Elen1107

Ok, what if this was done to Americans. There was some flag and some statues that basically stood for the enslavement of Americans and that the enslavement of Americans was ok and just a fine thing to do. This flag was on the top of most state capital buildings, public squares and was being hung on a number of your neighbors front porches. How would you feel about it then? You say that, "if anything acts as a reminder of the past not to be repeated". Thing is this guy, and many of these statues, are set up to show that this was a really great guy and a real and true hero. He's a wonderful man and someone who should be respected and honored. Not a symbol of how this and these things should "not be repeated". There is a real difference here. What if it was the Nazi flag that was being hung half of everywhere you had to go to get through your daily life? Or statues of Hitler, making him look like such a wonderful and glorious person? Would you be ok with that? It's "free speech" on the same principals that you qualify it. I'm assuming that you served in the armed services. Thank you for your service. Can I ask when you served and what conflict(s) you might have served in? We have free speech in this country, but there are also limits to that free speech. Things like; criminal threatening, inciting a riot, slander, defamation of character, bearing false witness and hate speech. If a statue or a flag rubs or touches on all these things, should it be flown or left standing in public? I agree with you here. Question is, what things are making ethnicity and heritage stand out and become more important than our common humanity? Is it the objections to the confederate flag, or the flag itself?

It's not "exclusive" if God does or will do this for anyone and everyone. I disagree with you, it is not at all what people in PC call the "theistic" god. In fact it is quite the opposite and another thing entirely. It's a universal understanding of God that places Em everywhere and everywhere, including in our understandings and insight and in our inner minds. Your first sentence I think I disagree with. I think that some very good scholarship does support the idea that Christ may have had an education that stretched across the known world. Perhaps even further, after all he's Christ. Concerning your second sentence, I didn't take what you said as meaning that. I'm just stating that his education could have gone even further than that.

The same biblical book, 1st Corinthians, sates earlier in it's pages that a woman can preach and prophesize in church, the difference being that she should have a covering on her head. (I find this odd because it is well known that in the Jewish tradition it is the men that wear something on their heads and not the women). Scholars have said that they think that 1Cor 14:34-35 may well have been inserted by later editors. This assumes that every woman has a husband. Which is not so. Nor do all women have fathers that they live with or who are still alive. Single women are left out of this picture entirely. That's a big piece of the population whose needs go unheard and unmet.

From reading the New Testament it does seem that the earliest Christian groups and gatherings had equal representation, participation and everyone did indeed have an equal voice. Changes were then made, either by the writers or editors of different parts of the NT and probably by pressures brought on by other factors/factions as well. I find it as easy to believe that Constantine chose to support Christianity as much for political reasons than for any vision or dream he might have had before his conquest of Rome. For one thing, Christianity doesn't and didn't conquer, and use military force. Christianity, at least true Christianity doesn't conquer, it converts, and that is always done by peaceful means. People were even willing to be martyred, but I see no example from the 1st 350-400 years of the use of violence or force in conversion, except for that of Constantine himself.

My question is, are some of these statues really doing no harm? I'm going to assume for right now that you are Italian or have an Italian heritage because of your name. Say there was an ideology that said that Italians should be enslaved and that the enslavement of Italians was ok. Say there was a statue in the middle of your town of a big hero who advocated for and fought for the enslavement of Italians. Everyday you wake up and think about where you are and the town you live in, and you think of that statue. Would this effect you in a negative way? Would you find this something you could ignore? Is it ignorable? Would this effect the quality of your life? Is this really doing no harm? PS I do not believe in or advocate the enslavement of Italians or any other people, this is just a big what if so people might understand how that might feel and how it effects people. One could insert any heritage in that place in order to make the same point. I do agree that there are people who get offended by everything and anything, and they actually seem to be going around looking for things to be offended by. Some of this mentality may be part of the Cancel Culture mentality. But in terms of certain statues and say, the Confederate Flag, they may well have a good point that should be understood and looked at. Thanks for reading

I'd like to get back to the original meaning in the opening post, Should Women be Preachers? Myself, I would say, if there are going to be preachers, then definitely women should be preachers and have equal opportunity along with men. I've found that there are a number of things that women assume men understand about women, that they don't have much of an idea about. If we don't have a voice and equal say then we don't get understood and our needs get overlooked and disregarded. I also think that it's just fair. If you care about someone then you're fair. Men are supposed to care about women and women are supposed to care about men. Anything else is abnormal and a distortion of who we are supposed to be as people. The genders not caring about each other is abnormal. Thanks for reading

It seems that I've also got to avoid making short little replies that just say I got a person's comment or just say that I agree with them or something. I feel like I've got to save them for when I really have a lot to say, or something with a bunch of content. So if I sometimes appear to be discourteous, Sorry I'm still trying to figure this all out. I think I've also been trying to play a bit of the other side of the coin here on this thread, perhaps it been a perspective that I myself didn't see at one time and I'm trying to figure out it's value. Don't ness. know what I think about it myself

Don't know if it's quite all that,... but Thanks Perhaps it's a part of it.

John Shelby Spong is on of the leading and more celebrated figures in Progressive Christianity. He's a Bishop, a writer of many, many books at least one of which was a New York Times bestseller. He was a teacher at Harvard, and quite the biblical scholar. He's said time and time again that one can still be a Christian, and still truly believe, which he does himself, and still not take all the ideas in the bible literally or believe that all its ideas are the absolute word of God. He has written and spoken on this subject; Noah's Ark. He also tends to mix with some of the scientific types, who actually figure out what some of the things mentioned in the bible would actually mean. I've tried to find a video of him talking about it, and haven't found it yet but as I remember it it was quite extraordinary. If we are talking about the amount of water that it would take to cover the entire earth to the height and depth of Mt. Everest, we are talking about something that is beyond phenomenal and scientifically and meteorologically impossible. It would like double the water volume contained on this earth. Also the possibility of getting 2 of each animal species that exist on this earth on one single boat is quite frankly an impossible undertaking. I couldn't find the video that I mentioned, but I did find this one. It's called: John Shelby Spong - The Judeo-Christian Faith Story: How Much is History? This or some other of his lectures and writing may help answer your questions.

Well thanks for saying so! 🙂 I'm thinking that in addition the song is saying, 'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me". So in a sense it is like the Golden Rule, saying that this goes both ways. You don't get bothered by what I'm doing that doesn't do any harm, which is how I would like to be treated. Likewise, I'll treat you how I want to be treated, and not get bothered when you are doing something that doesn't do any harm. :-) I'm thinking that it will be one of those things that I'll remember for quite some time. Like for a decade or something, it's like that special. It will stick with me for a while. ------------------------------ Lately I've been thinking that a/the word of God could be thought of as just one word,... Care Just that: ... Care Care about yourself Care about others Care about what you are doing Care about your relationship and understanding of God etc. Just ... Care Thanks for reading

I certainly don't think that God is "exclusive". I have wondered if some of us get enough or plenty of water from other people, then they are less likely to notice the "rain" when it does fall on them directly. Or perhaps they are less need of the "rain" so they don't need to seek it as much. For other people this is not so. The direct rain is all they get, and so the notice it and love it and are determined to drink it up and keep finding this source. Perhaps what is most important here is that everyone can get the water, whether it comes from an through other people, or direct from the sky, it is still God's water of life. I tend to like the idea that Jesus had an education, not only in Jewish circles but all over the known world. There have been some books on this subject in the past century. There's even a YouTube video that covers parts of this. There were many educational centers and religious/spiritual traditions existing at the time. They say that a sign of a good manager is that they are able to sort the wheat from the shaft so to speak, concerning good ideas and not so good ideas. I'm thinking with Jesus there might well have been more to it than that, but the concept still applies. I think that I myself tend to believe in both. That he both had an education and as you say "stood on the shoulders" of others, as well as had something very special and insightful and directly God given to him. I really like the verses that say "the kingdom of heaven is within us" and "it comes in a way that cannot be seen" and "it is scattered among us and [some] people do not see it". I think that this may well be the same as and pertain to the 2nd coming as well. Perhaps someday all people will "see it", but maybe not today, and maybe not totally in our lifetimes. ------------- This is the 3rd time in like the past week that I've run out of the comments I can make, while we've been in the middle of a dialogue. Sorry about that.

You make a lot of interesting points and express a lot of interesting ideas. I hope you keep posting and sharing in this forum Thanks for sharing

I might be interested in the 2nd topic and format that you mention. Like I've said before, I'm not able to get into a regular schedule or program or anything. My life the way it is right now is; I get online when I get online and I don't when I don't. I might suggest, post one of the videos as a topic and see what kind of response you get. You might not get everyone to respond to it on a certain day at a certain time, but if people are interested chances are you'll get some feedback and some comments.

He makes several points in that little 4 1/2 minute piece of an interview. Perhaps that is where ecumenical peace first got started happening. When people decided they didn't want to fight and go to war over it no more.

I've been looking at the verses that you posted. You weren't saying that they were the 'same' as the Golden Rule, you were saying that they were as "pure". To me this means they are of good value. Also the song doesn't say "do nothing" whatsoever whenever, what it says is if someone is doing "no harm" then that shouldn't "bother" anyone. So you've found a bit of the word of God in part of a Ben Harper song. I can apricate and have a smile about that. 🙂

I agree with most of what you've said except that a person can have one-to-one contact with God. Yes one can actually know God, or at least a part of God, as much as God chooses to show them, and or as much they can handle. Jesus certainly had and did this. There are verses in the NT that clearly indicate that this is available to all of us. There are even songs and hymns that speak about this kind of experience. I don't know who or what contacts us first in our life experience. Is it God or people or both, and does it sometimes differ for different people? I'm thinking that people might have different experiences in this regard. For myself, and many others that I've communicated with, people have either tended to be too fundamentalistic, or they don't do spirituality or religion at all. These people like myself have had to find a different route to understanding and experiencing God. I think you should count yourself as really blessed that you've had people in your life that really did reflect the light of God. I doesn't always happen for everyone. Both I'm thinking you are right. Most PCs are looking for common ground rather than getting caught up in a group-think. They don't seem to get all caught up in who's idea a thing is either. They are more concerned if something is a good idea or a true idea or not. Another example of that might be what J.S. Spong has gone through. He's written several best selling books that contest fundamentalism and hyper-biblical-literalism. He, himself has gotten death threats for doing this, (all of them from people who call themselves "Christians"), as well as a lot of negative mail and press. Among PCs he's celebrated and acclaimed. Not so with other people and groups.

I think I'll avoid the drug issue for right now. A bit of drink or mj might be ok, even beneficial, but excessive use can really be harmful. I've had some neighbors and old classmates who went that way, and some of the stories I could tell you are beyond tragic and terrible. What you've said calls to mind what Jesus is quoted as saying in the NT, "You shall answer for every careless word you ever speak". . . . I'm like ok, but how much and with what? Going to hell fire for one careless word seems a bit too much for me. I'm all for when if I, or someone, says something careless or harmful, that they should apologize and make up for it, and perhaps work on doing things better in the future. But hell fire for one careless word doesn't sound like a christ or god that I would want to believe in.

Perhaps the best way I can explain this is what people call "a personal relationship with God and or Christ". It's kind of a cute, over used statement, but at it's root it does have some real meaning. Myself I've found that humans, though they can be helpful, can and do fall short of reflecting God sometimes. We can't allow 'people' or persons to replace God or Christ in our lives. I think that God "communicates" to us by letting ideas or answers surface up from within us, as well as making them come available from other sources that are outside of ourselves. No. I don't think it is done as well or as often as it could be done. I try to avoid both the left and the right group-thinks. I really try to take each issue, idea, or set of ideas one at a time. I really seems to work a lot better for me. By "doing things differently" a case in point might be the topic being discussed on another thread right now: Whether women should be church leaders or even speak in church. A good number of people have found that if they say something about this and say that women should be allowed to do these things, that things get worse, sometimes much worse.

But there is also room for independence. One doesn't have to go along with a group-think and go along with what everyone else thinks and does. Sometimes when people think and do things differently the best that people can basically do is tolerate them and leave them alone. Even saying something to them can make things worse, sometimes much worse.

The Battle of the Boyne. That is where it was once and for all time decided that both non-Catholic Christianity and Catholic Christianity would both be able to exist. It was the final stroke for religious freedom and toleration in the western world.

I've looked up "humanist ethos" I don't agree with everything it stands for, but I do feel that it is and does much more good than harm, and sometimes even more good than certain "religious" organizations do. I very much like it, though as I say, I don't agree with all it's outlooks and standpoints. Humanism's ethos The worldwide Humanist Declaration - its moral and ethical code is what we're all about, as adopted at the tri-annual World Humanist Congress in the Netherlands in 2002 CE. The 2014 Congress in Oxford – England, reaffirmed its currency. Humanism, the outcome of a long tradition of free thought has inspired many of the world's great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself. The decrees of modern Humanism are as follows : https://www.humanisminscotland.org/philosophy/humanisms-ethos/ The link to the website goes on to list the decrees and ideas. I myself find it quite good and quite interesting

I tend to look at the Noah's Ark story as a Jewish folk story that had been carried on for centuries before being written down, in this time it changed and morphed a bit to suit the Jewish outlook and perspective(s). It is very, very likely that it was borrowed or adopted, (or stolen if one chooses to use that word/outlook) from other cultures and traditions. These too probably go back before being written down and were changed and adapted to suit those people's perspectives. All these stories/adaptations seem to have their meanings. One might be; don't be lousy people or their might be a flood and that would be even more lousy and even worse. Like Paul says, there is some evidence of major floods in the area way back in near east history. Flooding the entire earth is another subject. Some more scientific people have tried to outline what that would take, and it really doesn't seem at all possible. For myself, I can believe that God and Christ still exist, even if some of the stories in the bible are folk stories or not really focused on literal events. I think I am more faith based than bible based in my thinking and understanding of Christ and Christianity. Thanks for reading

I agree, we should have the discussion. I think that one of the goals of the discussion(s) should be that all peoples should be able to have a decent, healthy, stable and celebrated future. No one should feel bad about who they are, and no one should feel like their identity should be buried alive or not allowed to exist. I'm wondering if there might be more hard feelings than that, but I see what you are saying. People should certainly be heard. I've been wondering what I would want done to or with a statue of Hitler, if I had the choice and the opportunity. Don't know if I'd destroy it, but I certainly wouldn't celebrate or glorify it either, NO, not ever! --------------- What I get from white people in the American south is that they are genuinely afraid of being overwhelmed. Is this fear justified? With mass immigration to the US and Europe does this add to the concern or this issue? This is a big topic. The US is only about the size of Brazil, and Europe is not one of the earth's bigger contents. Are these real concerns here? Is this something that needs to be addressed along with the other issues? --------------- Apologies for not getting back to this reply of yours to me sooner. I only have so many comments in a 24 hr. period and I got caught up in an exchange on another thread. Also your comment didn't come up in my notifications as "quoting" me, those tend to be the comments that I try to follow up on first. Maybe I'll change my approach on this. Thanks again for reading

I'm saying that when we disagree with each other we should do it nicely and in a polite and loving way. If we can't do that we should at least do it in a way that is not harsh or negative or harmful.

Regardless, In terms of Christian religious freedom, I think both sides win. One doesn't have to be Catholic, but one has every right and choice to be Catholic Likewise: One doesn't have to be non-Catholic, but at the same time one has every right and reason and opportunity to not be Catholic, and practice what ever form or idea of Christianity one feels is truest to one's spirit, heart and soul.