October's Autumn

After reading that I clicked on an article about a hack and his makebelieve studies which are cited by the Christian right regarding gay people! Makes me sick

I read this really good editorial on Yahoo! News.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060213/...nA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

He has continually taken stances like that, that aren't universal among conservative evangelicals. Good for him-- again!

 

--des

Agreed. He shows signs of someone who thinks about things rather than simply following the crowd Even when I don't agree with people in specifics I appreciate that!

My personal view is that minoirities, rather it be racial, gender, ethnic, or sexual orientation, are rather naive when they support Right wing politicians  -- they are being used as a means to an end. 

 

That is one thing I don't get about people like Ann Coulter and Laura Schlessenger, by their own standards neither should be speaking, they are after all women and the right doesn't have much use for women except to appeal to their emotional side in order to get their votes and then turn around and demean them.

 

Reminds me of the irony of Newt talking about family values.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What means to what end are they (minorities) being used? Is this the old ‘how could you be a black man and also a Republican’ line?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To make the right appear non-racist, non-sexist, and non-homophobic! They are all three. It is not a matter of rather or not an African-american, a woman, or someone who is gay can be a Republican but rather why would someone join a group that has oppressed them for generations?

I read it. Can't wait to see the movie! I still have to read the book, though. I love the comment about "how we know Jesus didn't get married" How could they possibly KNOW? We don't know anything about Jesus from the age of 12 to 30! It seems to me it is most likely he was married at some point. As I understand it all Jewish males married around 18 rather they wanted to or not!

I think it is reasonable to assume that God did not change, just people's conception of God.

 

 

Still true, even today! What would God look like if *we* wrote the next testament?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

October.....I shudder at the thought of what God would look like if we wrote the 'Next Testament'....and of course, some day someone probably will.

Which brings up a good question: "if you were asked to tell a totally illiterate person the four most important things about God....what would you say?

 

Blessings

 

Jerry

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? All the "sacred" texts have been written by humans. The Hebrew Bible shows an evolution of belief of what God is like, so does the New Testament. I suspect the Koran does the same as do other texts like the Book of Mormon. It is an ever continuing process, knowing God.

The beginning and end of Job are later additions to the orinial center. It is interesting to read it again with those two parts. Completely changes the picture, imo.

I think it is reasonable to assume that God did not change, just people's conception of God.

Still true, even today! What would God look like if *we* wrote the next testament?

I think we may not have a good picture of the "God of the OT."

If your bf isn't willing to see other viewpoints and embrace a more progressive stance he is right in saying that it is not a good idea to "unequally yoked." If is is constantly trying to "save" you it will put a lot of stress on your relationship. In the long run you are both better off without each other IF that is going to be the case. I hope it all works out for you. Keep posting!

I believe the concept of "spirit" is Hebrew. It refers to the ancient mystery of being alive. "The breath of life."

The concept of "soul" is a Greek one. Soul is what is trying to escape from the body which is corrupt.

We see both together in Christianity because of its Jewish origins and later Greek influence. In reality it is two clashing ideas as semitic belief does not have a need to have something leave a corrupt body because the body is not considered corrupt.

Of course, they have both taken on a life of their own as far as meaning goes. I remember as a teenager have the pastor attempt to explain the difference. I believe the egg analogy was used. The explanation was suspect.

I think that is a good question!

RE: Serpent picking Eve

We can also look at the question in reverse. Why did the tellers of the myth choose Eve over Adam to be the one who the serpent approaches? Is it simply to explain why women suffer when giving birth -- a need to make a "spiritual" explanation instead of simply a physiological one?

I was going to start a new topic, but decided to post under this topic because it relates to Frank Raj's concerns.

 

I've noticed over the last couple of years that many Christian denominations no longer stand during the reading of the Gospel lesson. It was a tradition, when I was growing up , that you stood for the Gospel reading because these were Jesus' words. Over the years this practice has stopped as far as I can tell.

 

My guess is that this happened because people thought that would make one part of the Bible more important than another. This then makes books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy the equal of Jesus' parables and the sermon on the mount. Over time people start to prefer those parts of the Bible that give them strict rules for behavior over the paradoxical and ironic saying of Jesus. I played piano in a conservative baptist church for three years when I was younger . They hardly ever read from the gospels of Matthew, Mark or Luke exept for the birth and crucifiction stories.

 

The result of all of this is Jesus is simply worshipped rather than listened to.

 

I would like to see Protestant churches standing for the Gospel lesson again.

 

MOW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I always (for the last year) wondered why we stood for that part of the reading! At the UCC church I go to they do still stand.

The only one I can remember is the one where the couple can't have any children so the father builds their daughter. She eventually figures out all her memories are implanted. After that happens she make her dad disassemble all the servant robots and insists on becoming the maid. It was really sad. I know I've seen others but I was probably pre-teen when I watched that show!

BTW I got tired of waiting for the original poster to respond to my statements so I decided to go ahead and respond to your interpretation of what s/he said.

Fred responded to your initial inquiry pretty much the same way I would have, so I didn't feel the need to be redundant.

 

Except the response didn't make sense. I said all religions have truth in them, not all religious statements. I still haven't seen an acknowledgement to that misreading of my original comment.

Ultimately, when it comes to religion there is no way of knowing. Not in the sense that I know that 2 + 2 = 4 or that a noun is a person, place, thing, or idea.

 

Belief is an opinion (something which can not be proven or disproven). I obviously (and you obviously) believe that our progressive stances are right or at least headed in the right direction versus going in the wrong direction.

This is of course your belief, i.e. just your opinion by your standard. Nevertheless, I think you're dichotomizing "facts" and "beliefs" far too much. To say that "when it comes to religion there is no way of knowing" sounds (to me) like people take a blind leap of faith when embracing a religion. This is not so.. people have reasons for believing the way they do, but not all reasoning is created equal. On what basis do you believe your "progressive stance" to be right? I presume that you think you're progressing toward some kind of objective truth and not just emoting.

First, I didn't write the definitions of fact vs. opinion or belief. I have, however, taught it starting with second graders going all the way up to 6th graders.

Secondly, I already addressed that. Some opinions are simply opinions. For example: Blue is my favorite color. Other opinions have facts to support them. For example: Bush is evil.

Beliefs are just glorified opinions. They can be good example of opinions with facts to support them. They are also often a blind leap of faith.

My liberal beliefs are based on a mix of experience and facts. I'm well aware that my views can change. I know they won't change to conservative views because I've already seen too many facts that discount those. But they could change nonetheless.

To assume that I'll someday reach an "objective truth" with my beliefs would be arrogant on my part. I saw way too much of that growing up to not be skeptical of it.

BTW, opinion is not about emotions.

Well I wouldn't consider Stalin a leftist any more than I would consider Hitler a right winger. At a certain point, tyrants meet at some point at the fringes.

 

 

--des

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was more or less my husband's comment when I asked him. He is more of a modern historian than I am! And so are you!

I'm less concerned about the "Atheists/Humansists Left" simply because I find they are more socially active and more like to follow Jesus' teaching even if they don't believe in God. My concern with the Right is that they aren't doing what is right for those in the world who are most vulnerable and for the world itself.  I've seen some who are atheists who are right wing politically (which really blows my mind!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't underestimate the potential for evil among Secular Leftists. I believe Stalin was more of a ruthless murderer than Hitler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure by what standard Stalin is considered a Leftist. I don't really consider those who are out to hurt the poor, etc. to be left. That is the job of the right. But I'm not much of a modern historian.

I also don't underestimate the evil that religious people are capable of doing. It isn't unique to people who are secular.

I got all 6 but it the second time I took the test!

How about - stupid is unable to learn.  Willful ignorance - is the refusal/unwillingness to learn.  Rampant today!!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one is unable to learn. It simply takes some longer than others. (I'm a teacher, I believe that all people can learn).

Willful ignorance (in my own personal dicitonary) is knowing what is true and refusing to admit it. I'm splitting hairs there.

Sometimes I envy dumb people; ignorance may not be bliss, but it may be easier to deal with the world. I've decided not to get too worked up about fools, if I don't calm down, I'll explode right now. Maybe I can learn to sleep through their bs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My favorite saying: Ignorance may be bliss but only to those who are ignorant.

An aside:

I actually consider ingornant simply being uniformed. For example, I'm ignorant about how my car works. Given the right teacher I could learn, at least to some degree. Stupidity is something else, it is not being willing to learn.

Hi October....It has not been my experience either.

I've come to believe that we live in a 'messy' universe,and that if we are to discover our deep spiritual roots,we have to become what Jack good calls,

"chaos tolerant".

He also says,"A progressive faith is one that begins in grief."    grief over the loss of the 'certitude' of our conservative upbringing. I totally agree with him.

I like that: Chaos tolerant. I definately found progressive faith through grief! Thanks, Jerry!

It has not been my experience. If it is true, God really screwed up at some major points and I refuse to believe in him/her! IOW it is easier for me to accept that God is not in control then it is that God would let certain things happen to me, other people, and even in the world.

I would not want to see here, for instance, arguments against gays like I did on UCC online based on the Bible. I think it creates an "unsafe"

space  for gays. But if someone wants to argue the virgin birth or something I'm not too fussed.

Exactly. There is no harm (that I can see) in the belief of a virgin birth, but beliefs that call gay people sinners and say they are going to hell is another thing.

The problem with that is it assumes that fundamentalism is essentially harmless. It is is not. Take the viewpoint and change to those who are racist. Does it still fit? Could it be that maybe some people need their racism? That the belief that all people are created equal is not for all people? That for some racism is okay? The answer is obvious. While I would not try to "convert" someone who is a fundamentalist, I also do not believe the beliefs are okay. Sure, some are, but many are dangerous.