steve

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?

I have to agree with you: Job was good, even when times were bad. When I was little I did not understand this book, almost to the point of banning it from my study. As an adult, who still from time to time thinks like he is little, I find myself wanting to ban the book now. I guess it is because it is so hard to understand. When it comes down to it the story depicts a man who is upright, good and just, yet he is tortured in ways that most of us cannot imagine. After he is brought to his knees and torn down some more he is still good and upright and just. Moral: ###### happens to all of us, even the Jobs among us. Its like the Waylon Jennings song, Four Strong Winds, the winds wont stop and neither will the seas cease rolling and we will all have to deal with problems and bad times. Now that I have said that I think I will read Job and re-decide to never read it again.

I think the writers of this ‘Point’ might be thinking more about the inclusiveness of language rather than the difference of class. If ‘class’ as we usually think of the word was the goal in the language they would have had to put many more in their list of different groups. However, with the ones that they did, they pretty well covered the majority of different folks out there. I am a believe in the difference of people and the separation of each into ‘class’. That does not mean that I feel we should be put into a ghettos, each to his own. Rather, I feel that we are different and that difference is what makes us common. To use a cliche, sameness is fascist. To make a decision we have to divide along some lines and go from there. What do you think?

‘Progressive Christianity allows and even encourage all to question..can they same be said of Conservative Christians? Can you question Bush without being called UnAmerican? Can you follow other paths along with Christianity like New thought or Native American or Bahia or UU without being called a cult? Can you question the doctrine of the trinity withOUT being called UnChristian?’ You certainly can. I would consider myself to be rather conservative when it comes to my politics, but more progressive with my faith. If this is possible for me, it must be possible for others. In that way, it is possible that someone who is a progressive voted for Bush and someone who is a conservative, did not. (I did not) It is also possible for conservative Christians to study and find meaning in other faiths. I happen to enjoy reading Jewish writing on theology and philosophy. I have found it very helpful to read books and articles from Buddhist and Hindus. But I wouldn’t say all faiths are equal or that all should be considered true or even good. Does this make me a ‘conservative’ when it comes to faith. Maybe it does, but I like that. I also know that many conservative and fundamentalist faith communities or organizations do allow women to be full members of the community and even to lead in some. The Salvation Army is an example of this. They are, for the most part, either fundamentalist or very conservative, yet they have women officers and even women have been international leaders. And lets not forget the Foursquare Gospel groups. They were founded by a woman and still have women who are leaders and pastors. Certainly these are only anecdotal cases, but they do shed light on the fact that even conservatives can be open to differing views. We can too. I consider myself to be a progressive, as I mentioned before, but I differ greatly in my views on faith and politics with many who post on the boards. This is because I am a human and I think I am right. It would not be possible for me to live my life thinking that I was wrong or that I had no idea of anything to do with God or my faith. I might learn new things and change some old views, but I will always think that what I think is the best or at least near the top. I don’t find this to be offensive or even wrong, because I am right (in my mind). But really, think of Borg or Spong or Armstrong or Adams; I wonder how many of them feel that they are wrong or that they don’t get it. They might say they are searching, which we probably all are, but at some level they must feel that they have some grasp on what is going on. Why should this be wrong? Finally, I agree that fundamentalist Christians are using their faith to be exclusive, but aren’t we doing the same if we require others to adhere to our 8 points. Like XianAnarchist said, this is more about being a community with a common idea, not one that uses a ‘checklist of common beliefs.’ I said it before, and I will say it again, don’t turn the 8 points, a list of common beliefs or guides, into a creed that must be adhered to at the exclusion of those who might not understand it just yet.

‘Each individual simply reads and affirms the basic 8 points. If they can't simply do this..then they should not be here...because obviously they are not agreemtn with this site's objective and purpose.’ What this sounds like to me is a reaction to a bad experience with a Fundamentalist group. I have family that are Fundamentalist, my mother and stepfather, and I get along with them while still having to deal with their reaction to my differing faith. There have been times when they have come to my house and, along with my half brothers, have taken Bibles and tried to convince me that they are right and I am wrong. Many people might find this offensive or might not enjoy it, but that is life. While the board does not belong to me or you, it does belong to an organization. That organization can set whatever rules they choose. But, if I were them, I would limit the way I limit others. And finally as for the 8 points: don’t make them into some sort of progressive creed. Just as many are uncomfortable with the classical creeds our the faith, many would also be leery of setting up a new, even if it is progressive, progressive creed. I would also wonder how many on here are in complete compliance with every point on the list. I know I am not in total agreement, and many of the founders of the organization might not fully understand the reasons for a point or might, frankly, disagree with it. Does this mean that they should not be allowed? And as lily said, look at the points again, and read number 4.

Beach, I know that it is very hard to understand others at times, but I would really like to understand the root cause of why you feel we need a board just for ‘conservatives’. How big of a problem is this for ‘non-progressives’ to be posting on any of the boards? What are they doing that is so awful that we can’t handle? Again, I want to be sure that we are clear on this, who is going to decide who is a progressive and who is not? I have no problem with there being rules in place, for the benefit of creating a place of honest discussion, but I do have a problem with rules that ban certain views. Who’s view is the right one on here? What happens when one of us ‘progressives’ offends someone and now we are considered to be a ‘conservative’? There has to be a way that we can all get a long. With a group of smart and creative people like the folks on this message board, there has to be something that we can come up with that will include all. Remember what the Fundamentalist want: to separate. Their desire is to separate themselves from the ‘godless world’ so that they wont be tainted. But they also don’t want to be challenged. Lets not become fundamentalist Progressives.

Okay Aletheia, you did it again! What does 'YW' mean?

Because of the recent anniversary of the use of atomic weapons many on the post (this one and others) have mentioned the need to halt nuclear proliferation and then to disarm. We have seen the destruction that is produced from these weapons and the need to keep them from the hands of irresponsible and hostile regimes. I agree with this need, but I am not sure that we realize the amount of trouble this will cause. First of all we have to remember that the Bomb does exist. That will never change. We can’t go back to a time before it happened, just like we cant go back to a time before we had the motorcar. Even if we got rid of all the automobiles that are on the planet now and banned the creation of new cars, we still would not be able to erase the memory of when we did have them. It would only be a matter of time before they would be created and used again. I think that is true not just for the motorcar, but also for the Bomb. We cannot pretend that they don’t exist. Because we can’t do this we will have to figure a way to keep these from being created as best we can. I am not sure how to do this but I know that with all the smart people in this world we could figure something out. We have to be vigilant and keep watch over those governments and organizations that wish to obtain these weapons. This has to be prevented. But, just like we are unlikely to give up our weapons because the Chinese, Koreans, Israelis, and numerous other countries have them or might have them, they will not give up theirs. We can’t attack and invade every nation that has weapons like this and force them to give them up. If we did that we would be in a war with Iraq now, and then Iran, Korea, China, you get the picture. I really don’t see any other rout than to do what we are doing, and maybe add to that some other good ideas. I don’t think we can just say, ‘Okay, we give up ours so you give up yours.’ Does anyone have an idea about this?

Well, I must say that the neocons have really turned a corner that had not been taken by conservatives (political) in this country. Neocons are like Marxist Christians, and because of their dependance on government, and willingness to jump conservative ship if need be, they are the worst kind of political people. Neocons, most of whom have said that if the conservatives or Republicans refused to expand government they would become liberals, have no real goal other than to preserve Israel and become wealthy. Both of these are fine in moderation. I have no problem, and support, with the defense of Israel as long as Israel is willing to see new options. Likewise, I don’t mind if people want to become wealthy. There is nothing wrong with that, but it can’t be at the expense of all others. I think that conservatives, I am one, and liberals, Classical Liberals, should get together and try and stop these Neocon policies and quests. If liberals really want to have a world or at least nation that is open to others and able to help all, we need to get the government out of it. And if conservatives, who wish that each person would be able to expand his or her horizons through independence and liberation, want this to happen they will have to return to their old ties of less government and more liberty. What do you think?

I am printing these and hanging them over my computer. In a few days, maybe, even I will be able to use some. Thank you guys (des and AletheiaRivers) so much.

So I have been posting for a couple of days now and I can make out most of what is said on here (about 97%). However, there are a lot of you who use lingo or internet chat acronyms that I just don’t get. An example is ‘imo’; I have no idea what that means. If someone could send me a list of this stuff so that I can understand what is said that would be great. I am young, I don’t know why I don’t know this stuff.

I guess what I was trying to get at with this post is, what if anything should we be doing through the government. Is there a responsibility that we have in regards to our government and its use of tax dollars? Do we owe it to ourselves and others to use the government for the betterment of the people, or is this better left up to the people? Should the government be limited in its scope; should it be make to get out of the way? Or should we try and use the government and make it have more of a say in what goes on? What do you guys ( and gals) think?

Oh Sissy, there are wonderful aspects of God that we don’t even realize, or have not yet tried to. I think that each of us has to find out what God means to us, right now. This will change and change again. That doesn’t mean that what we thought before was wrong, but that we have grown and changed. Just remember that God is masculine too. Don’t forget that part of God, but discover the ‘softer’ side of Sears....I mean God. It seems like for too long God has been a big grizzling bear of a man that is out there to judge and pour out wrath and such. But that side of God that is soft, or more feminine, is many times forgotten. As for further reading: well I really don’t know much about Feminist Theology to give you any hints there (if that is what you wanted). A good book to start with, one that just kinda expands some God concepts and images is J.B. Phillips Your God Is Too Small. It’s a short book and you can finish it over lunch, but it has some good things in it and Phillips is pretty good at making a point.

My mother and stepfather are Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, probably the most Fundamentalist of all, and I know for sure that they believe in the once saved always saved bit. Interestingly, they would not say that a person can be saved and then ‘be the biggest haughty jackass’ because Salvation, to them, is a change. If a person becomes a Christian and goes out and continues to live a life full of ‘sin’ that person never really became a Christian. I can understand that; don’t agree, but can understand it. As for the flip, to me it would seem that when you become a Christian you would want to ‘evangelize’. I know that is a dirty word in the Progressive world, but think of it this way. We are all on here, mostly to engage in a conversation, but also to learn. If that were not so, we would not ask so many questions. And just as we ask we answer. It might not be that we are out banging on doors, but we are probably sharing our experience of Christ with someone. The objection to this is the feeling that our faith is no better than anyone else’s. This may be true, it also may not, but when a person finds something that is spectacular we tend to tell others about it. To me that is evangelism. I don’t feel like I have to evangelize to maintain my standing with Christ, but because I have been changed and because I see the difference in my life, I evangelize.

The very first book I ever read by a progressive was Living in Sin, so I guess I owe my release from Fundamentalism, or whatever I thought, to Spong. That said, I always felt that he gave me no hope for the future of my faith or my Church. Like someone else said, I felt cold. I must say though, when you finally realize that there is something else out there it is hard not to just wish to tear down all the old junk and start new, or at least back at the beginning. But, for a Bishop especially, Spong should have a more pastoral character to him. That is where I find Borg. Borg, to me, has seemed to lift me out of my despair that Spong led me to. I guess it was like Spong led me out into the wilderness and then Borg showed me the way back. I needed both.

Remember what’s been said about religion, and Christianity in particular: is it more like sex or politics. If it is more like sex, it is something that is done in private and is intimate or very personal. But if it is more like politics, it is out there or public. If our faith is more like sex we probably tend to use it like sex; only for ourselves and only personally. That is not to say that we cant use sex or, to be more accurate, have sex that is very interpersonal. That is probably what sex is for to most of us. When we have sex it is a very intimate moment between our partner and us. This can be fun or it can be passionate. It can be very uplifting or just a quicky. This might be what it is like with God. If our faith is like sex, we might be having a very personal and very intimate relationship with God. This cannot be wrong, and may even be a little selfish. Just like sex, I want it to be between my partner(my wife) and myself. Noone else is allowed in that special part of our relationship. And noone is allowed in the special part of my relationship with God. However, to leave it at that is truly selfish and that is where we cross over to the political side. If our faith is like politics, it might be out there for all to see. It may not be actually political, only like politics. When this happens our faith moves to the outside world. It moves to a forum that open to talking and finding. If our faith is like politics we can’t hide it. Just like Republicans or Democrats don’t hide their political faith (most of the time) we should not be hiding our Christian faith. And just like politics is allowed to be worn as a badge, so maybe our faith should be too.

I have been listening to a lot of public radio lately and that means more of the classical music that is out there. When I am up late though, it changes to jazz or folk sometimes, and that is a real joy. When I was a teen, low those three years ago, I listened to mostly classic rock or some alternative stuff. I am glad that I have rediscovered the real classics. Question: If you could do anything for a vocation what would you chose? And if you could do anything career wise what would you do?

I have to agree with you wayfaring, for the most part. Reading literature from fundamentalists or some conservatives, it seems to me that the only debate that they have is whether or not to be Calvinist or Armenian. I admit that I am more of a Wesleyan Christian myself, though I still hold loyalty to the Church (of England). It never seemed like much of a debate, the Saved/Always Saved bit. I thought it was silly to spend so much time on this and nothing else. As a Wesleyan it seemed as though we were always defending our ‘free-will’ thoughts against those who felt that God was in control of and controlled all life on earth. We said, ‘all men chose what they will’, and they said, ‘all men are chosen for what they will’. Now, having learned a little more, I think that both of these are not adequate enough to really have the grounds to stand on (and claim victory in the fight). As for what I think of salvation now, I don’t really know. It has been awhile since I thought of it or really tried to figure out what I thought of it. Maybe I will get something to use here.

What I glean, and not from the verse so much as from what both of you have said, is that we are all needed or wanted in this case. With the example of the tree, even though there are times that examples can be wrong, I find this one to be quite useful. Just as those who are on the outside ring, or the boundary of the faith are need to, we also need those who have been around the block a few times. And around the block not just in years but in thought. I happen to feel that we need some Fundamentalist in our midst to remind us that sometimes things are a lot more simple than we try and make them. And they need us, progressives, because, well they are crazy.(only kidding, in part) I don’t happen to be a big fan of Feminist theology, but I do understand that there are things that I can learn and the Church can learn from them. What they have to understand is that they can still learn from us White Guys too. One of the common themes that I picked up one when I was younger, a theme from Paul, was the breaking down of walls, or the dismantling of that which separates us. We might always be separate, and maybe that is just the way it is, but we don’t have to always keep separate. I think that is part of what Paul meant when he said ‘if food is a cause of my brother’s (or sisters, that my feminism for today) falling, I will never eat meant, lest I cause my brother to fall. I know I miss the point of it, but I still feel that part of what is said is about taking down those walls.

I have to agree with des on this Beach. While I understand that it might be desirable for some to only speak with those that they agree, it is contrary to the principals of evangelism, which I, as a progressive, feel is important. I started reading some of the past post on here and I can’t really find anything that is so offensive as to warrant the creation of a new forum for those who wish to bash it out OT style. If it does happen, which I am sure that it does on occasion, one should just ‘ignore’ the source. There are times on other posting sites or forums that I will post and someone will come back with something that is so malicious I will stop the conversation right there. Just as in physical interaction, when I am assaulted (verbally) I stop talking and move on. I wont be made to engage in conversation that is mean or hurtful, but I will not shrug from conversation that is challenging and engaging. How complex are we to make this message board? Are we going to have a separate section for every possible mind-set, and when a new one is created by a new member, will we then create a new posting for that person? What if this is really a matter of writers style. Many writers, especially those who are not very good writers (like me, not very good), don’t have the skills to push their ideas without sounding like ass holes. They may intend a remark to be very direct and end up sounding as though they feel their conversation partner is an idiot. I’m with des on this. Maybe we are not really concerned with Progressive/Fundamentalist. As a side note, it surprises me to hear someone, especially a Progressive, say that they don’t want to ‘interfaith’ with others. That anyone, especially progressives, would not want to interfaith only means that they feel they can gain nothing from it. Are they all wise? If so, we aught to have a separate forum for them, so they can inform us of what is right.

That’s what I mean (thanks des). I am always afraid of being excluded from a community because I don’t feel the same way that they do. Sometimes this is natural; why would I want to join a community that I am apposed to? But at the same time it is very easy to be banished from a group when one does not adhere to all or maybe not understand all of that groups feelings. I am sure that it is hard for many of us to deal with those who are hostile to our beliefs or views, but we can’t exclude them from the conversation. No one should be able to attack someone personally, but everyone should be able to challenge beliefs and views. I think this is not only American, but Biblical. I hope that Beach feels more comfortable and willing to continue the conversation (and debate). But don’t every try and stop others from posing their views. When that happens we are no better than Fundamentalist.

Beachofeden, your wish to produce a new forum for Fundamentalist to debate with Progressives, seems to me a bit elitist or at least exclusive. Just as they, most Fundamentalist, exclaim a separation that is necessary to keep the ‘rot’ from getting to them, you seem to wish that we do the same. Are you afraid that they will destroy our Progressive beliefs? For that matter, who is going to decide who is a progressive? What if I am not Progressive enough? I have, more than once, been at odds with others on here that are professing Progressives. Should I be banned from posting or relegated to only posting on certain sites? Being inclusive does not mean only including those who we like to hear from. I have to agree with some on here that I find it nice to hear from Fundies every once in a while. We should not segregate ourselves from each other because we happen to disagree. That is what conversation is.

Well I am glad that you knew who that quot was from (though I would not use the father of Marxism to make a point), and I too am a NISB user. Your last remark was, ‘Agreed! At this point it isn't deciding what to do, but finding some common ground, goals, and energy for those who are willing.’ But I would say that we still need to decide what to do. What can we do? What can we find out? What can we pick up? What can we work together on? All these questions need answers, or at least some talking about.

I agree that our culture is not conducive to what a really Christian community would be, but that does not mean that we can’t work toward what one should be. We should take care of others as we take care of ourselves. I take care of my family and myself, and my family in return takes care of me, in almost the same ways. But it can’t stop there; I should work to take care of those who are not able to care for themselves, or who have been driven down and are now unable to care for themselves. I don’t begin to understand how to accomplish this, but that is not the point, yet. However, I take umbrage with your statement of, ... ‘I think from each as they are able; to each as they need is about as close as we’d get.’ What part of the Bible or Jesus teaching did this quotation come from?

Alright guys, and gals, I have been re-reading Borg’s the 'God We Never Knew' and I have some questions and thoughts. Being a conservative minded person I think that we should strive for personal freedom and individual responsibility, however, I understand that there are circumstances that are out of the control of the individual and that we have to find a way to correct this. What do you guys think about government and its role in America? What would you like to see happen and what role will government have? I know this opens up a lot of questions and answers, and I know that we have all had this talk before, but I just can’t seem to get it right in my own head.