des

Hi and welcome. I'm a newbie too, and a couple years (plus a few :-)) older... --des

More light bulb jokes: Q. How many Christian Scientists does it take to change a light bulb? A. The light bulb is a spiritual manifestation of the Light of Christ and never needs changing. Q: How many Congregationalists does it take to change a light bulb? A. The whole damn committee! --des

The discussion on Evangelism, well I don't know if Jim Wallis is getting a lot of flack from Fundamentalists (which I will call funds.-- as some people here don't like the term fundies) telling him he is all wet (or all burning :-)), but if you look at what they do they do, well try to bring Christ's word into the world. For instance, they had a very active campaign during the last presidency that said "God is not Republican. Nor Democrat." They work on social reform issues in a Christian context. Maybe this isn't what the Campus Crusade is doing, but in the broadest sense it is evangelism. Also is at least one more or less liberal or progressive church with Evangelical in their name. The Evangelical Lutheran Church is a sister congregation of UCC for example. I've also seen the terms evangelism in UCC literature. (Wasn't the recent ad campaign of UCC an evangelical one? The people they were trying to reach are those who felt they had been rejected by churches. If you are trying to reach unchurched people this is evangelism, isn't it?) In fact, funds. have taken many pretty good terms and taken them and claimed them as theirs exclusively so much so that if you say "I'm a Christian" people will automatically think Fund. So I think they have also grabbed the term evangelical and made it a fund. word. >One thing I think may freak some moderates out is when the Progressives say, "I don;t take the Bible literally but I do take it seriously." This makes them think that at best Progs think the Bible is just a positive fairy-tell. I don't say that, but I have heard it here. *I* didn't take it that way, but some might I suppose. I think the problem is it may sound a little flip perhaps. But I'm not sure exactly why. Also while I might say that some of the stories are myth, that is way way different than saying they are fairy tales. Mythology is a way of understanding the world that all of us engage in and need. >'literally' and also 'the Bible.' Instead of saying this maybe we can instead say that we reconized that orginal Bible manuscripts as their were orginally found in Greek and Hebrew WERE and ARE 'different' than ALL our modern day copies and that in this process of translating many erros in Greek and Hebrew have already been verified..but that these errors are not related to the orginal texts and their orginal meanings and that we DO understand this. Well it might explain your position but not entirely mine, although I agree with what you say. There is also the whole question of what is not there that might have been at one time. We don't know about that either. The are several ancient books of the Bible that have been found like the book of Mary Magdeline---who knows about that one?? And the Book of Thomas (I think). But I do think there is myth, such as Noah's ark or Jonah and the whale (or is it fish?). > Pluss..that we believe many text that were meant symbolically have been taken literally and vice versa. Example..would you take the Beast with horns on it's head in the book of Revelations LITERALLY? When John the Baptist said that Jesus would "Baptize with water and fire", do you really think he meant Jesus would baptized people by dunking them in fire?" ect, logical sound reasonings like this. Well I would take both to be figurative. (Of course what with the term literally having changed recently, as in the sentence "I literally climbed the walls", meaning some kind of emphasis or something and not the opposite of figuratively. Maybe I will now say I believe in everything in the Bible literally-- meaning emphatically but not that it all really happened. But I digress. But I digress so well. :-)) Maybe Funds would take the first one to be literally true and the second as figurative. > I may have made this a bit too wordy and maybe someone can better sum up what i am trying to say..but I think you DO underatnd what I am getting a I think so. But I am not sure how clear cut what is figurative and what is literal is. The example about "baptism by fire" is a great one though that I can't imagine any but the kookiest snake handling cults would actually believe literally. Sorry about the terms kooky and cult-- I try to be accepting but I draw the line somewhere. And snakes it is. :-) --des

Thanks Aletheia for your spelling assistance. :-) Too lazy to look it up. Yes, I agree on the Evangelical Lite (perhaps it should be spelled light-- sounds more serious). But I agree. I know a no. of people like this. I actually had quite a good friend (in another state). We could have serious discussions on religion even though she was a Missouri Synod Lutheran. She didn't wholesale buy everythign. For example, she said she disagreed about women's place. She said things like "well if women are supposed to be quiet in church", they shouldn't sing in the choir or teach Sunday School (which they are allowed to do). She didn't believe that God created the earth in six days. She was very interested in science (an astronomy major), and she thought of the days as periods and that it was maybe a mistranslation (and maybe it was). She never tried to convert me. We did argue but are arguments were always pretty friendly, and they might veer off into astronomy at a moment's notice. But she was open minded very interesting to listen to. Actually have known quite a no. of Catholics who were mostly liberal politically. Such is the state of the Catholic Church in the US that there aren't many people that think *everything* is right or perfect. I think it was a Catholic that told me that there was a name for someone who used the Rhythm Method and that was "parent". :-) When someone isn't extreme, it is easy to listen and feel comfortable. And yes, I believe there is much common ground. It might be interesting to explore that with our "token" :-) conservative. Since James is a student of comparitive faiths (at least in interest), maybe I'll start a new thread. BTW, I think there are a no. of terms that get mixed up and used interchangeably when they really aren't. Evangelical could theoretically be any stripe-- you share the belief. Isn't Sojourner a progressive Evangelical group for instance. Conservative is someone who has more literal and more traditional views. I'm thinking that James might be that (and some others that I have met). I think inerrancy is actually a bit inaccurate term. For example my friend above, believed that the Bible was pretty much written by God but translated by people who might make errors in translation.They would believe we are saved by grace vs works, but might be more open to other people (than Christians or Conservatives being able to receive the message somehow). A Fundamentalist takes every word of the Bible as literal fact. Literally no one gets to a literal heaven without believing that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. And that Jesus died for our personal sins. So I think there are differences. Not saying that conservatives wouldn't believe what the Fundamentalist believes but I think there are some qualititive differences. I'm not sure how well I sorted that all out. :-) --des

Anybody ever read this? I just got this and started it. It really resonates, imo. I think it has been around awhile though. Maybe somewhat after "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by Sprong. --des

Oh gee, where to start... First to answer a direct question James had. I'm self-employed and not, er, so busy at the moment. Trying to get a full-time job in the public schools and things have been slow going, processing applications... So I have time. Should be in bed though. :-) Fatherman: >urselves. I know that this site does not have progressive/conservative dialogue or debate as a primary objective (or as an objective at all), but I believe there is room for it. It is my sincere prayer that we progressives start the journey of forgiveness and reconciliation with our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. We are all a part of the body of Christ. This is no accident. Will we be crippled by hate, fear, and anger or will we be strengthened and made whole by love? Well fatherman, I agree. But it is a difficult position. Also I have always tried to be respectful of the fundamentalist position, but honestly, I have had to do it so much and work at that so hard. My sister constantly is "working on me" trying to convert me. I feel it is very tiresome. I have always left her alone and don't annoy her or try to get her to see things my way. I have had total strangers come up and ask me if I'm a Christian and born again. I know they are worried about my salvation and all, so I understand it from that point of view, but it is hard to really enjoy all this. I got on UCC.org (UCc is supposed to be a liberal church.) But no sooner did I get on than found all these UCCers or ex-UCCers come on and try hijack threads telling us that are liberal views are all wrong and evil. So while I try and be respectful (and no I don't think fundamentalists are idiots-- my sister is really bright for instance). As for the Fundie label. Gosh, any other short cuts on fundamentalists. FMs or Funds. or ?? I'll use it, fundamentalist takes so long to type. :-) (I think I've heard my sister use fundie btw. But I understand the difference between calling yourself one.) Another thing that annoys me is that, well I feel insulted by Conservatives saying they are Christians and no one else is. Finding safe progressive space-- well it's hard to come by. So while theoretically I think you are correct. And we no doubt (as my former pastor used to say) "Have more in common than we'll ever have in conflict". It is hard, as I have been thru so much, where *I* was not respected and I was trying to do all the respecting. For your question Beach, about moderate space? I've looked at a few websites. There is a huge multidemonational www.christianforums.com. (all kinds of things like traditional, methodist,nondemonational, etc. etc.) also I think belief.net might have something. BTW, I am not entirely surprised to find Pro-Life Liberals. But I'm not surprised by too much. :-) >James: I figure I'll try and answer a few fo the questions that people have asked (and amusingly discussed) about my intentions and a slightly longer biographical sketch. At least you were amused. :-) I wasn't sure how I would take it. Yet I did feel a bit suspicious. Whenever my sister asks a question, it is to get me to make an answer and then she goes on to get me to her point of view. I read part of book she got called "Questioning Evangelism", which is all about converting people by asking questions. As I said, it is tiresome. >James: I am not here explicitly to convert anyone, although if I did I wouldn't complain. I'll leave the converting to God and keep offering my prayers and sacrifices for all of you (and also the rest of the world so don't feel too singled out). I think that I am being respectful in my posts so I would appreciate the same respect towards the criticism of more conservative or more orthodox viewpoints. I agree that you have been extremely respectful. >Not all traditional Christians are idiots incapable of putting sentences together, neither are we incapable of human respect, nor do we eschew true ecumenical dialogue (which as far as Well I'm sure everyone is not like my sister (who is after all workign for Campus Crusade). One of my clients, is, I am quite sure a conservative Christian. Very nice person, wonderful kids. (Sounds like some of my best friends... oh well.:-)) >The idea that "fundies" hate everyone who aren't them, refuse to take a well-thought out position or have bothered to know and learn what and why they believe is frankly offensive. Please have the deceny not to caricature more orthodox beliefs than yours if you still want those people to take you seriously. Unfortunately, no doubt there are many exceptions and probably most people are not like my sister. It's just that I keep encountering them. I haven' t met a single person (well maybe you) who identifies as fundamentalist that apparently was really interested in what I had to say except as a means to the end of "saving me". I could list incident on incident. If there was such a person they are now totally lost in the shuffle. So I'm sorry if I came across hostile. I agree with Beach that moderates, I have no trouble with. But when people are quite hardcore, it's something else. >So, all that being said, why am I posting here? I'm posting because I honestly don't understand the "progressive" position. It doesn't make sense to me from a historical or theological standpoint. So, I'm trying to get involved in these discussions as a way of comparing and contrasting the Faith, as historically held by the Catholic Church, with the many faiths held here so as to discover how and why they are what they are. Your are a good student of comparitive religion then. I'd say with Aletheia that religion has always changed and altered in time. And all religion is in a cultural contrast. I believe the Bible was written by men and written in their own cultural contexts. Why, for example, is the God in the some of the earlier OT books so wrathful and later in the NT, God is a loving God? I (and other progressives) would contend it was the attitude not God that did the changing. Traditional readings aren't always what they're cracked up to be. I can't remember what year, but the Catholic church has recently recanted and said that Mary Magdeline was not a prostitute. Why did they say this in the first place? Was it to keep women in their place? To provide a role for a female disciple who Jesus actually came to first, after the resurrection. No where in the Bible was Mary M a prostitute. The Catholic church has also recently recanted its position on quite a few people including Isaac Newton. Presumably an early understanding of scripture indicated he was a heretic. So even the Catholic Church is not the identical church it was longer ago. There have always been more liberal and more conservative theological voices, some of them date pretty far back. (Hildegarde of Bingen, Meister Ekard, etc. -- ooh sp??). --des

Re: equivalence of alcohol and pot (minus penalties). >And interstingly, the majority of neo-hippies i have met who are for smoking pot for non-seriously illnesses...usefully have voiced very passionatley against drinking alcohol Yikes. Well I don't quite get that at all. I think it is a whole counterculture thing circa the 60s (some people have never gone past that). > and very hardcore against non-Vegans..even contedeming the eating of milk or eggs...Eating eggs and milk does not hurt the animals and yet that fell it is so unhealthy and unnatural. I can't understand the feelign that marijuana would be totally harmless in their view. Seems to the idea (or at least justification thereof) that it is somehow "natural". Well if you know about burning, you know that burning changes a substance. So if they felt eating it was better than alcohol, I could understand that. But I really think it is a cultural thing kind of, and not based on much rationality. BTW, the guy I know that has ADD and pretty much wasted is VERY worried about diet and other drugs (won't take anti-GERD drugs, though he has pretty severe GERD). I don't suppose that marijuana would be so great for that. Also as per alcohol. I can't drink at all. But I don't feel that very moderate drinking is bad. Esp. as you say the red wine. Most people I know now are very moderate/light in drinking. However, in excess, I think it is more dangerous, and the dangers are very well known. --des

Hey, and this is a true story sort of. Do you know the difference between UCC and United Methodists? You don't bring potato salad to a UCC potluck!!!! (Don't ever even think about it unless there are purple potatoes in it and six herbs). There won't be any jello salads or tuna casserole either. But if you want a good taboulie recipe... Ok another one. Do you know how to cause chaos in the Christian Science church? Start a discussion on the reading room carpet. Everyone will agree on theology. BTW, did you know that they really did install a phone at Mary Baker Eddy's tomb so she could call back when arose from the dead. She's the lady who never phoned home. :-) If you have 12 UCCers in a room together, you'll have 13 opinions. Any more? --des

Hey what's "eoubuoptutyxprsa" (I mean what you wrote?) :-)

Hey good points, Beach... But I think it is pretty hard to debate a Fundamentalist without the Fundamentalist ended up trying to convert you. My sister and I actually had a pretty good discussion on abortion, but since I don't think "abortion is good" but maybe at times necessary-- in fact, would like to see a way for it to be unnecessary-- it made it possible. It was I who took a more middle position. But it was possible. But real theology, what would happen is that she would ask me a question and then turn it into an argument for a more conservative viewpoint. The thing is that when you debate a Fundamentalist, pretty much they have everythign at stake when they talk to you. Maybe you think it is an interesting discussion and they think they are going to need to keep you from hell's fire. They know you are absolutely wrong and you might think well it is working for them or something-- don't agree with it. I think it puts progressives in a lousy debating position. After all they have hell on their side, so to speak. >nd yet all three of us find agreement on the 8 points of Progressive Christianity and that's what we all hold in commom. None of us think the other is not saved simply because they hold a different interpretation then ourselves..and that IS what differs US from fundamentalists..which i think is GREAT Sure you can debate with people or more or less discuss religion with people, but only if they share the belief that there isn't one right answer across all times for all people. I don't mind that sort of debate at all, in fact enjoy it. It's when it gets into the I'm right and you are all wrong, that's when I'm out of there. --des

>I think the issue isn't necessarily whether we personally believe that use/abuse/misuse of a drug is right or wrong, but rather whether we believe the government should make that distinction. I do think that certain drugs should be illegal, but the trouble is that it has made made the situation worse, imo. It has taken really severe action against what is arguably a fairly minor drug. It has made crack penalties worse than cocaine penalties (though I agree crack is worse, the effect has been that minorities are disproportionally imprisonated). It has put away a major part of a whole generation into prisons. So imo, the question is more what the government should really be doing. Of course, I am not a libertarian. >I also know many people my own age who frequently use marijuana (on a daily basis), and lead happy, productive, fulfilling lives in loving relationships and rewarding careers. In fact.... I know plenty of people my parents' age who have done the same for most of their lives. I wouldn't argue that. I don't know anybody my age that is normal and happy and using regularly but I am no doubt older than you are. I know people that were my age back when who were happy and using, if not daily then frequently. >one of them an a completely bio-chemical front. Not only do we not have an accurate test to show whether a person is actually under the influence of marijuana or not, but, there is really no conclusive proof that marijuana adversely affects the ability to drive in any way. Well I would find it highly curious if it didn't aversely effect the ability to drive. As for reaction time and sense of time, I find it very odd that these aren't together in some way. I think we could quote sources back and forth on this. But I did take a drive in car driven by someone who was very stoned. It is an experience I would not want to repeat. It is not that he was overconfident as someone using alcohol might be, but there was a casualness to driving that strikes me as unsafe. It is part of the experience of the drug. I don't think it would all be as easy to verify as alcohol use though. I think you mention an important point about the ability to study it or even the ability to use demographic studies. Since they don't ask in an accident if someone has taken marijuana then it is pretty hard to do it (I think people would lie anyway as it is illegal.) Ewold mentions slow driving and did not recommend driving while on marijuana. I agree that Ritalin can be a dangerous drug, but my point was not whether Ritalin was a dangerous drug, but that ADD and marijuana don't mix (although I feel-- no way to prove) that a large no. of ADDers take marijuana. I dont' think marijuana improves mental functioning in any way. It might improve mood, which miight be the appeal in ADD. It might improve relaxation. But it doesn't improve focusing. You tend to defocus vs focus. I think the primary group of people with dependence to marijuana are (undiagnosed or diagnosed ADDers). Ewold itself lists the following that would be worse in ADDers than others: memory loss, clumsiness and lack of coordination. --des

Is he the guy that runs Sojourner (www.sojo.org)? --des

Actual Fatherman (the child is fatherman to the ...??) I don't think an onion is a bad analogy. If you think of it no analogy is perfect. It's one Jesus might have liked if he around a group of chefs instead of fisherman. :-) I think, yes, that all the writers (with the exception of some of the Leviticus and similar scripture which was really only about Law) is about seeking the Truth. The thing is it is not always easy to tell what those layers are. For some of the Gospels, it might be (as I learned in Bible classes in college-- not sure what to think of these, as they were at a CS colllege) but anyway they made sense that they were all writing to different audiences. So that in one (?) it was more written for the common person (or as common as one who would read at the time). so there are the more folksy references to stables, and so on. Then one was to those who were watching for God's sign that this was indeed the Messiah, so there are lots of references to Issah. And references that we are sure to notice, like "as was written". And so forth. So there is the layer of audience. I would think this is true of Paul as well, as he was writing for specific groups. So he mihgt have a layer of who he is trying to get attention to while he writes. This is the layer you call "relationship of writer to subject". I think it is that plus this actual thing of trying to influence the subjects. Another layer might be that the concept of God evolves from the wrathful more manlike to a more loving God. In the earlier scripture, God causes floods and does other things to get rid of bad people or to isolate and protect good people. When we get to the NT we see Jesus talking to God as Abba (papa). I can't imagine Papa sending a flood. But aside from layers we have what might be termed myth to get across a certain idea or perhaps to explain certain things. I think this is where the flood comes from. It would also explain both Genesis stories, which are different in the idea of creation. The first one is quite succinct. God does this in 6 days, rests the seventh and everything is good. In the second one, God walks about, he relates directly to his creation and the creation names other creatures, and eventually fowls up. Everything is clearly not "good". There is a talking serpent. There is a tree of Good and Evil, and the folks are temptable and listen to bad snakes. :-) The culture layer isn't entirely understood. Certainly not accepted by Fundamentalists at all. (In Fundamentalism the Bible is WYSIWYG. :-)) Paul was a male living in, well not sure exactly when, but a long time ago. He obviously hadn't heard of women's rights (or knew anything about the evils of slavery-- the only thing he worried about was that in God's kingdom there was no slave or free, male or female). I saw something about history where they were talking about judging the individuals for their own time and place. (ie not saying Jefferson was a bad guy as he had slaves.) I suppose the same applies to Paul. The trouble I have with it, is some of his more cultural established views, get translated by Truth by people who take them literally. Yes, they were closer to the events, but that doesn't mean they didn't have their own culture that created its own biases and their own agenda (and gee, I don't mean that in an evil sinister way... but if they wanted us to pay attention to fulfilment of prophesy, say.) --des

I think the criminalization of marijuana has been far worse than the drug itself, which I think has it's bad points. But the criminalization has created a very bad situation with basically law abiding (except for use and perhaps growing of marijuana) citizens and throwing them in the slammer for life for very long sentences(there are several people serving life sentences, worse than rapists get). Any jail sentence at all is too much. I would at least want it decriminalized, like a parking sentence. I'm not sure I'd be ready to actually make it legal. We already have a legal drug, alcohol (actual has worse problems arguably), that is associated with many traffic fatalities. We don't have a quick way of determining marijuana toxicity (i think) for police. But the whole thing of having huge penalties and spending millions of dollars a year on intradiction-- saw something on tv last year (I think) of just all that is done fighting it. I just don't think that the costs to society of using (for example the dependent individuals or possible "stoned driving") are worth the costs of trying to fight it this way (of course, that much might be said of the whole "War on Drugs", but at least some fo the drugs in that War are pretty dangerous. (It's still a foolishly run war anyway.) But aside from this, imo, if someone needs to use marijuana on a regular basis (even not a dependent individual, I wonder what's wrong with their life. What is missing that they would want to do this? I know what was missing in my life back in the 60s, things like direction, meaning, real companionship, etc. I think you can't get those things from drugs. I do believe that marijuana smoked or eaten is a very good drug for numerous conditions. But I don't think anyone here, at least who has posted, is against this, if it was used for a real disease. The use of marijuana as a stress reducer, well, that's an iffy area. That's like using alcohol though. Not better or worse, I think, except for the penalties of marijuana usage. --des

Oh gee, Aletheia. Not to worry. I think you are very nice and your posts are wonderful. I also mostly agree with you, so you are obviously exceedingly brilliant. :-) Although I have a good sense of humor, I am, what people say, pretty literal on things people say. So I naturally assumed you were serious. So I was going "debate section, well we are in the debate section what's she talking about." I am way too used to being autistic to be bothered about this.(I believe autism-- at least the high functioning sort-- to be as much a gift as a disability, but that's a whole other story.) I was NOT at all offended. You can still tease me, but I just might not get it. I did think maybe you *were* confused about why i sent him somewhere else (or at least suggested he might look somewhere else). I do think some people LOVE arguing religion and politics. That someone would not be me, but they do exist. There are better forums for arguing than this one. For example, in some they will actually argue back! So anyway, again I was not at all offended. Just literal. It is a puzzle to some people esp. initially. So no apology is needed. --des I seem to be literal about everything but the Bible. Wonder how that happened?? That's an irony I definitely get. :-)

SweetTea, you clearly have real medical issues. I would agree that sometimes marijuana is a better drug than some of the alternatives. But I don't think the vast majority of people who use it are using it for medical reasons. Even self-medication. I think ADD and marijuana really do not mix at all. I have seen this way way too many times. I think people with ADD are somewhat predisposed to self-medication. Not saying I think Ritalin is so great-- there are alternatives, like DMHO (I think or is it DMSO??) and so on. But marijuana basically will take a functioning ADD person, and turn them into non-functioning. Case in point: Twenty something ADDer, worked as a CAD programmer (yikes that's some hard work). Then starting smoking pot. He couldn't focus at CAD, he started bumming aroudn with a guitar, it's not like he is musically talented as he isn't. Another guy in late forties, still strapped to mom's apron. He can barely leave the house. I do know the difference between psychological and physical addiction, as physical addiction is a real disease. I am not sure what psychological addictions are. But I have seen them and they are real. These folks will use marijuana every day and maybe a few times a day. I'm sure you can find Biblical verses supporting or not marijuana use. I'm not sure about occassional use, I'm not sure it does much harm. I don't think it hurt me. I think very limited use is prob. equivalent to a couple drinks (not to the drunk state). (Though it is illegal, with draconian penalties.) But I'm not sure all kids (or adults) know where that is. And I do worry about accidents (perhaps an unrecorded death no. on marijuana). It's use isn't conducive to driving. That said, I don't know that a stoned state is all that good for lots of things that really count in life like relationships and so on. So I definitely think you can be a progressive and be opposed to it. I think the medical use is a humanitarian issue. But I think the vast majority don't use it to medicate. --des

Well Alethia, if you look over there they have more knock out drag out debates than we do. I didn't know what James is looking for after all. You can even try to proselitize and convert if you want to (not sure how much good it would do). So that's why I suggested it, in case, James likes that kind of discussion (which I don't know), he said "likes to stir the pot". I'm not sure I know just to what extent he means. Some people really really like religious debates (I know some personally)-- so if you really do it's great over there. They also have some ground rules so it isn't total chaos. Here since we mostly share the same theology, the debates are more discussions, which I prefer. I see others are doing a nice job on this, like Fatherman. Yes, I was taking you a little literally. I think since I am (high functioning) autistic, you'd have to *really* do irony well. I don't get it too quick. Quote from the rules right over your head : "So here it is. Got a bone to pick? Got an opinion to spout? Have at it, but beware... We will continue to delete posts in all areas of the boards - including this one - that we do not feel are presented in a manner that is respectful of other viewpoints, or seeks to convert, or coerce, or attack." As I said, I just got off of ucc.org where there was a bit too much coersion and attack, if not attempts to conversion (ucc is mostly liberal but there are more fundie elements). I also came from my sister trying to convert me, so I am, maybe, less up for this sort of thing than others. She is as much fun as a train wreck. :-) Since James was respectful he was well within the rules, as long as his aim is not to convert us heathens. :-) --des

Well this *is* the debate section, so he is posting in the right place. James' (?) post is pretty respectful of other viewpts. The point is that there is no attempts to convert according to the rules set forth. I guess I have a lot of experience (ie with my sister) of people who begin with making respectful statements and questions when their end motive is conversion. But I am giving James' the benefit of doubt that he would just like to engage in some friendly debate/ discussion, though it is difficult. I don't think you have to sign an oath of loyalty to Progressive Christianity or something. :-) I just stated my personal feelings on this sort of debate that is basically to change someone else's mind (ie no party can ever change on this as we see things from a totally different world view). IF the Bible is considered inerrant and literally true and I see it as a book by men (yes men), then our views will be so dynamically opposed to each other that we could never share any commonalities. For example, on UCC.org we just had a rather long discussion on if the Bible was to be taken literally. We wound up with long and rather winded posts that basically just said things like: The Bible is to be taken literally, God can do miracles, it doesn't matter if there are inconsistencies as they just seem to be there. To the other side saying that somethings were ludricrous from a literal standpoint. (There was a funny one on Noah's ark re how many space each animal would have.) That there were serious inconsistencies and that myth can be truth. But no one ever came closer to anyone's views. Just my 1.99 ¢ --fwiw. :-) --des

Well Sweet Tea is right. I think a certain amount of "self-medicating" goes along with marijuana. In the vast majority of cases (but not all) though, imo, the person would be better served figuring out their depression with therapy or using actual anti-depressants. I fully support marijuana as a medical drug (NOT just the active compound, which isn't as effective). As you know the Bush administration has taken a very activitist stance including ruling in cases where the states have allowed it. I don't know of anyone personally but there are quite a lot of cases I've read about. But I do think that even self-medication as a reason for marijuana use is not the whole picture. I did use marijuana in the 60s (yes I inhaled :-)). And it is enjoyable, well was for me then. OTOH, to claim, as some have that marijuana is completely harmless is crazy. For one hting it has more tar (I think that's the substance) than cigarettes. Tobacco is natural too. (Although it has been mixed around with and so on.) There are a lot of perfectly natural things that are deadly like coal dust, the AIDS virus, and any no. of plants. Marijuana is also harmful to some people who are at risk. They have low drive, etc. anyway, and you combine this with marijuana and it is not pretty. And there are kids who always seem to need it. It is not addictive physically but in some individuals it is addictive psychologically. I do imagine that a stoned person is not able to drive well and would logically have poor reflexes (it slows down thought) and inadequate sense of "danger" (not really taking driving seriously) just because that's what marijuana does. I don't think drug programs that overemphasize the dangers of marijuana though do any good, and I'd like our tax money used doing better things than sending people for long prison sentences or using elaborate and costly interdiction.I do think the over criminalization is worse than any problems the drug may have. There are people serving life sentences for trafficking in marijuana-- worse than a rapist would get. I think it should be a simple misdeamor or maybe like a traffic offense. But recreational use a good thing? Generally no. Medical use? I think as drugs go, it is prob. life saving in some cases. --des

James, I'm not so much for argument as I have seen pretty clearly that no one really convinces anybody of anything. Most of us come from traditions such as yours (or have at least looked into them) and moved away from them, so it's not like we don't know them. I just looked this one over, but if you really like debating Christianity there is a forum that does just that: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/index.php I think there are others where you can exclusive debate liberals. I don't know how others feel but I think we have deeper discussions as we aren't always trying to defend our position. I hope that was said diplomatically enough, as I believe anyone is welcome to participate. Now to some actual comments: First of all, from glancing at the various scriptural contexts, I see a LOT of stuff about women and basically why the suffering in pregnancy. In my view, this was a big question to the ancients.They didn't realize stuff that we know today about pregnancy so they were forced to figure it out somehow. And when most early people tried to explain suffering they used blame, well it is woman's fault somehow. They also had to explain why there is suffering in the world period. Adam and Eve, as far as I'm concerned, is mythology to explain why things happened the way they did. I think the term of "original sin" even if implied in the Bible, is given emphasis in some theologies more than others. The term isn't used, nor is "sin nature". There are other things that are written "God saw everything and it was good" (I think written after the Genesis two account), that might imply something different if given different emphasis. Also as far as I know, Jews do not ever believe in original sin. They do believe in sin. But there is a difference imo. So if the statements on "original sin" were entirely clear and unambigious, you would expect Jews to believe in it too. Your comments on the Fall as a story of when humans first became aware of themselves as different and as somehow separate from God and the Universe provides food for thought, Fatherman. The other comment is that I agree that Progressives are do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I believe the Bible was written by men who were sometimes inspired, sometimes confused, sometimes interested in Law, and is at many times quite contradictory. --des

I'd want to see Progressive Christianity faith *inform* politics but not be politics. The current problem is creeping theocracy, where we would have a Christian state (much like there are Islam states). See www.theocracywatch.org. This is a truly frightening website, folks, but I recommend it anyway. I believe in the absolute wall of separation between church and state. So for example, environment, imo, is a spiritual issue and would want politicians who believe that as well. But I would not want them to initiate something like "faith based initiates" for environmental issues wherein government funds go for liberal or progressive church groups any more than I would want them going to conservative church groups to run drug treatment programs that attempt to convert drug addicts to Christ. I also don't want laws that are based on Jesus' sayings, ie perhaps the Sermon on the Mount (unless they were fully constitutional-- as the laws against murder might be said to be based on the ten commandments). I want them based on the US constitution and fully constitutional. I don't much care about any politician who displays as much overt religious sentiment as GWB. I believe that while Jimmy Carter wasn't a very strong president, he was one who uses his faith in a way to inform his actions. He has actually said things like there is some good in the most dictorial person and my job as negotiator is to see that. He actually went in to talk to Milosevic this way. To me that's a highly Christian attitude, but it isn't said like "I'm a Christian so..." I also feel we are NOT a Christian nation contrary to a lot of misconception. The founding fathers were more theists than Christians. We are now much more diverse than we used to be, but in fact, our leaders tend to talk more overtly Christian than ever. Instead of bleeding heart liberals we now have "bleeding feet" Christian fundamentalists. :-} As I told my Fundie sister, I do not take George Bush as my lord and savior. :-) I also feel Christian values have been hijacked and the only things that are called values now are pro-family (read anti-gay) and pro-life stances. Whole areas of moral concern-- like poverty, environment, war, the attitudes towards other nations, etc. have been taken out of the discussion. I really don't think leaders should get out of religion but that they should respect the separation between church and state. BTW, sorry for any non-US readers. I believe other Western countries are not in this madness like the US is. (I think we have some counterparts in Islamic states.) --des

From www.stmatthews.org.nz/S012.htm posted by des Q. How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb? A. None. God has already preordained when the lights will be on. Q. How many evangelicals? A. Evangelicals do not change light bulbs. They simply read out the instructions and hope the light bulb will decide to change itself. Q. How many liberals? A. Ten, as they need to hold a debate into whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb, they may not go ahead and change it for fear of alienating those who use fluorescent. (Just for fun) Q. How many United Methodists? A. We do not choose to make a statement either in favour of, or against the need for a light bulb. However if in your own journey you have found that a light bulb works for you that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship to your light bulb and present it at a forum which will explore a number of light bulb traditions including incandescent, fluorescent, three way, long lived and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence through Jesus Christ.

Hi. Yesterday I was watching Book TV on CSPAN. Yes, yours truly is an egghead. But not enough of an egghead not to have tv! :-) (Or say maybe read the books.) Anyway, one of the authors was a Roya Hakakian on her book "Journey from the land of No: a girlhood caught in revolutionary Iran". I really want to read this. But what it is about is an autobiographical story of a Jewish girl (there were lots of Jews at one time) growing up in Iran. What struck me, as I have read a lot of what I think are perhaps quite racist things about Islam lately, but Islam is quite a bit more fundamentalist than it used to be. Or that at least there are more vocal and fanatic Moslems than there were. Because she lived an pretty normal girlhood with close Muslim friends and never knew she was particularly different. She commented that a friend of hers had objected to her using "coexist" because it implies that they would be living different worlds. Anyway it was an Islam and Iran we don't usually hear about. The following are some more or less racist views I have heard lately. I think many of them are perpetuated by fundamentalist Christians btw. But I did read some of these on another liberal Christian forum, not sure which one as I have seen so many. One is that Islam is inherently a radical fundamentalist (you don't always hear that word) religion and there is no such thing as a moderate; that women always hold a lower status (they should read Paul, as I'm sure they have)-- it isn't the culture; that stuff like female genital mutilation is an Islamic practice; etc. This certainly did not jive with things I heard on this. BTW, for more fun you can go to:http://www.theocracywatch.org/index.html This lists the aims of some Fundamentalist Christians who seem to be seeking many of the same Moslem ideals. Actually it's pretty frightening! I'm interested in others take on Islam. I think we aren't too well educated on it. --des

>My book by Timothy Miller intitled, "America's Altternative Religions," explains how the founders of Religious Science church and Unity admit that Hindu thought had a great influence on their religious views on Christianity. That's interesting. You know that both of these (Unity and Religious Science) were founded by people who were dissidents of Mary Baker Eddy. I've heard some people saying there are similarities between Eastern thought and CS. (Though I thought it was a bit of a slap on Buddhism. :-)) To my knowledge, Eddy didn't have any ideas or knowledge of Hinduism (or Buddhism). She wasn't really all that well educated or traveled. She did study with people who might have had some knowledge though (?). >Qualified Monism is making an inroads into New Thought. I doubt it will make any inroads into Christian Science. I'm sure you're right. The board of the CS church has made some attempts to make their views more pallitable to the rest of the world (you think mainline churches are losing members? They have nothing on CS. I think that they have lost more members than any other church.). They commonly go on panels with doctors like Weil to claim they have lots in common with him, etc. But I don't think the beliefs themselves have changed any in 200 years. I don't know how they would. They don't read anything but what Eddy wrote (and a few loyalist writers) and they can't even write anything. There are dissident CSists. Some of them have merely gotten more extreme over the years, claiming such things as that Eddy is some kind of direct discendent of Jesus. And so on. I'm sure there are internet panels but I haven't tried infiltration. :-) --des

>Yeah, that is kinda the same problem with Hindu thought..that evil is an issue..and it's not. What just happened in Hindu was not all in our minds. I wasn't aware that Hinduism placed was quite so absolute about the existance of evil. Might be just showing my own ignorance as I don't really know that much about Hinduism. I know that CS is quite absolute. Evil does not exist, it doesn't exist in the world and it is an illusion. Unfortunately for CS, they do live in the world. Absolutist faiths are very difficult to conterbalance. I had a lot of difficulty reconsiling what I felt in reality to religion. >I think the Natural Deists actually believes that God as the universal collective soul lives in the earth and breaths life into everything living upon the earth. I have no problem with that one, EXCEPT what about the God of the Klingons? Or Gray guys? Or the bacteria that might be on Europa? Or our "Four headed thing" friends? BTW, this is NOT entirely fascious. We only go from an anthropocentric God to a Geogod. If God is God s/he/it created the universe. --des