus books), even online, otoh, are more difficult to determine their motivations, the reason they might write something. I do better if I have time to contemplate something a bit. I think my dad was somewhat Aspergers, he was a very devout, maybe I'd say militant Christian Scientist. He was somewhat against the church taking a more fundamentalist belief that Mary Baker Eddy was something like the second coming. BTW, admin, I have since figured out how to edit posts. Thanks, --des

I also like the eco-friendly aspects and the natural foods, etc.(I am a bit less enthused on things like veganism.) I think that things like Tai Chi, Yoga, massage, mediatation (sans the mind altering stuff), etc. have been found to be health-- good for the heart and stress reducing. IMO, people who embrace the New Age movement are fellow seekers, perhaps turned off by organized religion. But what happens is they grab a little here and a little there. Native Americans are upset that NAs basically are stealing aspects of their culture without any deep understanding. They also grab onto bits of eastern thought without really delvign into it. On the other hand, I think there is a basic rebellion against aspects of society that are materalistic, etc. It isn't the mystic element that bothers me, exactly. I also don't like the some of the pseudospiritual aspects of it. The grab from here and there. There is after all, Christian mysticism that is really part of the Catholic tradition in some ways. But it is more deep and geniune, imo. A few of the kindest, most thoughtful, fairest people I have ever met were NAs. --des