34 minutes ago, JosephM said:

First of all i am a human being. Second i am an American and of least importance i am an Italian. To me my ethnic background is of trivial importance to me at this stage of life. A statue if historical, does no harm to me and if anything acts as a reminder of the past not to be repeated. . In your hypothetical my answer would be i would be wisest to get over it and  i would benefit by ignoring and not giving the inanimate object power over me. 

 

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.

35 minutes ago, JosephM said:

In America we have freedom of speech and expression and that goes whether i agree with what is being expressed or not. If my neighbor wants to fly the Confederate flag next door, that is his right that i paid for with 4 years of my life. I don't have to agree with him but i respect his right to express himself. However, If he brings physical harm to my house i will exercise my rights that i sacrificed 4 years for to bring an end to his/her harm.

 

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?

35 minutes ago, JosephM said:

What i see as a great problem for many is that when ethnicity becomes more important than our humanity there becomes a strong inclination for the dichotomy of a them and an us.which seems to me to do nothing for peace as an individual or society.

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?

3 hours ago, thormas said:

My take is that if there is one-to-one contact from and between God a a particular human being - that is exclusive. Plus this seems to posit a concept of a traditional theistic God - something that progressives are discounting as they speak of the Real in different ways.

 

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.

3 hours ago, thormas said:

I have heard both the world education take for Jesus and that he was an Essene however the best scholarship does not support either claim.

When I say he 'stood on the shoulders of others' I did not mean he did not receive an education that would have been typical for that time. 

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. 

2 hours ago, Burl said:

The classic anti-woman proof text is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.  “It is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

 

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.

2 hours ago, Burl said:

2) Paul’s preaching that husbands should teach the women at home and that women should ask their husbands to explain ‘everything’.  Again, different and more inclusive than in Jewish households.
 

3) My interpretation of this women were disrupting the worship service by asking questions, etc.  Paul wanted the women taught at home.

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. 

13 hours ago, Burl said:

Gender equity was a distinguishing feature of the church.  Paul’s letter to the Romans was preached by Junia, not Paul.

 

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.

13 hours ago, Burl said:

When Constantine politicized the church things started going off-track.

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.

3 hours ago, JosephM said:

As to do with Cancel Culture as relates to "doing no harm". If a statue offend you, then ignore them. History is to be remembered , not forgotten. If we are to be harmed by statues that to me represent history but to you may represent something else..... then where do we draw the line?  Some people are sensitive and offended by the slightest thing. How do we identify doing harm to the other? and where do we draw the line over things that one needs to get over and things that do need to be changed? Exactly what does the statement in the other thread by Paul S. mean when he says "All power to you whatever that may be, as long as you cause no harm, in my opinion."  What about the lyrics " 'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me" that Ellen quoted and PaulS said "Sounds sound to me! "  How do you apply that to all this Cancel Culture thread? Is the defining of harm to others always opinion?

 

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

16 minutes ago, PaulS said:

No stress.  Sometimes I go days at a time without checking in, so I hardly expect others to respond or contribute immediately.

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  

7 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Perhaps you have just summed up the Law and the Prophets!

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. :-) 

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Precisely.  And I'm glad you can appreciate it and even have a smile to boot - a bonus!

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

On 7/22/2020 at 5:27 PM, thormas said:

We disagree on one-to-one contact with God (although I do believe one can have a personal relationship with God) as I simply don't think God works that way or is exclusive if indeed the rain falls on all. And I do think one can 'know' God (depending on what is meant by know).

 

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.

On 7/22/2020 at 5:27 PM, thormas said:

As for the Bible, it depends on how one interprets it: for me the songs, hymns and many of the verses are not to be taken literally. I agree that Jesus 'knew' God, addressed God as Abba and spoke to God (prayer) but I also believe that Jesus stood on the shoulders of his fellow Jews (and his parents) and came to know God through them which resulted in a unique understanding/insight that the man Jesus developed or grew into. I don't accept that God miraculously came to Jesus in a way that was different than how he comes to us all. I do believe that Jesus was unique in his insights on what had already existed: the Jewish relationship/covenant with God and the Law.

 

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.

On 7/22/2020 at 5:27 PM, thormas said:

I think the contact is both: God in man. I think the only difference is due to luck/happenstance: the good or bad fortune of the parents/family/community you are born into and/or the good or bad fortune of others significant influences in/throughout one's life. Thus, we carry an awesome responsibility and we are essential, we are the co-creators and if we don't do it................? We are the 2nd coming and the (present) body of the Christ.

 

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.

17 hours ago, vitarimor said:

Hi Paul, you might want to look into some of the writings of George Coe in the early part of the 1900s and look for associated writings.  They sought to fuse rational thought and teachings with Christian thought and teachings.  I would have found him being exposed to the modern concepts of the science (and it is) of Intelligent Design and how it would have brought the intervention back into the concepts of creation might have impacted his thinking, but that's almost to the side and for another conversation.  A big part of their teachings revolve around the ideals that an active faith, a faith that is alive, is where it is deployed by an individual to engage the world with efforts to make it a better place, vs. a disengaged practice of faith and withdrawing from the world...as it is an engine who's function is just that, to make the world a better place.  They sought improvement to the world in general, preaching ideals of social justice, racial justice, economic opportunities, etc.  In a sense, they were way ahead of their time.  The taught independent thinking, critical thinking on the basis that the underlying ideals of society are churned and improve to the better by passing into the hands of growing individuals in faith generation to generation.  They promoted the idea of tolerance for diversity of thought.  They believed that growth in faith and relationship wasn't the result of some massive emotional epiphany or event, that is wasn't something that occurred from external hounding based upon fire and brimstone teaching of fear for effectiveness, but rather was an innate calling from within us that sought to grow into love and relationship...as an innate, natural part of what essentially makes us human.  They believed therefore that the growth in faith required individuals to grow in knowledge and understanding, thus choosing not to run away from learning, but to embrace it and grow with it...understanding the fundamentals of faith aren't lost in learning, but that these ideals are foundational and built on for higher level ideals that collectively act to push society ahead if embraced, supported, championed for the betterment of all, of society in general.  

Ok...went overboard...but that's the spirit of it.  You'll find that at the root level the world functions on the opposition of orthodoxy to progression in faith, that it acts to strip growth and act to prevent the change of perceptions and positive social change that can evolve if allowed in faith. Those that embrace orthodoxy and refuse to grow are acting against the natural call to the growth and development of the world to a higher calling, that faith if allowed drives us to question the short-comings in our society because we DO feel, see, ask why various problems, challenges, shortcomings exist and we want things in empathy and love to change, evolve for the better.  This is reflected as the difference between a bounded, legalistic view of Salvation vs. a centrist defined version the grouping that is Christianity, where salvation is not defined as a bounded set of laws we live within, but a turning of direction in our lives to Christ and living in love, faith, empathy with him at the Center...and always seeking to find ways to serve our neighbors, all neighbors of rich or poor, enemy of friend, etc. according to our circumstance, vocation, gifts, calling to his glory, of a perspective and mindset that we are doing so for that purpose.  Sigh...overboard again...not full organized...but you just asked essentially a spillage on belief from someone studying it and working towards making things line up in their own heart and head...so forgive me for doing so.

Hope this was at least..hmmm...thoughtful..;)

VR

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 

17 hours ago, vitarimor said:

 The second topic is focused on video review, focused on the merger of our calls to salvation vs. our vocational callings; the structure here is sharing of a video link with those interested (typ about 20 min), followed by again group discussion on the topic that I'd put some structure to each week.  This too would include the non-mandatory option to participate in a video chat session regarding the topic that week.  These would proceed over about a 2 month and 1 month period respectively.  I'm giving the details to see if I get a response of interest from enough people to see if worthwhile pursuing.  

 

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.

3 hours ago, thormas said:

...............still, Macqarrie's point was the difference takes on ecumenism and he was correct

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.

8 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I'm not promoting drug use, just saying that's what the song is about.  Probably like many Christians with the bible, I'm cherry picking words from the song and applying my own meaning and purpose to them irrespective if that's what the author intended.

Ha! Yeah, a bit much.  

 

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. 🙂 

1 hour ago, thormas said:

My take:

I understand someone who develops a 'personal relationships' with God just not one-on-one revelations with or contact from God.

Humans do not 'replace' God/Christ, rather they are the means by which and through which God is present in the ordinary, everyday life of men and women. The point is simply that God's modus operandi is incarnation: he presents Himself 'in' the words of men and women and in the love that we give to others.

Seemingly there is nothing 'within' - we cannot even develop language or become part of the world without first being addressed (called) by other human beings. 

Ideas don't/can't surface up 'within' without our first interacting in the world and with others.

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.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

In general or in these recent discussions? 

Both

1 hour ago, thormas said:

My take:

My point was not left or right groups but group think as part of a church or religious organization and I was simply saying that it seems that many PCs are independent thinkers and don't get caught up in group think.

With your example of women - again I get that in a traditional religious setting but I simply don't see that in progressive expressions of Christianity. I don't think that many progressives 'go along with what everyone else thinks and does' and, for some, that is why they have been attracted to PC.

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.

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

It's called "Burn One Down" but it is a song about smoking drugs.  I can only say the words speak to me as they do, even if I am taking them out of context.

Elen, I'm 52 and I still harm myself and others around me in many ways to this day!

I think doing 'no' harm is an ideal, something to aim for, but also something to be a little relaxed about to some extent depending on what sort of harm we are discussing (drinking a little too much - okay, murdering others - not so okay, etc).  Clearly harm to ourselves, to others, to our community, sits on a continuum that most will have a degree of difference on.  

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.

On 7/21/2020 at 2:01 PM, thormas said:

I'm just not sure how that works. Silence I get but I just don't connect to the 'doors' you mentioned as (for me) it sounds too magical and too individual.

In my understanding, God is always embodied in the human, in creation or, to reverse it, God is immanent in humanity/creation and this is his way to 'reach' us. I simply believe that God is always incarnate, his presence hidden, subtle so we are not overwhelmed. This also enables me to understand the role of Jesus: I accept him as a human being and in/through this human being, the Word (that is usually 'hidden' when uttered in the words of others) is 'shouted' in Jesus.

I don't really buy into 'direct' communication with God - God is always mediated (acting through/in, not direct) in/through creation.

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.

On 7/21/2020 at 2:02 PM, thormas said:

Was this not done?

No. I don't think it is done as well or as often as it could be done.

21 minutes ago, thormas said:

Most are not talking about an older view of religion and church when there was group think. Seemingly many liberal and/or progressive Christians left group-think behind and are independent thinkers.

Not sure what you mean by 'doing things differently' .............

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. 

1 hour ago, Burl said:

It also ignores the fact that life is interdependent and connected.  Tolerance is good starting point, but little more than that.

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. 

23 hours ago, thormas said:

Wining? I took him as just explaining the difference between the US and England in its understanding of ecumenism (at the time he was speaking).

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

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

On 7/21/2020 at 6:41 AM, PaulS said:

They are all good points Ellen.  It might be a bit simplistic but I see people around this matter in three broad groups - those that are happy with the status quo (which personally I think is becoming an out-of-date way of looking at the matter), those that will never be happy no matter how far things are taken (and probably sit in the group who are violent and destructive), and those that sit somewhere in the middle that perhaps say "we recognize that things can still be improved when it comes to race relations.  Things are better, but they could still be improved - let's have the discussion".  Personally, I'd like to see that group prevail.

 

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.

On 7/21/2020 at 6:41 AM, PaulS said:

From my personal experience, I have found many people who feel agitated, angry, or distressed about something, really just want to be heard.  I think there is a large element of the black community in the US and the indigenous community in Australia, that just want to be 'heard' on these matters.  To have their hurt and offence recognized.  To feel like they can be respected rather than ignored or expected to 'harden up' over history.  I don't think it is a big ask and perhaps is an even greater demonstration of who is the bigger person for those who currently argue to keep such memorials and statues, to recognize that letting go could in many ways help heal and bring people together.

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

8 minutes ago, thormas said:

 

You lost me.............

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.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I didn't enjoy that video at all. Macquarie and Hick are giants on the page but the videos are a struggle.

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.