des

I feel that stoners advocating medical marijuana use have more likely hurt the cause by makign it less serious. Advocacy with marijuana leaf flags is not so compelling to majority voters as real suffering people. However, in the current political climate, I don't think it much matters who advocates for marijuana. Everyone has to be "tough on drugs". Even liberals politicians (the few of them there are) can't afford to take a stand on this, except in CA (or something). --des

Well imo, the government of late has helped a LOT by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest percentage of the population. I think the actual rate of giving has actually been less thru the Bush years. (I don't blame Bush for this, it's merely a statement of fact.) The tax cuts have NOT been fair, but have mainly been given to richer people. This is a strange concept of taxation as "robbery". It is one I have never heard before. What about the fact that MOST of the money is NOT going to the poor at all (actually it is a tiny percentage), most of it goes to military spending. I don't hear you talk of military spending as robbery. Why not have churches that like the role of the military do bake sales to raise money? :-) (I am paraphrasing something here.) Income taxes fund things like military buildup but also things like infrastructure, tax breaks to multinationals, farm subsididies to industrial farms, etc. Although Democrats have the *reputation* of spending more money, actually it is Republicans who have spent money we don't have and basically charged it to later generations. That's robbing another generation instead. If you look at the actual percentage spent on poverty programs and education, etc. it is tiny. The idea of a flat tax as some have suggested (interestingly Forbes who is a billionaire is one big advocate), is highly regressive (without modification) taxing low income people at a higher rate than high income people, or at least the EFFECT is at higher level. Bush's plan to privatize social security doesn't take into account that the payments to people today is paid for by the people paying into the system today. The costs are exceedingly high, I have heard in the trillions. The current efforts by GWB have not made taxation MORE fair, they have made it less fair. The effect of no taxation would be the end of government. I know that some neocons actually want this, but I don't think it is at all appropos given the complexity of our society. No one enjoys paying taxes. It's just the cost of having a government. Another thing is healthcare. Since it is run by market forces, medical costs are sky high, creating a system where people are turned away from hospitals or only seek medical care when have an emergency (many largely preventable). Lately the FDA which is supposedly the drug watchdog has allowed some dangerous (and unnecessary drugs) into the supply, largely due to being paid by drug companies/ I don't see how private charity can even begin to handle this problem. Back in Jesus' day there really wasn't much in the treatment of the sick (witness the handling of leprosy). And the average life span was prob. in the 40s. The idea that progressive taxation robs the wealthy does not take into account how the poor are robbed all the time in the political/ economic system. Wealthy companies set up multinationals, lay off lower class Americans and put the jobs in third world nations which often have terrible workign conditions and often worse environmental ones. Poor neighborhoods often have the lowest air quality. Poor neighborhoods have the worst schools, because they are funded unfairly by property taxes which raise less. (There is a dollar to dollar correlation between good schools and poor, contrary to conservative talk and occassional success stories.) Poor people get the worse jobs, they don't have insurance, and most of the poor are working full-time but at such meager incomes that they cant' get out of poverty. Wealthy people indirectly benefit from this system of inequity, since wealthy corporations can say, spend less in salaries, and can work on their bottomline. --des

For me, it was by way of explanation. I don't think everything I write here is "religious". --des

I understand that the message in the Chronicles was supposed to be obviously Christian. But to me he bats you over the head with it, so I don't like it, even if he MEANT to bat one over with it. He certainly succeeds. :-) As I said, some of this liberal group did like Chronicles, but I found the characters to be flat, the dialogue typical of the era and stiff, and the fantasy less than interesting. I have read a lot more fantasy/sci fi than others in the group. No, I realize that HP is intended to be entertainment with underlying messages of bigotry, etc. I feel there are Christian themes, like self-sacrifice but I don't know if they were intended as Christian. (There are others as well, even though JKR has gotten into many problems with fundamentalist sects.) As JKR has never talked about it, afaik. Tolkein did talk abouthis intended Christian themes but the times were different, and some feel that intending to draw criticism away from himself since he was writing about wizards, etc. I believe that both JKR and Tolkein are/were Anglicans. I see some themes in Tolkein. No, I haven't ordered. I plan to go in person at 12 Am and get my copy. I might pre-order when the bookstore puts up a sign that they are taking orders. I know what I will be doing that night, anyway. --des

I tend to agree that the "moral issues" advocated by GWB tend to be pretty limited to two issues-- abortion and gay marriage. But his views aren't necessarily shared by all Republicans. True the GOP tends to be taken over now by very conservative influences at the moment. I wouldn't have a problem voting for John McCain who I see as trying to get the influence of big money and influence out of politics (good luck though). I think I might have responded (if polled) that I saw moral issues as a big part of my vote this time, but they were the war in (I almost wrote Vietnam!) Iraq and the extreme weakening of environmental laws and regulations. (BTW, the EPA was started in the Nixon administration.) I also feel the following are moral issues: unregulated mulitinational growth that is more than a little on the backs of poor people around the world; the dividing of countries having a couple countries on your side (Great Britain, Japan) and others who might disagree with you as almost moral enemies (current anti-French sentiment).; etc. I feel some people did not trust John Kerry and some of it was based on misinformation that the GOP was most effective in spreading (flip flopper, etc.). I personally know a couple people who voted against John Kerry based on that. I also think that 9-11 created a fear that only the current regime could possibly defend us against it, even though it has arguably raised terriorism in the world. I don't believe that Democrats always do a very good job of framing their arguments in terms of morality and the GOP has done a very good job of separating out the good moral voters against the Godless, etc. (BTW, I don't think that atheists are necessarily immoral either. Some of my best friends... :-)). And they have positioned their arguments in black and white moral terms that are highly appealing to some. It's just that the moral highground isn't exclusively GOP-- never was. I think to win elections, Democrats are going to have to be careful that Republicans aren't stealing the term morality for themselves. I think the term red and blue states is highly devisive. In fact, my state (NM) just won for GWB by very few votes and won for AG by a very few votes the last time around. So was it a red state in 2004 and a blue state in 2000? How about Ohio? Ridiculous. --des

Cynthia, thanks for your compliment. I think that fundies have a right to post here if they are polite and do not wish to convert, coerce or attack (as the webpage says). I just want to know why. If I hadn't asked I would not have read Darby's excellent response. In fact, I think it is good for me (and maybe others here) to have our sterotypes shaken up a bit. Esp, since some of the others here, myself included, have been hurt by fundamentalists. I liked Darby's comments that are not really like my sister's might have been. And I understand your wariness of labels, Darby. > I understand that many of you don't feel like that, but I am curious, what is YOUR foundation? What I mean is, when you are challenged with something you do not agree with or believe, what standard do you measure it against? I'm not a member of the Foundation, so the only thing I can do is refer you to the 8 points. Look up at the top of this board and see where it says tcpc homepage. I think the homepage will have references to the 8 points. I think they are an attempt to define what Progressive Christianity is. I agree with all the points but I think they are general statements, not meant to be all inclusive. >What I mean is, when you are challenged with something you do not agree with or believe, what standard do you measure it against? Yikes, that is a hard one. I think if 12 people answered that you might get 13 answers (in fact all 13 from me! :-)). I feel I am a seeker, and have not arrived at Truth. I have come to believe that the "greatest commandment" that Jesus gave is the key point: "loving God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself." (Hey Cynthia and I agree at least. :-)) So if you look at all scripture next to that, you can decide which go along with it, and which might not. And if you look at various actions of others and yourself you can decide. And you can look at church organizations and structures-- how well they do these things as an institution. Not that we all won't fall short! Why that one verse? Well it seems to be the most distilled statement of what was required. I view the Bible as a no. of books written by PEOPLE, which must be viewed from historical and cultural perspectives. Even though I don't take many of the stories literally, I feel that they have broader Truths. So just because I don't take them as literal fact, that doesn't make them untrue. (I have heard the statement, the phone book contains all fact, but is not Truth. The Bible may have limited facts but is mostly Truth.) You ask great questions. Welcome to the forum, Darby! :-) --des

Well generally speaking the New Age is known for intense concern re the individual and low concern for the rest of humanity. They lack the radical social justice concepts that most Progressives and liberals are aware of. I don't think that the terms themselves are wrong. I sometimes feel that when you put in a lot of "kingdom of pure consciousness", the meaning of what you write becomes blurry. What does that mean exactly? " feel if God is beyond our individual mind there would be many ways to describe Him." That is more descriptive and I feel I know more what you actually mean. I also wonder, with BroRog why you chose a masculine language to talk about God and humanity. He (vs Creator, S/He, etc) and mankind (vs humanity, humankind, people, etc.). --des

Well in my very liberal/radical church in Chicago we had a discussion group on Chronicals of Narnia. I was personally a bit annoyed by the blatant hit you over the head Christian symbolism (at least he is very upfront about that), the non-childlike children, etc. However, I was maybe the only one in the group that was. OTOH, I mighta been disappointed about how unHarry Potter it is with the lack of humor, plays on words, identifiable characters, etc. I prefer Tolkein to CS Lewis in writing fantasy. BTW, I think many in the group were not used to readign fantasy and were quite struck by the walking into the warddrobe. Being quite familiar with reading sci-fi and fantasy, I thought if followed a long and quite familiar pattern. I prefer the phone booth or platform 9 3/4. But some of the group did like the books very much. --des

I, like other Progressives here, take the Bible to be Truth while believing that there are stories and mythologies in the Bible. I don't believe it to be either literal or inerrant. I think this was dealt with in some depth elsewhere. But saying that there are myths doesn't mean they aren't perhpas more true. I don't doubt there are inconsistencies and so on, as I think while it was inspired by God, it wasn't written by God. I'm curious as to why fundies are reading the board? Is it to try and convert us? (I have lurked on fundie boards, more curious than anything I think. Also maybe wanted to figure out where my sister was coming from.) --des

Hmm, progressives believing that. It presupposes a belief in a literal hell, wouldn't it? Maybe I'm wrong but most of the Progressive writers I have read don't believe in that. It's also a nasty image of God. Maybe not as bad as torturing someone forever, but at least torturing someone a LONG time. I would acknowledge that there might be some who would deserve it. --des

Well since the majority of money is NOT spent on the poor but on the military, and the Republican party in the person of GWB has changed a budget surplus to a budget deficit, (the deficit steals from one generation to give to another) perhaps that argument of not stealing applies more to Republicans than Democrats. But then since we live in a democracy, I don't consider that usual taxation is theivery. However, I am one to feel that while religion can inform political decisions that God is not Republican OR Democrat (or any other political party like Green etc.) I would also argue that a few more things: Programs for the poor when applied properly (and there are many that aren't) but when they are, like Head Start or Job corps, have helped people get out of poverty. (There are some dramatic statistics on Head Start). The poor really can't be helped by private charity alone (ie churches)-- a fact evidenced by GWB's program of Faith Based initiatives where federal money goes to churches. If private, faith based charity is so good why do they need federal money? (I'm not knocking private charity though). Do you think the relief efforts for Tsunami victims was stealing? Can private charity cover the medical system? Heck, the government isnt' even doing that-- at least in the US. Environmental regulation, which many conservatives (both religiously and politically) seem to oppose has dramatically cleaned up the air and water. Do you think these things could be done privately? How would they be accomplished privately? Jesus did not say taxation was wrong. In fact, he said to "render onto Ceasar". I realize it was a trick question and all, and more to it than taxatioin. I would argue that the world is infinitely more complex than in Jesus' time. Captialism in Jesus' day amounted to people selling goods on street corners and in small shops. Today Capitalism is large multinational corporations that go to poor countries and set up sweat shops, pollute other countries, etc. These companies make billions of dollars a year. I'm not arguing against capitialism, as I think the other systems are really worse. But to say that Jesus was some kind of grand capitalist (or any other economic system advocate) isnt' at all warranted. I can't recall where Jesus even advocates the capitialism of those times. Or says anything against it. I resent my money being "stolen" from me to go to an illegal pre-emptive war in Iraq which includes torture as one of its methods. As for money "stolen" from citizens via taxation, what about money stolen from poor people in the way of terrible wages, sweat shops, child labor, etc? And do you think that the salary of a day laborer that works many and varied difficult hours should be less than a corporate middle manager? What about a teacher? I don't think all these topics are covered in the Bible. I could understand a Christian voting Republican. I don't think the Bible says anywhere what party you should be. BTW, you seem to be equating Democrat with Socialist. I think the Democrats in the US are actually quite conservative compared to their European counterparts. (I've heard it said that in Europe there are no Republicans. And in the US there are no liberals, at least as a party. There's a little truth to that.) --des

I think http://www.theocracywatch.org is an excellent website. Their purpose in their own words: "TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. CRESP is a nonsectarian, action-based educational organization with its roots in religious dialogue, human rights advocacy, and ethical thought. TheocracyWatch raises awareness about the pervasive role of the Religious Right in the U.S. government. It disseminates information through its speakers bureau, powerpoint presentations, CDs -- both audio and powerpoint -- and a DVD. It also conducts interviews with the media." It is not specifically progressive. It could be as well for concerned nonsectarians, those of other faiths (Jewish, Buddhist, Moslem, New Age, etc.), Christian moderates, and even conservatives who oppose moves to make this society (or others) a theocratic society. --des

I had an interesting moderate to progressive exchange today that happened totally without attempting to have it. I had the book that I am reading "Stealing Jesus" out on the table when someone who does my water filtration came by to deliver a filter. He saw the book and said, "What's that?" I said well if you are a fundamentalist you wouldn't like it. He said he was a Christian, believes in the Bible, and all, but he had grown up in a fundamentalist environment and really didn't agree with it. I told him briefly that the book talks about how fundamentalists are taking the name of Christianity and saying it only applies to them. He said that he did not agree with anyone who is judgemental as to who is saved and who doesn't. He said, that puts us on the same level with God. Only God can judge, and he has no idea (nor do I) about what is after this life. There was more to our discussion. I think the comment about "not judging" is another strong thing that we share. I might not have put it the same way, but we certainly have the same feelings about this. You might add that one to your list, Beach. :-) Tea, the quote that UCC is using is from Gracie Allen, at least says so on the webpage: "Never place a period where God has placed a comma." --des

Actually I heard the whole story, though Focus on Family refused to comment on the news.(The comments on their webpage are similar, but include more comments on the so-called "homosexual agenda".) Anyway, as reported on ABC news, several fundamentalist groups opposed this film produced by some organization promoting tolerance. It features several cartoon figures including Squarepaints, Barney, etc. There is singing and so on. I thought the addition of Barney lowers the age group for the video as anyone over about 4 just can't stand him. Anyway, they also mantain a website to encourage tolerance to all. The website has a small reference to sexual preference as one of the groups to be tolerant to. ABC's story showed the website, and the comment, which included other groups. There was also a booklist with the book "Heather has two mommies", among quite a large no. of books. AFA (or something) disliked the webpage and not the film supposedly. Funny thing about this thing. I think tolerance is a very bland term, suggesting not *liking* or *approving* of someone or even *compassion*. But more that there are others that aren't like you and you need to get along. I see the tolerance movement more against hate crimes than promoting real sister/brotherhood. But apparently even though fundies claim they love the sinner and hate the sin, they cannot come to even "tolerate" gays. Michael Medved who identified himself as a conservative Christian said he thought everyone should put a moratorium on complaining about cartoons. "It makes us look silly", he complained. He's right about that! --des

Did you know that some fundamentalist are worried that Sponge Bob Squarepaints is encouraging homosexuality? And here I thought it was a silly little cartoon. --des

See my other post. But I think moderates tend not to be active seekers. I don't mean this as an offence. Just that many people are brought up moderate. I think that as they grow up a few things happen to active seekers: they move away from any organized religion; the go to something else (non-Christian like Buddhism or New Age); they become liberal/ progressive; the become conservative/ fundamentalist. And I htink that it is the active seekers who want to discuss spirtiuality/ religion. What's your link to your forum on beliefnet? You might look up traditional Christian or nondemonational or... Hey, take a look at beliefnet under Traditional Christianity. Current discussions are inerrancy (no), TC (tradional church) vs Fundamentalistm, Trinity (God our father discussion). Nice people-- they don't allow debate in the usual sense, but there is discussion that is polite. --des

Yes, Tea (and others) I would agree. There is a big difference between the "my country right or wrong" stance by some conservatives (and interestingly in the Fundamentalists-- given they think we are all miserable sinners) and saying-- "yes, I love my country, basically warts and all." I have seen churches displaying signs of "God bless America" (period). To quote the recent UCC ad campaign of not putting a period where God has put a comma. It should have been God bless America, or God bless all nations. I don't feel we are God's select. But as I can't remember who said, representive democracy is a very bad form of government but all the others are so much worse. Beach, those are good points you make as well. Yes I think we could all agree on most of those, also many moderates as well. I think your idea of conversing with moderates is a really good. I'm not sure how it would be done (I gave some ideas on another thread). I have a feelign that moderates are the great silent minority of church going folks. Conservatives tend to be pretty active (not all of course, I'm sure the many who attend those megachurches are pretty quiet) and then you have the vocal liberal/Progressive churches. I knwo the one I came from in Chicago was amazingly active. But I think it come to what moderates are going to do. They are kind of the solid citizens in everyday life, but they don't have either evangelizing or social justice activity to get them active. I don't see them as really active seeker types. I don't think they feel a need to figure stuff out. There are also more cautious fundamentalist people. You won't see them posting on our forum (with exceptions), but they don't buy into everything. For example, the friend of mine who would say, "well God didn't really make the world in 6 days-- days meant time periods". Or appropos to the place fo women "If God wants us to be quiet in the church, why are we allowed to sing in the choir or teach Sunday School"? I also think there are Progressive lights. I have a friend who feels similarly to me on many issues. She goes to church occassionally. We have long discussions, but I get the feeling that she has never had these with anyone else-- at least commonly. I couldn't imagine her at a march or something (something I have done countless times, but am a little out of the loop her in NM). BTW, I think the correlation between Christian Conservatism and the conservation record is a little known secret. I just found out about it after the election.It would have been good for people to have known this ahead of time. I just read a little local rag that had an article on it. Theocracywatch.org has a very long article, as well as reasons why this is the case. Things like the End time is near, so we don't really need to worry about the environment!! Or we have dominion over the Earth (translated to pillage and plunder apparently). Or God provides so we just need faith in Him (sic). A lot of them look on science with distrust, so any science about global warming is just like discussion on evolution. --des

There are christian forums http://www.christianforums.com that is if you can stand the vomitus interface. About 10 different little icons on each person, 'blessings' and so on. Yuck. However, There are so many one of them MUST be moderate. Belief.net might have something. There are lots of different discussions. You might also look at some more moderate demonational websites. OTOH, I think from my experience with UCC (which is quite a liberal/progressive demonation) board that a few fundies might take them over. It's worth trying. I thought the one for the Congregational church was pretty decent (not sure if it is quite moderate enough, but it isn't as liberal as this is). --des

I didn't catch the whole speech today by GWB-- was a little afraid to, but all this stuff about gettign democracy all over the world. Do you all think it is rhetoric and "bully pulpet"? Apologism (got us into a bad war and can't admit it)? Think he wants to invade some other place? I suppose no one would disagree that democracy is a good thing to have, but with GWB I worry how he thinks we should accomplish this. I feel he has elements of the Crusades in the worst sense-- fighting against the godless infidels (oh woops, other side), amazing how much the Fundamentalist Islamics and Fundamentalist Christians have in common. Not saying that the Fundie Christians will blow themselves up to blow up buildings-- nah they are waiting for the End Times so God will do it for them. Rant over. Sorry. :-) --des

Tea, you bring up some interesting points. I think one big problem with progressives is that we don't all have some unified position on anything. As I said about UCC, if you have 12 UCCers in a room you get 13 opinions. I think since UCC is a progressive church (or liberal church-- depends), this is a pretty good statement of the state of progressives in general. I really like this website's 8 points. But it is a rarity to see the beliefs of progressives put into one clear statement like that. And in reality the 8 points are pretty flexible! Do all progressives believe the same thing about Jesus? I think you would find some things in common: social Gospel; more interest in Jesus's life, what he did, versus the cross; more interest in this life than the next (but no definition of what the next is); belief in diversity of beliefs and creation; the okness of being a seeker; etc. Some of these are in the 8 points no doubt. That's true.I think you gave a nice litany of things that we as progressives might agree on-- preemptive war, rape of the environmnent, etc. And I htink we might agree that fundamentalist tend to define "values" as "stuff that goes on in the bedroom". I read an article that says that those congressman with the highest ratings by the Religious right organizations have the worst environmental records as judged by the League of Conservation voters. Well perhaps there might be a problem here. I love my country too, but my definition of loving my country is not "my country right or wrong". I think that is the "easy" thing to see. I don't actually believe in patriotism, as it is often followed-- as it implies that we kind of drape ourselves in the flag. Look where that got Nazi Germany (BTW, I am not saying you said that either!!!). But you see that type of patriotism going alogn with GW Bush. I'm not saying he is another Hitler, but that people are following him quite unquestioningly. GWB says to go into Iraq, yep he's the president, we should believe what the president says. You hear a lot of this lately. Give us this right or that one? yes the president says we need to. Torture prisoners? Well these are different times, we might need to do that. I also believe that a lot of fundamentalists are acting out of fear. Fears of diversity, end times (after all you see this everywhere right now), fear of "The Other", etc. We don't have a magic salve for that. I think it would be VERY difficult for progressives to come off with one voice, as we don't really ahve one voice, but I appreciate the thoughts. You gave us a lot to think about. --des

I recall the bruhaha about Jimmy Carter saying he had lusted in his heart. I can't imagine G.W. owning up to something like this (nor would I htink it was wise in this particularly political climate). So just why is "lust" a "grave sin"? And why is anger bad. Anger can actually be useful, providing you use it appropriately. (Say to fight injustice.) I think Jesus is going into a bit of exageration re: saying that someone who says "you fool" goes to hell in a hand basket?! Funny thing, Jesus got angry. Maybe you could say he was angry at the sin and not the sinners, as the fundies are wont to say re: homosexuals-- but the effect would have been pretty dramatic when Jesus flipped over the tables of the money changers. At other times he calls the Pharisees, etc. snakes and so on. Pretty strong language!! A LOT stronger than "fool". Some Bible scholars say that more reflects St. Matthews own anger and frustration... but if someone was takign the Bible literally. How exactly are such things offences against God? Isn't that equating thoughts with actions, and saying it's all the same. I can see the point Cynthia made on the comments about self-righteousness. That just because we can not do some extreme stuff doesn't mean we are sinless. But, I don't think all sins are equal-- how can you equate, say genocide, with swearing at someone? Are these things truly equal in the eyes of God? I have heard this said before, all sins are equal (not sure you meant to say this Cynthia). If genocide and swearing at someone are the same in God's eyes, then well I'm not sure about God. I wouldn't think much of that sort of idea of justice. OTOH, if such statements are to remind us that we all sin, and all have distance between ourselves and God, then that much makes sense to me. Btw, would be interested in what other Progressives have to say on this. --des

Funny thing, my Campus Crusade sister says things like "What's so bad about being intolerant". You see the whole thing is they are intolerant about the *right* things. Yikes. --des

Someone else mentioned it, and I got to thinking of it last night. You know the quote attributed to Jesus, something on the order that if you lust after a woman (or presumably man) in your heart you have already committed adultery. (Of course maybe since it doesn't specifically say women-- heeheehee. :-) 1. Do you think that that was one of Jesus' famous exaggerations. Like the one about if you want to follow me you have to hate your family (I am not a line and verser). Did he really mean that? Do you think he said it? 2. Does it only apply to adultery. He did not say if you think murder, you have committed it already. Is there something particular or different about adultery? 3. If you think it applies to other kinds of things what does this say for magical thinking. As a Christian Science kid I was always worried that my *thoughts* might cause something bad. I have found since that this is a common thing with CS children. Here are my own comments fwiw. (3¢?) 1. Maybe an exaggeration. I don't know which book it is in, so that might make a difference as to whether I thought it was reasonably attributed to Jesus, or what the context was. If anyone knows? 2. It could perhaps only apply to adultery. Adultery is a different sin than say murder. Unless you were to say stalk someone or somehow show the person that you had evil intensions on them, they wouldn't know. (I'm not sure here as I am not a real murderer.) But if you say frequently contemplate other women (or men), your spouse is bound to pick this up somehow. It certainly is true for guys (and gals) having net sex, etc. (OTOH, our society has some possibilities that weren't available in Jesus' time. For example, you could watch a movie and say "wow that Brad Pitt sure is a hunk". Now unless your husband is sitting right there he isn't going to know about it. And Brad Pitt doesn't know you exist -- sorry gals.:-)) So it is a kind of impersonal lust that doesn't really go anywhere. And might not be even lust at all in the true sense. ?? OTOH, you can think about a lie and be half way there to one. But are all lies bad, certainly white lies to spare another person's feelings can't be bad? 3. Well I do have particular issues with any religious idea that leads to magical thinking, as I was very scared by it. And I tend to go against any doctrine that says that mere thinking is a sin in and of itself, unless it is followed with some type of intention. OTOH, I don't think the intention always has to be action. Perhaps it might be giving someone an idea of what you are thinking?? Hope I made myself clear. Any comments? --des

I just figured it out. It isn't really hard. But it doesn't seem to always work. Well I don't mind the handmade ones, like this. :-) Actually I see they aren't all animated. They just seem that way. Well it is pretty well controlled (10 years). I just feel like with the animated stuff like this, it still irritates my brain somewhat. I doubt I'll actually have a seizure from them. I am looking at them, they make me look at them. :-} --des

Actually if it is what I am thinking of there is a liberal Christian forum as well. However, whatever software they are using is totally garish! I don't think I could stand the blessing you things, and various points for this and that. There are about 20 different icons under a person's name. Yikes. I don't like animated smilies but the rest of this software is ok. --des