des

I like John McCain's stand on election reform and some other issues but not enough to vote for him. In fact, I think Al Gore would be a great president. He is, perhaps, the best and most ardent environmentalist politician there is. He is all right on global warning and lots of other issues. All the lastest environmental news is very scary. I think we need someone to do something about it. I think we needed to do something dramatic like yesterday. --des

Well I don't think you can be a conservative *Christian* and a progressive one at the same time. Aren't they opposites? I think conservatives believe in a more literal reading of the Bible and of Biblical events (ie the resurrection). OTOH, you could be conservative in your view of Christianity and progressive socially, for example, some conservatives now believe in a faith based stand on global warming. That's pretty progressive. OTOH, I don't believe there are a set of beliefs marking one as essentially progressive or conservative. I think progressives tend to have a more personal view of their religious beliefs, but even that was once part of the Baptists. If anybody wanted to say they were progressive, I think I was say whatever they wanted to say or think about themselves. I might wonder personally but think it is their business. --des

BTW, the science of the Bible series on National Geographic that I like so well, had a whole episode on Jesus' years before his memorable "Baptism" (not what they would have called a baptism of course). Anyway, one really interesting thing. THe word carpenter is a mistranslation. Joseph (and later Jesus) were not carpenters but "hand workers" basically doing any kind of hard work with the hands (building, stone work, some agriculture, etc.) Implied working for someone else, being a peasant. That's interesting to me as recent reworking of Jesus' life have him as a fairly high class guy, pretty much not so. He was likely in the very lowest of social levels, basically above lepers, etc. BTW, I saw something this weekend on a book on a leper colony in Hawaii. Leper wasn't necesarily Hansens' disease, but any malady or none at all, some just were outcasts in biblical times. I think I should look for this book. --des

I was hoping anyone else may! I did talk to someone who used it for Hebrew of all things. Said it was basically really good for conversation, so I wasn't sure about conversational Hebrew. I did think that the way it integrated reading, speaking, listening and writing is brilliant. I have never had an experience with language taught like that, but it is how we teach dyslexics to read-- integrating multiple modalities like that. You read, listen to, speak, and write the same things which reinforces your learning in each area. --des

I don't always really like Sprong (I like Marcus Borg better), however, I really did like his take on the resurrection. He wrote a book on it, which you can prob. get third hand (Amazon or elsewhere). I think I found it at the public library or resale. Anyway, basically it is this: There are too many conflicting stories on the resurrection to make it believable as a literal event. But the event was a real reawakening in the disciples (he specifically mentions Peter), who have an epiphany during the sharing of bread-- something they no doubt do thousands of times with Jesus. I don't know about the specifics as it was just a scenario, but I did like the way it was related to an actual event in a plausible coherent way. The book is otherwise repeative. --des

Hi, Yesterday I got a CD demo for Rosetta Stone. I did ask for it. This is language software that looks unique in that it is totally in the language you are trying to learn. There is no translating at all. Each lesson is done in audio, pictures, text; audio only, verbal (speech recognition), and writing.The writing portion is particuarly interesting. It is pricey as this sort of thing is ($200) but lessons would no doubt come out to more, and it looked more involved than the usual language software I have seen. I tried to refresh my Spanish with a book but didn't get so far. The CD demo has many different languages-- had fun playing with Welsh (Corgi means little dog in Welsh) and English (UK). :-) http://www2.rosettastone.com/en/ --des

Yes, I read it as fast as possible I think. I couldn't put it down. It had some silly plot devices, and by gosh you'd think a cryptographer could read mirror writing! And the silly chases, and all that. But you know I didn't care much, still loved it. As for the ideas, I think they were interesting. I don't buy the whole thing, but you know I think many of us yearn for the feminine to be back in religion. --des

>I'm confused! For those thoughtful people practicing the earlier Christianity (to use Marcus Borg's descriptive phrase of that theology), how could they not see this commercial is offensive? Well I'm not sure that I buy into the concept that progressive Christianity is "earlier" Christianity. I think the only thing earlier about it is that early Christianity was VERY diverse! No doubt some took what might have been a more progressive less literalist stance. I don't recall that Marcus Borg said that--not that he didn't just I don't recall it. Or perhaps he is speaking of recapturing mystical elements? >...When asked for an official reason, MTV Networks [LOGO is operated by MTV] responded, "Our guidelines state we will not accept religious advertisements that may be deemed as disparaging to another religion." But I don't see the ad as saying ANYTHING about basic faith issues-- rather about feelings of alienation and rejection. Except for the gay thing, it isn't even particularly a progressive statement. I'm sure, in fact, that some evangelical churches are very accepting. So I just don't see where there is an attack made on other faiths. The only issue that is really dealt with in some ways uniquely is the gay and lesbian issue. Yes, I think there is an "attack" that churches are not accepting of gays and lesbians. In fact, this is a statement that most of those churches would agree exists. Of course, you know they would say we love the sinner but hate the sin, and so forth. But churches that have an anti-gay and lesbian stance are very upfront about it. Most of the negative comments are not that the ad attacks any theology (except perhaps the theology of gay accceptance) but that it is saying that other churches discriminate against minorities, disabled people, etc. (and some still do). Also a clarification, the LOGO network didn't make the decision, it was the decision of Viacom. Logo (or MTV, etc) aren't in a position to make that kind of decision). >For the many Christians who are in a relationship with God in congregations practicing the earlier theology, this ad appears to them to be a direct assault of their faith, and "...disparaging to [their] religion." But how does it disparage "religion". It disparages nonacceptance. Perhaps pokes fun at it. Perhaps there is a subtle element of creedal freedom ("No matter.. where you are in your faith journey, you're welcome here.") But I don't think that "non-creedal freedom" is attacked-- just the nonacceptance. >In that light, one can argue that this ad violates the 2nd point of TCPC's 8 points: By calling ourselves Progressive, we mean that we are Christians who: Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us. I am totally comfortable with the ad and with that statement. >A more positive, less divisive ad is UCC's "All The People" ad. I was very drawn, perhaps even felt the Bouncer ad was healing to me. I am not gay but I felt the rejection in that ad, as I feel different from others being autistic. I felt really addressed for the first time. I'm not sure that I would have felt the same just from the "All the People" ad. I liked it but thought maybe it was a bit corny. (I also think it wasn't quite as hard hitting on the gay, lesbian issue. There are two women with arms around each other. They could be lesbian, you know they looked maybe like they could have been sisters though.) BTW, I like the Bouncer ad much more than the Ejector ad. It seemed that the end message was much more slowly delivered, and stronger. --des

Hmm, well that's not what I have been reading, and ime, it hasn't been true of UCC. However, there are many UCCs out there and I am sure that it is true of some of them. Actually I think the nominal head of UCC (I think that would be head of the synod) said something of it callign as much to other UCCs as to other churches. The other comment that I think is true is that many more evangelical churches are more racially integrated. That is true. I don't think it has as much to do with "welcoming" as that the demographic evangelicals appeal to most is somewhat the lower-- lower middle socioeconomic classes (except for the "black church"). I think there is a certain, what do say, kind of luxury in taking a liberal/progressive position. However, what I have read is that some feel that the UCC ad is suggesting that "other churches" are not welcoming-- true. And also that everyone except UCC is not welcoming-- not implied, imo. The fact that they received praise from other progressive churches says that they don't feel singled out in some way. And in fact the UMC has run much tamer inclusive ads. I aslo thought it was a bit funny that the current UCC synod head found the reaction surprising-- the first ad maybe, but this years?? BTW, I read somewhere someone suggesting that they do a much tamer but much more pointedly "gay inclusion" ad (leave out racial minorities, the elderly, etc.). See if they'd accept that one. My guess is that they would not. However, I think the point was to reach out to feeligns of alienation from churches, not specifically which group you are in. --des

This one is banned from ABC, NBC, CBS AND Viacom (like MTV). It starts with a mom and crying baby and you see a finger pushing a button and the mom and baby are ejected from the church (follows a gay couple-- very pointedly gay, one man puts his arm around the other), etc. Then you see the words: God doesn't reject people, neither do we, etc. The ads are in Quick Time and other formats at: http://www.stillspeaking.com/resources/indexvis.html (this one is called "Ejector"). All the ads are edgy but I don't see them as terribly controversial. Must be the gays, imo. I thought this one was rather funny, in fact. From what I have read the last set of ads was also considered controversial, but touched many people. I think that some people thought it was in judgement of other faiths, but I definitely didn't read it that way. UMC ran a sort of "inclusion" ad with a very light touch. --des

I'm looking around for my camera. I have pix at a wetsite and I plan to add to them. Stand by... --des

Hmm, Aletheia, what board might that be. I find that groups change over time, and not always for the better. Of course, people drift away and that may change the group dynamics.I have never seen such changing happening for the better. As for prayer. I am quite agnostic about intercessory prayer. I would have said maybe a year ago that I didnt' believe in it at all. But I have decided that might be too extreme a position and leaving out some possibilities that might be. I also prayed about my work situation. Funny thing, I prayed that I would be "where I am needed the most". Be careful re: praying for such a thing as I think I might be there. Yikes. ;-} The prayer I tend to believe is more a contemplative prayer sort of more in placing yourself in tune with the universe and Creator, for lack of better analogies. --des Ironically that's why I have been hanging out at a conservative Christian board - they are more open to dialogue than this place has been in the past few months. Who would have thought I'd be more comfortable discussing heretical and unorthodox theology with a bunch of conservatives? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

CS doesn't really practice the Lord's Supper or any kind of sacrament of communion. (In fact, there are very few rituals at all, quite an intellectual type worship service with readings from the Bible and Science and Health.) One or two services a year are termed "communion Sundays" where you kneel during the Lord's Prayer which I always found a bit confusing. Mary Baker Eddy writes about the "breakfast" that Jesus enjoyed with his disciples after he was resurrected. This was a supposedly totally joyful affair as the bonds of sin and death were totally destroyed. Nice idea, only trouble is that that event, if it occured was never documented by anyone. --des

Hi, You might have wondered, and then again maybe you didn't. So just in case you might have been curious. First I had a class every Saturday that was required for work, I wasn't paid for it. If I had been I might have liked it if I didn't have to get up on Saturday morning. Then there was the recorder. I have been playing that a lot. On Saturday, for a treat, I get to play and not practice. I also discovered the Native American flute. I just got one, I like it more than the recorder though I can't really play it. See: http://www.highspirits.com (I have the Sparrow Hawk in cedar). I also have been "rebooting" my saltwater aquarium, which is looking quite nice lately. --des

"labelled dangerous". Sounds like fun. :-) But, I don't know where, possibly one fo those Bible history things on the National Geographic channel. But they were talking about "who was responsible for Jesus' death. Several people considered that the "betrayal" of Jesus was quite a strange incident. The twelve pieces of silver (or whatever) was a numerologically significant no. And yes, the Bible does use numerology. They implied that there might be more to the tale of Judas than meets the eye, that he might have agreed to do this and so on. This was mainly a discussion of Biblical scholars and they did not bring up the Book of Judas at all. --des

Gee, I don't know. I don't think progressivism will ever be as popular as conservatism, because it doesn't feel as safe. It is also prob. not wise to count the children before they have, er, hatched. Remember Ron Reagan Jr., etc. etc. Or myself, I happened to have hatched from two CS parents. My sister is a born again. Who woulda thunk it. --des

Hey thanks guys and gals (great musical title huh?). Anyway I haven't had time to post much due to a new and improved ?? work schedule-- I have a class on Saturdays. Today was pretty awful-- all day meetings at school. I'm planning on having a nice weekend (after my class-- may play hookey for part of the class :-)) --des

The Story of Brian? :-) ducks an runs. --des

Re: the ten thousand years bit. I believe it was to express the eternity of God, yes. But in the eyes of a more fundamentalist type than me, well it was to express eternity of 10,000 years (it was NOT a propaganda statement-- they really believed that was it). But I don't. And I find the idea of 10,000 years as eternity almost laughable. But the views of 10,000 year "history" of humanity was started on ignorance of the real eternity-- but currently fundamentalists, with all the knowledge there is now are still expousing this. That's what I find offensive. If they want to sing that verse fine. I feel it makes God "puny". I always sing it ten million (even outloud), it's not quite right, but it's closer. The "wretch" thing does ruin the song imo. If you take the history of the song it makes sense. But I think it is read by fundamentalists as the reason Jesus had to die on the cross was due to our wretchedness. I find it an offensive viewpt. Why would God in "Goodness" create a wretched creation. I don't see why the New Century Hymnal doesn't change the words (I have heard, I think it was Joan Baez or... sing "to save a soul like me". Not entirely happy with that one either. When we come to those words I just don't sing it. Good thing I'm not in the choir. :-) As for Jesus loves me, Ok I'll buy your argument that Jesus was fully human and not fully God. But then if Jesus is taken into the right hand of God, he is not still in bodily form is he? I mean if you lost your dad, you wouldn't say my dad "loves" me (present tense), I mean I wouldn't. Even if you believe in a life after death. Saying God loves me is not quite the same, I guess I don't see it as that much of a personal love like a friend exactly. (I think this is another discussion). But the song to me sounds like a personal love that Jesus really knows you and so on. Of course it doesnt' say that , so I guess you can go and interpret it any old way you want. :-) It's a nice happy song. The New Century Hymnal has it translated to I don't know a dozen or more languages (the more familar ones, Navajo, Swahili, Hawaiian, etc.).. --des

>I understand that the great Karl Barth was asked by someone in an American audience to state his theology in a sentence. He started singing: "Jesus loves me This I know For the Bible Tells me so ... " It's that simple. It's that profound. It's that fantastic. It's Good News. (I guess I will always be a preacher!) >The churches associated with the RR have learned to sing this song anew with drums and keyboards and guitars. Why can't we do that? Maybe I am analyzing this too but.. I don't know if it's just me, but I really don't like that hymn/song very well (nice tune and all) but it annoys me. It is in the Jesus=God idea. The only way Jesus can actually love you is for him to be here in the physical sense (since I see Jesus as a person), which he isn't. So it stands to reason the only reason that he would actually love you is for Jesus to be God. I also have a bit of a problem with Amazing Grace which I think is quite beautiful as music goes. There are maybe a zillion verses and one of them goes "we've been here 10,000 years (humankind).." well that all goes with the fundamentalist view of the humans existence for 10,000 years. Then there is the major problem with it of "saved a wretch like me". Well the guy who wrote it was a slave trader, nice of him to say. :-) Gosh sorry for my ranting. I understand that if you want to work as clergy in a nursing home you absolutely MUST know Jesus loves me. And as I think I think Amazing Grace is very beautiful as music and sometimes the words aren't that important I think. --des

He has continually taken stances like that, that aren't universal among conservative evangelicals. Good for him-- again! --des Would you believe that one of the Evangelical Christians is Rick Warren of "The Purpose Driven Life"? Good for him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But the question might be: is the God of the OT the "real God", or is the God of the OT the best God they could come up with for their times? Since the God in the NT is often described quite differently, I think it is reasonable to assume that God did not change, just people's conception of God. -des

Wasn't it "To Serve Man" or "To Serve Mankind"?? Too funny!! --des

Well it is not actually a demonination-- just a group of people from more progressive demoninations and some that might not be affliated at all joined together. I think most of us on the forum don't actually belong to TCPC but like hanging here for our discussions. I think there is quite a mix of various demoninations that would be considered more progressive: United Methodist Presby. USA Episcopal liberal Catholic UCC Perhaps some Unity, Unitarian, etc. And maybe some Buddhist or neopagans thrown in. ;-) --des

Well I wouldn't glorify my historical knowledge, but saying I am any kind of historian. But I do know a bit about politics, having lived in Chicago for much of my adult life. :-) (In Chicago, politics is almost like a sporting event or something. :-)) And I do know a bit about tyrants of the world--enough to say that I don't think it much matters if a tryant is on the philosophical right (like Hitler) or the philosophical left (like Stalin). Where there is a fringe they all meet up somewhere and would have some kind of party where everyone gets annilihated eventually. Nice group. --des