des

You know I heard that The Wizard of Oz *was* slammed by the more fundamentalist type when it first came out. However, they weren't quite as vocal as they are now. OTOH, you never hear them complaining (and they never did) about CS Lewis' "The Witch and the Wardrobe". And most won't complain about Tolkien. CS Lewis made quite a point about the idea that this was all Christian metaphor. And Tolkien made a pt. of tellign everyone when it came out that he was a Christian, etc. However, JK Rowlings has only said that she maybe occassionally attends the Anglican church (aka she is not a *real* Christian in the eyes of fundies-- though to my knowledge Tolkien was also Anglican.) Also many fundies dislike other aspects, like Harry's rule breaking etc. They take these things quite seriously imo. I read a long treatise somewhere of why Tolkien or CS Lewis were ok and Jk Rowling wasn't. It was quite involved and included things like "the beings who practice magic in Tolkien aren't human"-- well maybe they are some kind of other creature, but they seem pretty human to me. I doubt any kid reading them would think of this (or other things that this author suggested). --des

Well Gaston, it wouldn't be the first time (on this board) that I did not quite get irony. I'm autistic (very high functioning)-- and I often take things quite literally esp. some types of humor, as Aletheia has found out. Just bare with me here and I will catch on to your, uh, unique style. As for editing, I do actually know how. There was just so MUCH to edit, I mighta had to retype the whole thing. All wet, --des :-)

Well DCJ, I don't argue, would never argue, that we often make the wrong choices, and it is easy often times to make them. I'm not sure it is ALWAYS easier to make the wrong ones. I don't even question that we will always sin (or whatever term you want to use). What I question is that we are *created* to sin. That we are born that way. I question such terms as "sin nature" or "original sin", as if we took on somehow the sins that Adam and Eve committed (as I think this is an allegory anyway). Even if it weren't allegorical, I don't believe that we would be capable of sin outside society. Make a child feral (well dont' literally :-)) and I think the child will be wild and frightened but not really sinful. And I don't think that young children are sinful, even if disobedient. It takes a certain awareness of right and wrong, which doesn't come til later. So it isn't that we do wrong that I question at all, merely the tie of sin with Adam and Eve's sin. And that we are born into sin. We may be born into society that has influenced us at various levels that are less than good though... I don't, however, agree that all of us are capable of unspeakable evil. I think that the unspeakable evil some people have done, well they have compared the brain patterns of mass murderers and the rest of us and they are vastly different. I think the worst evil most of us are capable is *allowing* evil (such as what happened in Nazi Germany. Most people did NOT exterminate anyone, but people did allow it because of many factors and one was that the church allowed it-- a social institution.) BTW, I don't believe that because if we were in a situation that we had absolutely power that we would do great evil that the sin is in US. I think that it is the power itself that corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. What we need to guard against are organizations that allow absolute power, and not be concerned about what we might do under such circumstances. I'm inclined not to believe that thinking thoughts is by itself evil. I know Jesus said (or was quoted as saying) that thinking bad thoughts is as bad or almost as bad as doing them. But taken to extremes we see that that is not the case. If I say were to imagine dropping on a-bomb on a city, I would not have killed anybody. I tend to think that the belief that thinking bad thoughts is really bad leads to magical thinking. Christian Science really gets into this in a very big way. It leads to a LOT of emotional problems in CSists. I'm not sure of your statement that your bad things will really outweigh your good things. As I think about today, I can't think of anything either too bad or too good. So it is with most days, I think. And even if I just haven't thought hard enough, well I still don't think that would imply that we have a sin nature. BTW, I think that in some instances it is hard to do good. I think some of the cases you mention, are,well due to frustrations that are a part of the world (such as cursing a person on the highway), but when you actually have to make a sacrifice to do good, well I think that's part of what Jesus meant about the difficulties of discipleship. I still really like Matt Fox's statement that original sin is anthropocentric and denies billions of years of God's blessings. Hey look, if you carry a thread long enoguh it eventually goes back to topic. I always wondered about that. :-) --des

Ok, I am trying to be part of the 21st C so here goes, Aletheia. Yes, I know you were kidding, but I have had a certain "resistance" to using the quotes and smilies (actually I don't like the smilies as they are animated and I have (controlled) epilepsy. I worry about them though. But anyway was on the net back before it was ever graphical. Yes, I didn't know the extent of similarity (you are quite the font of a variety of esoteric info, Animan! :-)). Anyway, given how similar are DNA is it shouldn't be surprising. OTOH, you can't use that argument with fundies either. Satan did that to make us think.... I don't think using the rationale for the sexual activity is much of a proof. I'm sure *people* have had sex for thousands of reasons, which might come down to things like wanting power, holding onto position/station, appeasement, aside from things like attraction and love. To say what Bonobos do is that much different than people have done in various situations is just wrong I think. But they are grasping. Well, I'm not sure everyone would agree with that on such a sexually explicit site. :-) That is such a sad story, all the more so since I think that such behavior is fairly normal for teens and older children on farms. I think the shock treatments I talked about are different than shock therapy, but I think only now are some people really questioning just how good runninng electricity thru anybody's body is. --des

I also liked the DaVinci Code. And yes, it is fiction. But I think their were cords here and there that maybe somewhat had a bit of truth to them. And that bit of truth is enough to scare the bejes... out of some. Btw, whether it is true or not doesn't seem to make something bad, you know those evil Harry Potter books about a make believe wizard practicing pretend magic. --des

What delicious seditious stuff, Soma. :-) Glad they threw you off so you'd join us. --des

Woops I reread this. (I am always doing this). Think it will be easier to just do another post. As I agree with my previous one. But do you really believe God is sending judgement that caused 9-11 or the Iraqi insurgency? If so s/he would be quite a nasty God that wouldn't discriminate between people who actually inflicted the current policies and innocents (including young boys holding guns), Iraqis, who are no doubt being killed at a higher rate than Americans, etc. I think some humans have better morals than that! --des

Woah there, I don't agree with the Christian Right, but it is *because* of attitudes like retribution. So I don't agree with you that we take on the same attitudes only opposite. Of course you have the right to say them, but I don't agree with it. We might have helped bring on 9-11, by our behavior in the Middle east, and the Bush administration certainly brought on increased Iraqi insurgency by the war in Iraq. Is that what you mean? If that's what you mean then I definitely agree. Unfortunately many innocent people have been involved in the Bush (and other) policies. Hmm, but "repent or die" sounds like you are asking for their retribution. Maybe there is karma (I am open to the idea anyway), but as far as I understand, in Karma, you change your behavior and gradually you aquire better karma. But as for retribution.... You aren't *scaring* me, but you sound like you might be a bit *scarred* by your experiences with extreme fundamentalism. I certainly have been (I think) by my experiences with my sister who works for Campus Crusade. The thing with me is that I don't tend to trust people wtih more conservative views and think they are ready to pounce. A James something came in and said some quite moderate things that he was just wanting to find out things. I feel I pounced on him given my experiences of being questioned where the person involved knows the answer and is trying to test you and then works towards converting you. I really don't think now that James was doing that, but I reacted as if he were. So one can take one's attitudes and apply them to situations that aren't appropriate. You could be effected by being around people with a punishment oriented idea of the universe. Do you believe God is a God fo Love? Or of wrath? Not sure that s/he can be both. BTW, do all thing I'm all wet here. Please advise gently. :-) --des

Right right. But who needs to use this in a sentence elsewhere? :-) I try to avoid reading Revelation. Honest, it is just too out there. It goes beyond my ability to suspend disbelief--- I like something more believable, say Klingons. :-) Well I do fine with little posts, but when I have to quote ten, well it's too much. I revert to my unix days (I invented the internet along with my good friend Al. ) And yes, I do know you are kidding. And think it is sort of funny. Old habits die hard. --des

Well I thought that the Davinci Code documentary *was* a documentary. They stated that the book the DaVinci Code was fiction, they used direct sources (rather than texts or articles), etc. I thought it was very well done-- for tv that is. CNN did one on the two Marys that I thought was not near as well done. Also Discovery did a very good one on Mary M. awhile ago. --des

Welcome here! I went over to christianity.com.... well it is pretty fundamentalist. Even have a forum about the End times. How did you get kicked off? Just morbid curiousity....hehehe. (only if you feel comfortable though). --des

> agree with you 100%. The G0y site, which, again, for our viewers at home, is ran by a gay man who holds a passionate belief against anal sex for ANYONe, gay or str8 based on medical/health reasons, and he also ads his bibical views. The problem is that this guy belives he MUST use shocking graphic pictures and sometimes offensive street terms for sexual acts or certain types of people that i believe very well. more often than not, offend BOTH liberal gays and straights as well as conservatives alike. Well it is very graphic. I suppose I might find it erotic if I were a gay guy (?). Perhaps the idea is to show gays that they can be g0y (or something) and enjoy it. Or else it is just an excuse to run another graphic erotic internet site. They may defeat their own purpose. To my knowledge they don't even do the requiste "I'm 18 or older". IMO, if they wanted to introduce g0y eroticism and the issues in a serious way they would really need TWO sites. One that was issue oriented and one with eroticisms. Mind you I don't think they are wrong. Just that they defeat their purposes turning off conservatives they may be trying to reach. >A second issue with his site is while he lists some valid points medically and some interesting possible Scriptural views....He has this one page called, "But How Do You Know That he is Straight?" Where he tells step-by-step how gay guys can get their str8 buddies drunk so they can sexually take advantage of them and act like it was just all in fun. This not ethical. I agree. it isn't. I don't know if it was serious. I actually didn't see it. But still, I think they introduce a valid serious concept. Even if that idea was pure silliness, which it sounds like it wasn't, then it would be self-defeating, as a serious site dedicated to a valid pov. >Treatment of gays to become straight: >I would guess than anyone so disturbed and upset as well as unhappy enough they feel the need to enter an expensive program akin to Alcoholics Anonymous or a drug treatment program, they are probably far enough gone downhill they are willing to do most anything- up to an including castration, sex change surgery, testosterone killing drugs and so forth. Well I don't know what the current treatment is. Narth describes what is just basically psychotherapy (forming a relationship). I don't know how that would do anything at all. But I do know that they have previously used adversive conditioning. They strap electrodes to the guys balls and show sexually explicit scenes. If they show men with men and the guy gets aroused they shock him (literally). This was previously the only treatment that was said to have any level of effectiveness. Yikes. (Punishment as a behavioral method is pretty bad, and tends to be ineffective in the long run anyway.) >Were they openly accepted there wouldn't BE this stigma and all that pain... Yes, I have seen all these Fundie websites about how gays are unhappy, alcoholic at a higher rate, etc. What about loving and accepting the person as he is? And not discriminating? I bet these would cure a lot of the above! >Cases of animal homosexuality You know what the fundies say to all that. a. that they can't really be homosexual since they aren't enjoying it. To me this is illogical. True some sex is for enjoyment, but there was prob. thousands of years of sex between humans who barely enjoyed it (And I think up to really recently women weren't expected to enjoy sex at all). I think it is more lately as we have more free time and privacy that humans can enjoy sex. I think there are big exceptions to that like the Greeks, say. So that means that there was no homosexuality prior to presently. Not so. I read a LONG thing on Narth, one of the "we love gays so much we make them straight" sites about Bonobos having lots of sex, that has been described as homosexual. No, they say, it's not *really* homosexual because they do it for tension and social pressure release in the society. Sounds pretty human to me!!! :-) (Bonobos, I think, I read are more similar to us than they are to chimps, which they are mistaken for, in dna.) b. That ok, just because animals do it doesn't make it natural or something. Of course they don't grant that *we* are animals, so that that kind of makes any discussion kind of come apart. --des

> Des I think you have been watching too many "Star Trek" episodes Funny thing, that's true!! :-) >We send out radio signals towards other planets, but unless life there had progressed to have the ability to "read" the signals they wont get them, and they woudl have to only be 200 years behind us in science progress to miss the signals totally. 200 years advanced and maybe our signals would be so primitive they would have nothing to pick them up with. Well of course, as I think the great agnostic, Carl Sagon once said-- "absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense". Btw, his book Contact (vs the movie-- good but not as good as the book) is really (gosh I know the guy says he doesn't know if there is a God, but the book is really full of the just way bigger than any of us (i can't think of the word, numiscent or something). Granted I'm not sure we will ever *see* these four eyed or two headed things. Not for a long long time, if ever. It is one of those questions. Unanswerable but fun to play with. I answered this stuff in an email to him. I don't think he'd mind my reproducing it here. >Some of the rock/cave drawings appear to depict some very odd things that look like men in space suits and flying objects that could be depictions of aircraft.' Yes, but it is hard to "translate" such pictures because they could have been other things as well, the imaginary, gods, etc. >Two issues that begs explanations, the first is the rock/cave drawings as well as ancient pictographs in the desert which depict animals etc but can only be seen what they are from high up in the air, at ground level you can't see them, go in a helicopter and the scenes come to life, perfectly scaled and "drawn out" though primitive of course. Well I had a teacher (actually it was a not for credit course) at the Planetarium in Chicago. She was an astronomer who had studied the lines of Nazca in Peru (they are maybe one of the more famous lines like this). She was much more interested in more earthly explanations. Actually making them would have been simple-- if time consuming, using cord, the lines could be very straight. BTW, a lot of the lines line up with certain star pattterns, etc. The patterns she felt were of constellations, for example, there is a spider, and that is what we call Orion (I think it is a better spider btw). They felt it was for the vantage point of gods, not alien visitors. She also warned about trying to figure out ancient perspectives from our vantage point. She talked about how an architectural feature on the planetarium actually matches the winter soltice, talked about the guy's name and possible symbology etc. Needless to say ti was interesting, but I don't remember all the details. >The other is in Revelations and elsewhere, Ezkelial (sp?) describes a wheel. (Maybe Revelations as well.) There was even an old UFO program on TV (circa the 60s sometime that talked about Ez's wheel as a UFO.) It coulda been, who knows. >detailed descriptions of "wheels in the sky" that could move in any direction rapidly and made a horrific noise like a lot of waterfalls. BTW, most current UFO reports (not as many lately btw) are noiseless. I know as I read *everything* serious about them a number of years ago. >They are further described as having "eyes all around". There is also a description of "Cherubim" who can move similarly. Then the New Jerusalem is described, basically math conversion shows it would be a 1500 mile cube, it mentions 7 "foundations" gates made of a single large pearl, transparent gold, adorned with colored gemstones and needing no light from the sun as it comes from within. I think that Revelations is the first sci-fi. Honestly I wonder if the guy was takign something though. :-) >Ok so maybe I've watched one too many episodes of Star Trek with Captain Kirk, but from the text descriptions I can only visualize some sort of alien ships, call them UFO's if want to cause the Govt and media would! The "eyes all around" the rim of the "wheel" sounds a lot like portholes, the Cherubim's "wings" which logistically don't make sense could have been the only thing those primitive people could describe as a motive force for an alien visitor wearing some kind of device- call it a jet pack or whatever. The primitive people could only fathom for flight- bird wings, so that is how they could best describe it. Well there is an interesting book by Jacques Vallee who was a UFO investigator and sociologist back in the 60s or 70s and the inspiration for the character Claude Lacombe in Close Encounters. In the book "Passport to Magonia" , 1969 (just looked this all up!) he describes how UFOs themselves may be part of some kind of experience that was common in all cultures at all times but was explained different ways, perhaps some paranormal type phenonmena. For example, when there were lots of balloons and air ships, there were beings that came from air ships but they were much faster and travelled farther, the beings were strange in various ways. How do you explain an air ship as a UFO--- you can't. But like UFOs they had things in common. They appeared they were very fast or came out of no where at times, the people were unusual looking and/or acting. Now that we have space travel, people have different expectations. Back in Bible times they had expectations of religious experiences that may have been grandeous. >One silly explanation for the wheels was "Oh those were God's chariot wheels" Chariot wheels?? you mean like the Romans had?? but the Roman's wheels didn't have "eyes all around" and then it also begs the question of why would God need a CHARIOT and wouldn't that be rather slow? why would wheels be needed in deep space where there is nothing for them to turn on? Well it's possible that these were like the air ships? People basically had expectations or needs for certain type of experiences and these appeared to be lilke chariot wheels. So people actually *did* see or recall (or however) Chariots in the Sky, as their paranormal experience. Of course this is one explanation. And it still begs the question as to what these all actually are, if anything or are they somehow educed somehow as part of our collective imagination. For example, there are more UFO reports on earthquake fault lines, as if these may , in some individuals cause hallucinations or illusions at certain times. >We still can't explain how the pyramids were built or fathom how primitive people with nothing somehow managed to cut and move over 5 million blocks of stone over some distances and then haul them up- including some huge ones I recall were estimated to weigh something like 65,000 pounds each and for the CEILING of a chamber, and how they fit so well a credit card can't slide between them. Well I don't know about that one. I saw a project on PBS where someone made a small pyramid. He didn't have many people, but he basically did a lot of the things they did. The stones were not dragged as far, etc. Could aliens have built them, maybe? Or could thousands and thousands of people done it using similar type methods, maybe? >With so many religions around the planet I have a problem believing any single one is 100% correct, they all have some form of deity/creator in common, call him Budha, God, Jehovah, Allah or whatever. The Christian religion claims the others wont get to go to heaven, yet oddly enough the Muslims say basically the same thing about non Muslims! Then you have reincarnation and all the rest- and every one of them has their own good books, writings, scriptures, beliefs and are convinced THEY are right and everyone else is wrong. Yes, I would agree with that. I do not take an exclusivist view of religion. I basically think each offers something new and perhaps some bit of truth. And also that they basically are relevant to a particular place and time. I think the ancients probably saw things they couldn't fathom, maybe visitors from another place or time- call them Martians or Captain Kirk and Mr Spock landing in a probe or transporter beam, Well maybe? But the whole of the world is a mystery, why do things happen as they do? And much of all of these religions were based on all of this, it certainly seems to fill in missing pieces and makes some sense, a lot more than Noah and a huge flood. I am basically a skeptic on UFO, even though I have read tons of UFO literature (serious stuff mostly). I dont' believe that it ISN'T true, but I dont' feel we have compelling evidence that it is. What we basically have are tantilizing bits of evidence, some better than others, and lots fo eye witness reports but mostly one or two people. BTW, there was a very famous and apparently pretty well regarded UFO siting of the third kind (alien visitors) in Soccorro NM which isn' t that far from where I live (Albuquerque). NM has a really high incidence of reports. But I don't hold real much stock in the infamous Roswell one. The Soccorro one is really well documented, whereas the Roswell one kind of came up years and years later. >Animan --des

That's a cool idea. I can write or edit, but I don't have any money. --des

>This is very intersting and informative, what you are all telling us about this UUC forum. When I saw that ad on tv I felt glad and for a brief moment I considered maybe I should check UUC out.... Well I'm not sure I would let the attitudes of some jerkoffs (excuse) from the UCC board let them stop you. I think some of them weren't really UCC anyway and forum f***-up was from a self-proclaimed (says so right on the webpage) conservative UCC (kind of an oximoron imo.) There is a *splinter* UCC group that is trying to get the church to go conservative, afaik it has had zero effect. >But what you guys are saying about UUC is much what I gather from the United Methodist Church and D of C church in my city that I visted. Well all the UCCs have been Open and Affirmign (ONA) but they decide this congregation by congregation, so you can check out by the Ucc.org or (some are listed in the yellow pages) to see if they are. They will list it. So it isn't like the UMC which has a standard that it wishes congregations to go by, it is congregational in the sense that each congregation decides this for itself. (Which stands to reason as one of the congregations that is part of UCC was/is the Congregational church. Some like ours retain Congregational in the name.) So I would look over there and see if it says that, as if it does it will be. The congregation goes thru a process. You'd be surprised that sometimes the older members have no problem with it at all. These are afterall, people who aren't exactly Southern Baptists. OTOH, I think Methodists are a more mixed group, in terms of who is conservative or no. I think in my old church in Chicago, there was a far bigger question of whether to use inclusive language than to be Open and Affirming. But anyway the ONA is a real thing, the congregations actively consider it and debate it. At my current church the big deal was whether they actually had to say that--- I mean we are supposed to be that aren't we? Anti-gay sites: >But gee, women and heterosexuals get colon cancer too, it's very common, common enough too there's a whole industry built up that sells colostomy equipment This is true or bladder infections from heterosexual sex! Or all manner of STDs of AIDs in Africa or Asia. I tend to agree with the www.G0ys.com site. At least I think it has some interesting thoughts and so on. I was not quite prepared with how graphic it is. VERY. :-) BTW, www.g0ys.com was quite adament that straights engaged in anal sex too. They had photos of porn directed at straights. I'm sure it is high risk behavior. Though the safest sex is no sex. But even though the Bush administration is trying to get this taught as the only option for teens, reality wins out all the time. Yes I found the above sites shocking with all sorts of mis and partial truths, and some downright lies. Where they get their success rate is one. They say it is higher than Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers (which by itself might mean success isn't so good!!), but I really doubt it is that good. I think what they mean is that of the people that have gone in for these programs such and such a percent has had change. What they don't say is what kind of change and whether they go back again, which I imagine many/most do. The complete denial of a state of homosexuality--- just is sex acts, is crazy.

Ok, you prob. all have seen this one but I never have really discussed it. I think the Klingon part is to draw attention to it, but the basic premise goes like this. There are prob. planets inhabited by intelligent beings that don't look anything like us. Perhaps they are even uglier than Klingons. Anyway maybe they have two heads and are grey and scaley. So do they need a savior? Being "human" (I mean mortal), I'm imagining they sin. Of course I dont' believe in substitional sacrifice, but I do believe Jesus was more than a mere man. And I believe more in the Cosmic Christ as Matt Fox describes, that is that Jesus *was* Christ but that is possible there is Christ in other places and other situations. So what about our two headed friends? Does God come to them in some way that is mystical? Any comments? --des

Re: Genesis. Throw away! Wait that didnt' come out right. You do an excellent pretending job. :-) BTW, we'll see how this all works. I'm trying to get up to date with my quoting. --des

Re: highly legalistic to highly legalistic: >Precisely! That is also what i find with the JW's! They go from JW to Assembly of God or Southern Baptists! That IS precisely what my own web pages I made addresses. WHY JW's usually simply rotate fundamental faith groups instead of becoming more Progressive. Well I think there are reasons for it: I think they actually feel comfortable with legalism. Not everyone, but many of them. So they go to something that is also legalistic. They really need the structure. Being a progressive, where no one tells you what to think or how to think it, that's frightening to some people. They would rather go where someone tells you how to think. BTW, it wasn't initially easy for me. I went around feeling a bit lost for awhile. Another thing is that sometimes, like in my sister's case, there are psychological reasons-- like having a critical father, having very strict parents, or something like that. They go to a belief system that copies their parenting. Unlike my sister I had a lot of therapy, so I had a chance to analyze what kind of parenting I got.(My sister had therapy but ended up getting "Christian therapy".) I think that they may go thru the same searching but find some fundamentalist group, like Campus Crusade, that is more than happy to help them. They befriend them and they are immediately surrounded by all these people who care about them. Now of course, if they should question the beliefs well they might not be so easily cared about. I did run into such groups, but I felt more suspious (I am maybe a bit more suspicious in nature anyway-- being autistic). I thought they had ulterior motives. But some people won't feel this way. So *initially* they go in because these people are so loving to them, then they feel pulled in by group psychology. They are also very effective at handling doubting sorts of questions. What do progressives have to offer in this regard? You go to a progressive church and you get more questions. Whereas fundamentalists answer the questions. I never liked people answering questions with Bible verses, but other people might not be bothered by this. I think it was Buber who said "The Bible says this, the Bible says that. What does thou say?" The other thing that in my seeking, I ran into many divergent views first, not last. That might have been a factor. I was also politically liberal--more liberal than my sister, that maybe had something to do with me veering away from more conservative religious views (although I believe that you could be politically conservative and progressive religiously and vice versa-- it usually follows). I was active in the civil rights movement circa 1960s. --des

>Hi Aletheia, Thank you for the welcome Not to worry, I asked them to close my account and unbookmarked the site as well. Hi again Des, nice to find you too Well or Jimmie to you. :-P Yes Animan and I have been emailing. At least I feel I got a friend out of the deal. >Groups? do you men those two "charities" the person posted several times about being so great? Here is what I found on these two who claim they are SOOOO successful at converting gay people; Yes, as I said I didn't research them. I don't believe them even if they were really real charities-- as it sounsd like they aren't. They have no way of tracking people that didnt' stay "straight". From what I have heard there are lots of ex ex gays, and they are pretty angry. Your info is VERY interesting. Sounds like high overhead, which goes, no doubt to line certain pockets. For groups too poor to file IRS forms, they certainly are spending a lot of money! I'd imagine some have large advertising budgets (for their size) to advertise the no. of gays they have "saved". (No doubt the same stories over and over.) >if this word "slave" might not have been mistranslated or has more meanings and maybe should have been something akin to an employee or domestic (paid) servant? What do you think? Someone like a maid, nanny etc would make more sense than owning another person to work for free and do whatever you say. I seriously doubt the word slave was mistranslated. Perhaps there are multiple meanings, but my understanding is that back when it was considered ok to have slaves. (Scripture was used often to justify slavery in the US before the civil war.) >The forum pest also kept claiming UCC churches were closing at a much higher rate after accepting gay people than before, he seemd to ignore that facts I presented showing First of all, not all UCC have signed the dotted line saying they are open and affirming. The church I now go to is, but it took roughly two years. Their problems with it were that of course we are open and affirming but isn't that the whole point of being Christian. Second, I don't actually think that UCC is closing faster than other protestant demonations, it's just that they can survive a cut in members less than some others (like Episcopal say). The other thing that the ad campaign which showed (apparently) a gay couple, caused an increase of attendance at UCC churches of about 20%-- so if people were so appauled what was the appeal?? >churches of ALL denominations closing world-wide at higher numbers- the lawsuits closed many and are closing more, dwindling memberships in huge older buildings that now need expensive repairs, handicap retrofitting, asbestos abatement etc are combining into one building and closing one. You're right. The big church buildings built in some cases a hundred years ago, are really ill-adapted to the 2000s. Our church in Chicago, was constantly undergoing renovations, etc. and it was never enough. It was hugely expensive. They are energy hogs, etc. This church gave about 1/4 of it's income to social justice organizations but I think had to lower the amt. to just keep going. I also think that progressive/liberal churches are less good at doing "evangelizing" or simple "getting in the customers". They aren't comfortable with it. The fundamentalist churches have a lot of "user friendly churches" (I can't think of the actual name which my sister told me). They don't say what demonanation they are. It will be something like Willow Street Church. They tend to draw people in because people have had a bad experience with church and see this church that isn't heavy liturgical. They actually have programs to teach people how to welcome you. Funny thing though when UCC did that, with the recent Still Speaking campaign they were heavily criticized by, you guessed it, fundamentalists. --des

Hi Seeking, Happy to have you here. My sister is a fundie, Campus Crusade and I was brought up as a Christian Scientist, very legalistic but hardly fundamentalist. I had a lot of those little kicks in, and I tended to think of everything in CS terms, including God. Like Xian, I have had a lot of bizarre loops around in my spiritual path. Some demonations are more liberal than others, but they do have their more fundamentalist members and churches. Where do you live? You can also talk to us, because many of us have had similar journeys. One more book that I am enjoying is Stealing Jesus by Bauer. It talks about the God of Love, vs the God of Law. The Fundamentalist view is more of a God of law. It is hard to leave the safe route where everything is explained. One thing nice about the Progressives is we are, by definition, seekers like you. If I knew all the answers, well I'd be God. --des

Hi Animan, I like your Avatar (thinking of putting up a doggie one myself-- as Matt Fox said "my dog is my spiritual director.She keeps me very grounded."). I told him about our little group, said it was a good place and everything that the UCC board was not. Ah yes, our "friend" over there.... I did look up those groups, found them unlikely to say the least. I didn't do any research on them, just read the stuff they posted. There are a lot of ex ex gays, turns out. I knew a gay guy actually got married. Not sure if the marriage was annulled or what. I think the so-called conversions result from more bisexuals chosing to live as straights and then there are actual homosexuals living as celebates. Of course, since in these groups the act is what is sinful, then if you are celebate its ok. Doesn't quite prove anything though-- just that people can live as celebates, but doesn't mean they are all happy about it. >.but while I DO greatly respect these moderate mainline churches for social justice..there is always the battle with the old school fundamentalist that want to take the church back to it's John Calvin days...and because of this I think these churches like United Methodists and Presbyterians,ect..maybe all the Progressives should just start their own Progressive non-denominational churches and just make sure they put these phrase, "A Progressive Christian Church," on the outside. There might be some truth to this. There are factions in every moderate to liberal Christian church that have fundie members who want to turn them into "Bible believin'". There is a faction in UCC that has been working on UCCs from inside. There is a big group in UMC. You can actually find conservative UCCs which blows my mind. I belonged to a very liberal social justice church in Chicago.(I moved.) We still had a small group of conservatives, but they were conservative light and not much of an issue. But this church is famous or infamous, so no one would go to it if they weren't pretty liberal to begin with. I think they would be turned off in services were they say the Lord's Prayer "Our Father-Mother who art in heaven", for instance. How you'd actually be able to start the Progressive Christian Church though... >hypocritical people who say homosexuality is a sin, but convieniently ignore that "sin" includes adultry, divorce, working on the Sabbath, eating pork, stealing of ANY kind, cursing one's parents and muiltitudes of things that occur daily everywhere." Wearing multifabric material? That ones in Leviticus. Then you can own slaves as long as they live in neighboring states (like Canadian slaves :-)). >And I also agree on this. I find much in Native American beliefs that compliment my own Progressive Christian views. Certainly. I feel that since we are human we can never get the whole truth by ourselves, and that groups of people over times have elements that we don't have. For example, i might mention the respect/reverence for the Earth that Western religions lack (and at our peril). BTW, some Native American languages have no word for homosexual. BTW, I really think UCC should pull their forum. It gives a really bad view of UCC. If you read the board first, you'd never go to a UCC church. It puts a terrible light on their organization. Hey, you really are "welcome here". :-) --des

What did you spend $160 on? --des

Yes that was my sister in Campus Crusade. Interesting how you expresss that she may have other motives for being a born again. I think for one thing she went from one legalistic religious system to another. From Christian Science (which is highly legalistic) to fundamentalism which is highly legalisitc. Another thing is that our dad was very critical-- so she goes to a religion with a very strict and critical "Father". Why didn't I go that way? Well I rebelled against religion for awhile. I was nothing and claimed to be agnostic for awhile, then I went thru many religious experiments. I was in Encounters for Christ (or something) that was an Christian encounter group, I was in a small group of women that started a little group which was maybe theist. I read up in Buddhism. I also had a lot of therapy, and figured out what goes on with CS as well as dad. >Also, I can see what you all are saying that whether the Bible translations have been altered or not have nothing to do with your belief. But take AletheiaRivers' fundamental aunt, for example. Aletheia said that this Campus Crusade aunt of her's is very smart and it sounds like she likes to do bibical research. Well, maybe deep insdie it has always botherd her that the bible seemed sexist and she wondered how Jesus could be that way, or maybe deep down inside she can't stomac the idea of a literal hellfire...well, if a moderate or Progressive could share with her a book on conditionalism or maybe the book, "What Paul Really Said about Women," then she could read the author's smart bibical research into the actual original Greek and Hebrew words and their meanings, and 'if' such a thinking person cared to look at such information...then this might lead them to more progressive thought. It wouldn't work (or better than you than me :-)). She is also very "right" all the time. A progressive would never get a word in edgewise or she would never hear it. I also don't think she ever really experienced Biblical sexism. She reads the Bible now, but she didn't before she converted. If she has any questions, she isn't aware of them. Aletheia: >I am currently involved in a dialogue group on the meaning of Genesis. Xian quotes: Ecclesiastes 1.2: "'Utterly meaningless," says the Teacher. 'All things are meaningless!'" And vexations of the spirit or something. :-) Bring it on Aletheia. I'm all for meaninglessness and vexations of the spirit. :-) --des

We started discussing this in another thread, so I thought (for fear of thread hijacking :-)) to start a new one. I am reading Stealing Jesus, which has a whole lot of the idea of the term Christian getting hijacked. I think it is true. Christian has come to mean, even for non-Christians that you believe a certain group of beliefs that really not all Christians share, and they are fundamentalist. They mean right wing, and it will follow that you believe homosexuality to be a sin and so forth. I agree with Beach that Evangelical was also hijacked. And he's prob. right that it's for good. And he also talked about how hard it is to change a word after it has changed meanings. Gay is the example he gave. I don't think you can use that word anymore except for meaning homosexual. And the word f***, btw, meant to plant. Try using that in a sentence that way. And intercourse used to mean the interaction, not necessarily sexual. There is Intercourse PA. Glad I don't live there, mail orders would be so embarrassing! This is all true. But do we really want them to hijack the term Christian? You know according to fundies (sorry but I don't like funds. ) Catholics are not Christian, and many Protestians in the US and pretty much most Christians in other countries (in fact, my sister is in Europe as she feels that they are so Godless over there). OTOH, when the press talks about Christian voters and means fundies, not sure what there is we can do about it. --des

Well I don't think translation errors account with my issues of taking it literally, either. I doubt there is any translation error in something like "Genesis two"-- there may be-- but I don't think that's the issue. I have read of differences in translation between the NIV and the NRSV for instance. If you read them you see some differences in arguments for say universalism and conditionalism-- though one could argue that the translations were chosen to reflect pov and not the other way around. (Though I don't believe in a literal hell and heaven anyway.) The other thing is that the "real thing" would still have influences of culture and audience. So one of the gospels, I can't remember which, has more verses that seem to correlate with prophesy. Did it really happen like that? Or were the verses put in so that things seemed like they correlated with prophesy, so that people would be more likely to say that yeah Jesus is the Messiah as foretold? I mean they weren't written right at the time of Jesus' life. (Even if they were people do not have perfect memories.) It strikes me as an issue as to what Jesus actually did say and what was attributed but never said. Of course if you believe it to be inerrant than that wouldn't be an issue.) Someone on another board asked if we thought Jesus believed what he said. I never have felt there was any issue like that. The issue has always been for me, whether he said what they said he said. Yikes how twisted is my syntax. :-o >I don't completely agree with any one esoteric view of Genesis though, but do come closer to some than others. I wish we could or would discuss more things of this nature here. I fear the interest is not there though. Oh yeah!? I wish you would try this out. I love that whole Genesis story. ( I have a lot of interest in creation myths anyway.) I think it is just filled with all sorts of meaning. I am not sure what it all is of course. And you are much more, um well, you sound like a theology student or something. I mean no offence. :-) --des