Most comment policies for the blog are in effect on this page as well. However, we will not monitor the length of comments (unless some wise guy plays a game), the direction of the discussions or the relevance of the discussions. The Deebs may or may not participate in the discussion, depending on busyness of the current posts. In other words, go for it. This page is subject to change as we work out the inevitable issues.
Please note that the usual restrictions on personal attacks and other rude behavior still apply here.
Update: 660 comments in 3 weeks. Not bad. Since infinite is a bad idea in how big a page can be on a web site I’m changing things so comments are split into pages of 500 per page. Nothing is gone. Just click on the link for older comments. (GBTC)
@ Nancy2:
Thanks for a very interesting link. Mohler in his YEC at all costs with no evolution possible response to yesterday’s LIGO announcement clearly shows that he is part of the problem not the solution to the problem outlined by @ okrapod. And the SBC drifts a little farther into irrelevance.
@ Nancy2:
I don’t like to say that something is hopeless, but Mohler just might be. He admits the validity of the findings and then denies the meaning of the findings based on the bible. Or did I not just hear him say that yes a ‘materialistic worldview’ resulted in valid findings, but a materialistic worldview is wrong since it does not agree with the bible. Like, a wrong approach resulted in correct findings, so the correct findings must be interpreted some other way than be the approach which resulted in the findings in the first place.
If that is not hopelessly messed up thinking I would like to know what is.
Nancy2 wrote:
I wait with bated breath to hear an explanation of the link between sin and ancient black holes. The man has lost it. At some point if one tries to maintain an untenable belief against evidence one has to loosen one’s hold on reality, and there are some names for how that affects people. Since I am trying to be nice at least during Lent I will stick with ‘wacko.’
Not sure what Mohler has or has not said on the topic of gravitational waves, nor am I particularly interested since he’s not qualified to comment on that subject. He has, as far as I understand, dedicated his career to the pursuit of the correct interpretation of the biblescribshers; this is a noble pursuit, but the results are of course only a theory. Unfortunately it’s a theory that in most cases would be very hard to verify with any evidence we can reliably produce.
What does strike me about this is the contrast between what the godless and sinful scientific community pursues, and what the scribsher-preaching community pursues. To the godless scientists, it was obvious decades ago that the detection of gravitational radiation was going to need apparatus orders of magnitude more sensitive than anything then devised. They set about developing the technology. Had they failed to find gravitational waves – or the Higgs particle – this would have excited them as much as finding it, because it would have meant they had to come up with new physics. They would have had to change their minds – that is, to repent. Being able to be proven wrong is important to these godless people. They go to great lengths to hold their theories and expectations up to the light of evidence, so that they can be known by their fruit.
By contrast, the scribsher-owning community seeks to hide from external accountability and verifiable truth. Obviously, their theories are held up to “the truth of scribsher”, but the trouble is, since they themselves own the truth of scribsher, that’s not actually any kind of accountability. “The truth of scribsher” is, after all, exactly what they say it is, and any other version of the “truth of scribsher” is a product of deception and misapplication of the scribshers.
Justice Scalia passed away today. May he rest and wake to a goodly inheritance in Olam Ha-Ba one day.
okrapod wrote:
Well, the clue is in the name, surely. God created apparently-ancient black holes to represent a sinner’s heart. Or maybe to represent the ultimate fate of the sinner – it depends on which school of thought you adhere to.
This would be a great cause around which to have a pointless centuries-long religious war.
okrapod wrote:
I think the first thing is to distinguish the bible from interpretation. All Christians should be prepared to amend or abandon a particular interpretation in the light of new information, especially where there are a variety of options of the predestination/human responsibily or how long is the millenium or Daniel’s 70 weeks sort. Even whether certain aspects of the Christian life are mutual or not … 🙂
That said, the ‘fundamentals’ of how to be put right with God are pretty clear, and don’t need constant revision.
The first thing to say is Genesis 1 remains true. It is not intended as a scientific explanation, and therefore science cannot refute its essential truth that God created everything.
Modifying your view of creation if you are YEC does not entail abandonning the bible.
I’ve re-read the beginning of Genesis quite a bit recently, and my respect for it has grown. One thing that is helpful is to see it does not date the age of the earth, and to see that by the end of 1 v 1 everything was there. Only a genius could sum up the whole thing in seven words! At a minimum this allows for an old earth. The rest describes the formation of the earth and life on it, and it doesn’t make much sense/appears to contradict if you don’t see 1 v 1 as having established the existence of the universe first – light created before the sun etc.
It is possible to see weaknesses in a strict YEC approach simply by re-reading the text itself.
The other thing is many YEC believe this because it entails God being directly responsible and involved in the whole of creation. Theistic evolution on the other hand has a deistic God whose influence is barely discernible if at all. A marked absence of the supernatural in favour of an explanation that basically leaves God out. This might account for the resistance to TE, and is an understandable objection.
But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. The most important issue is not how old the earth is, but to know where it is going, where we are going, and to obtain the righteousness that will qualify us to enjoy the new creation. In other words, wavering Christians should be encouraged to look forwards rather than worrying about the details of the past.
If you are right about the age of the unverse, but not right with God, what does it profit, my brethren?
I hope non-scientifically qualified believers will be prepared to withold judgement on this issue, and not make fools of themselves. On the other hand, foolishness is not confined to certain creationists, Dawkins and a whole army of village athests regularly say very foolish things about the bible and Christian faith – partly because they are too lazy to really get to grips with the opposing position.
Ken wrote:
I agree and applaud you for saying this. But, and very important, the converse is also true. Since Gen 1 is not a scientific explanation it cannot refute science. This is the bone of contention many of us have with Christian YEC and anti evolution advocates.
@ OldJohnJ:
Yes. It’s not either/or. So hard to keep running up against these kinds of false dichotomies!
Ken wrote:
It’s more than simple laziness. One of the burdens to Christianity are the loud and uncompromising YEC advocates. This is the side of Christianity most visible to the non believing science advocates. There are organization composed of believing scientist, such as the American Scientific Affiliation and Biologos.
The response of the SBC’s Mohler to the recent LIGO success discussed recently above is, very sadly, the very thing that gives many scientifically literate individuals pause when considering Christianity.
Ken wrote:
I am sorry to say, but for some people it does mean abandoning the bible. If one accepts the idea that the bible must be understood word for word literally whenever possible then to accept anything less that literal historical fact about the genesis stories removes a cornerstone of their entire understanding of scripture. The are left saying, and do say, if they can’t believe the genesis stories in the way that they have believed them then they have no way to determine what in the bible one should believe and what one should not believe.
It is virtually impossible to explain to some folks that the bible is not being destroyed while at the same time their particular understanding of some parts of the bible is in fact being brought into question.
And let us not forget that there are certain persons who build their academic careers and their very churches by promulgating certain ideas that require a literal historical / scientific belief in the genesis stories like the YEC folks promote. There is money and power at stake here.
okrapod wrote:
Not only this, but many YEC, pastors included, will question your salvation if you do not accept their literal interpretations. They will, in fact, try to undermine your faith.
okrapod wrote:
Some folks, not all. You’re right there. But my beliefs about Scripture are my own, I keep my own counsel. I pick and choose what I sign onto and I am under no obligation whatsoever to change them from what others consider to be ‘erroneous’.
Bridget wrote:
One thing that gladdens me greatly in this life is that they (said pastors) don’t have the final say so about whether or not I have a place in Olam Ha-Ba.
@ Bridget:
You are not a Christian if you don’t have the Holy Spirit. The sign of receiving the Holy Spiit is speaking in tongues. Therefore, you are not a Christian if you have not spoken in tongues …
Do you get my drift … ?!
Muff Potter wrote:
Of course not, but when a person decides that what he has believed is in fact erroneous then this is a potentially cataclysmic event in his, what are we supposed to call it, spiritual journey.
My own faith crisis decades ago included this very thing, except it had nothing to do with any specific doctrine much less origins.
OldJohnJ wrote:
It is the same in some ways with patriarchy/comp doctrines, the choices seem to come down to A) go to church and keep your mouth shut as far as dissenting on interpretations even though it is treated as a 1st tier teaching and risk being ostrsized OR, B) go to another church that includes all sorts of extreme left wing views where dissent is not allowed either.
There is not a lot of variety here. Of course none of this has anything to do with Jesus Christ which is where I landed. :o) the scripture is not The Father, Son or Holy Spirit. It is useful, inspired and wonderful but was also off limits for millions and millions over a millennia. We tend to forget that part.
Lydia wrote:
I’ll stir the kettle:
Try questioning their (liberal progressives) doctrines of ‘white privilege’ and ‘white oppression’ in this day and age and see what happens to you…
OldJohnJ wrote:
Can you give us a summary. I only find audio clips of his comments. 🙁
@ NC Now:
https://baptistnews.com/ministry/people/item/30924-mohler-applauds-discovery-of-gravitational-waves-but-says-it-doesn-t-prove-anything
This link was given by nancy2 above.
Sorry didn’t follow enough back links in this 4000 comment thread. 🙂
I can’t remember where I read it but apparently there is a term for people who like to use technology but refuse to believe the science behind it is true.
In other words they believe in the engineering but not the science. And don’t get or refuse to believe that the engineering derives from the science. 🙁
NC Now wrote:
Is anyone else hearing the phrase “caption competition” here?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
‘fraid not! 🙂
Have a good weekend.
ION:
Spectacular foties of the Horsetail Waterfall in YoSemerty! this February:
bbc.co.uk/news/YoSermerty! firefall
IHTIH
Fascinating article on womens’ moswues in China, and growing worldwide movement re. womens’ mosques:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35629565?SThisFB
@ numo:
Mosques. With women as prayer leaders, too.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_dragoncourt02.htm
Dragon blood line …….
Like I said – insane!
@ Nancy2:
The internet has no shortage of wack-jobs.
@ Nancy2:
I googled the dragon lord thing and came across a book that seems to be the only source for this stuff, but what the heck do i know?!
okrapod wrote:
Speaking of radiology and confirmation bias, have you ever dealt with the issue of radiologists looking at someone’s images, x-ray or otherwise, on a substandard display. They then followup with an “official” look using proper equipment.
I’m aware of the practice that radiologists may look at an image remotely while on call sometimes with just a poor laptop display. They will follow that up with an official read at the hospital but it appears to me a classic case of setting yourself up for confirmation bias. If you don’t see it on the laptop because of the poor resolution, will you also not see it on better equipment?
Is there standard policy for this?
@ Bill M:
I had retired from practice before any technology of that sort was in place, and frankly I cannot fathom somebody rendering any opinion knowing that they had a poor image for any reason at all.
Now it is that under some circumstances, let us say night at a medium size or smaller hospital when there is no radiologist on site the ER docs will read the x-ray and then the next day the radiologist will read the films and send a report to the ER. If there is something that the ER doc missed then they will call the patient and follow up from there. That has nothing to do with anybody looking at poor images however, just a matter of who does what.
As for reading films from home I imagine that certainly could be done with appropriate equipment, but for anybody to try it under substandard conditions with poor images-surely not. And for some hospital to let that be done would set them up for a liability suit I would think.
@ okrapod:
Thanks Okrapod, I figured from your prior comments you had some experience.
numo wrote:
Why is gender segregation good or progress?
Lydia wrote:
Read the article. It explains it.
From the article: “So women’s mosques grew out of a double movement in the Chinese Muslim world – the need to preserve the community, and the desire for women’s education.”
okrapod wrote:
So why weren’t women being educated…China educates its women now. ( We just had an exchange student) Is Islam sort of catching up a bit or what?. And why educated separately? My former church had reading and ESL programs that were not segregated. I am questioning the larger premise and wondering why…..I agree that allowing women to be educated (still a problem in Afghanistan) is good. I guess any progress for women is good in Islam as it is not a religion that when practiced is good for women in general.
@ Lydia:
You are not discussing the historical information given in the article. This goes back centuries.
But, there is also educational research out there that shows that gender segregation in education has its’ advantages for some people, even now and here.
But hey. I hope that the idea that everything has to be men and women all thrown together for better or for worse to slug it out never goes so far as to delegitimize all ideas to the contrary. For example, in my church which is demonized by some segments of the political and religious right for its ordination of women, there is still a very active episcopal church women (ECW) which at our church is equally as active as the overflow homeless shelter ministry. IMO, trying to stamp out women this or that except as they get a chance to compete with the men will not win the day because there are too many women who do not let themselves be disrespected like that.
I do not know if that is what you are implying, but I could not pass up the opportunity to rant a bit. This is so personal with me. I am sick to d-d death of people thinking that some woman (me) is only worth something because somehow she successfully competed with men in some way. Garbage and hooey! Men are not demigods and people should not use men or male culture as the base line / default position to determine value.
@ okrapod:
So just now as I was having a slice of rosemary bread with olive oil dip for breakfast I have had a thought regarding the question of why people including women are attracted to comp doctrine. Never mind that comps go to extremes and can be abusive, they also continue to make room for women as women even though it may be in ways which would not appeal to a lot of people. Maybe this is what some women see in comp–let me be a woman. That last phrase I think I remember was used by Elizabeth Elliott when she replied to one offer of a faculty position at Gordon-Conwell. The told her, IIRC, that they “needed?” women or a woman on the faculty and she said no you don’t, basically, not on those terms and based on that thinking. That is one of the small number of things that I agreed with Elizabeth about, the idea that somebody was needed on a faculty for their gender rather than for their experience and expertise.
@ okrapod:
And oh yes, she also wrote a whole book on the subject with that title. I have not read the book and just remembered it. I do wish I could remember faster; these addenda are driving me to distraction.
Climbing:
Lesley and I had an interesting evening tonight working on red-pointing a couple of harder routes (a 6c for me and a 6b for her). We both cracked some awkward moves we’d not done before, so although we didn’t get to the top of anything (other than the friendly jug-hauls we use for warming up/down on!), it went quite well. I think, however, that in order to send this 6c properly I’m going to have to train a bit more on strength endurance. It’s on a slab, so there are a couple of hands-off rests, but none of the holds are positive – they’re all rounded with no real edges – so you really have to maintain finger-tension just to stay on and it’s quite pumpy.
I’m thinking of eating some of my earlier words regarding how Kevin the Route can’t possibly be 7a. Given the number of times I’ve failed to repeat it, maybe it is! Fell off it twice tonight, though in both cases, it was because my left foot was out of position. It is a hard route, certainly, and one that I can only do if I get the technique exactly right.
IHTIH.
ION:
I am having dinner with the former Archbishop of Canterbury in two weeks’ time.
Seriously! The occasion is the 2016 Annual Edinburgh Dinner for members of Magdalene College, Cambridge; Rowan Williams is the current Master of the College and is hosting the dinner. Now, obviously, there will be others beside myself there; but I very much hope to get at least a couple of minutes’ decent conversation. I rather think I could learn something.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
What does it mean ‘members of Magdalene College?”
@ okrapod:
The “membership” of a Cambridge college comprises everyone who has studied and/or taught there (some people do both, of course). I studied there from 1986-1989.
Dr Williams stepped down as Archbishop to become the Master of the college about 3 years ago. According to the ancient rules of Cambridge etiquette, members of the college address him as “Master”. I’m not sure how easily that sits with him, never mind with me.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
NT Wright has shared some really neat stories about him and how down to earth he is.
@ okrapod:
Totally agree with this….it reminds me of a group of scholarly black teens at a magnet school here insisting they are not affirmative action students. They did the work and earned their position.
@ okrapod:
I just don’t see it as ‘competing” but acceptance as equals even in spiritual matters. I do see the good points of the article but am not ready to praise it as some great thing for Muslim women. I still believe Islam is not good for women, overall.
Would we praise all women churches here? All male churches? Or would we find the need for them the real problem? I don’t think there is synagogue here that separates anymore.
okrapod wrote:
I agree with this in certain situations but it was a huge pet peeve of mine in private Christian elementary school.
There was this constant push for the girls to only play with girls and sit with them during lunch. Whereas my daughter was more interested in collecting rocks with the boys and playing basketball. She also preferred to sit with the boys at lunch. After all, one of them had pictures of his chickens he loved to talk about. Far more interesting than the princess frou stuff. I was shocked at the lengths this very moderate ecumenical private school went to segregate the genders in elementary school.
I see males as potential friends and associates. I was raised that way.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
You may meet some friends of mine 🙂 Dr Ruth Gray held Rowan’s former post until recently. Have fun.
okrapod wrote:
exactly.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Keep practising, then you’ll be ready for Point Perpendicular:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJOoPZEhJkk
@ Haitch:
More Point Perpendicular – you’ll have to leave the red wine glass at home Nick. Double dare you !
https://www.thecrag.com/climbing/australia/point-perpendicular
numo wrote:
So? Not sure I follow why that Is always a good thing in light of male/female equality? A female Imam to males? Let me know when you find that tradition. :o)
@ Lydia:
Look, you will find no women rabbis in the world of Orthodox Judaism, where women are sequestered from men in the synagogue. And are not encoraged to pray. And who *must,* per most Orthodox interpretations of Torah and Talmud, keep their heads covrred at all times, and who wear either wigs or headscarves for that purpose. Women are ritually unclean for much of the month in ultra-Orthodox (haredi) practice, and they literally cannot touch their husbands during that time.
And so on. You will find similar practices in some faction or another in every single world religion. Why you keep attacking *all* of Islam for this reason is beyond me. It gets tedious, and I’m weary of it. (By which i mean the kind of blanket condemnation that you make here. Reasoned arguments are fine, but this… no.)
It would be best if i left this discussion, which is what i plan on doing.
okrapod wrote:
Hey. I was just scanning some comments and found this. This is fantastic and certainly applies to athletics. Women don’t have to perform to a male standard to be great athletes. Apples and oranges! Okay, back to watching the Oscars.
Lydia wrote:
Since when do practitioners of other religions and in other places and for that matter since when did christians in the US have to meet current US secular political behavior goals in the practice of their religion instead of their own religions goals and values? Who made Uncle Sam the pope? Since when is title ix the religious ten commandments?
IMO this is going to be increasingly a battleground here in the US.
@ okrapod:
They don’t have to meet any US litmus test. I am confused why you think that. I work with refugees all the time who are not going to assimilate anytime soon. Perhaps not even the next generation. It is something we are going to have to accept. But I am not going to present it as a good thing for them or us, especially the girls.
But, I am still not sure why this was presented as something we should see as great. Isn’t that a bit of a cultural litmus test, too? So what if one person on a blog does not see it as progress and points out why they think that? I just don’t get gender segregation for adults as something to celebrate.
@ numo:
As I said, I have asked around the Jewish community here and they do not know of a segregated synagogue. I am sure they exist in many places And I accept it as freedom of worship. I am at a loss as to why I need to view it as a good thing.
Just because one disagrees does not mean they want to do anything else about it except disagree. I gave an opinion. It does not mean I see Uncle Sam as a pope or want to lead a crusade to shut down gender segregated worship.
@ okrapod:
Thanks for this. While i think it would be great for *all* religious traditions to view men and women as equals, i cannot reasonably expect it, not when my own religion has such deep-seated problems with it.
@ Lydia:
You are not getting what i said about *Orthodox* (and especially ultra-Orthodox) sects. Reform Judaism ordains women to the rabbinate, and many Conservative synagogues don’t segregate or outrightly sequester women, although they cannot pursue rabbinivcal studies.
And just because i stated facts about certain segments of Orthodox Judaism (here, in Canada and abroad) does not in any way mean that i *agree* with their practices – only that they exist. You visit NYC, go to certain parts of Brooklyn and Queens, and you might as well be in early 20th c. Europe. The more severe haredi sects tend to use Yiddish rather than English for ordinary conversation, too… there are many adults (men and women) who are not literate in English. This is *not* true of the more modern Orthodox, who are pretty well integrsted into society, but it is true of harefi Jews, regardless of sect.
The point I’m making: blanket condemnations just shouldn’t apply. If anyone were to go by the actions and practices of *some* people in every major world religion, taking them as representative of *all* adherents, then no religion would pass your litmus test, xtianity included.
As i said last evening, there is no point in attempting to discuss this ehen you or others make blanket condemnations of millions of people, which is what you did. I have no time for it.
Lydia wrote:
I think that gender segregation for adults has its place. For example, I think that the masons are into pseudo-religious stuff that their naysayers have grounds to object to, but I do not think that the issue of it’s being a male only movement is really anybody’s business but theirs. I have no quarrel with the Episcopal Church Women being gender segregated, or with some Chinese muslim women doing their own thing, apparently with the blessing of their muslim community.
I noticed in SBC when the local mega replaced gender segregated SS classes with combined classes (that was back when I was there for a while) the move went a long way toward silencing the women. I don’t see that as a good thing for either the men or the women. There is significant accepted societal pressure for married couples to at least make some pretense of agreeing with each other in public, and in combined SS classes that cuts out the opportunity for people who want to have a chance to have their say to actually present their opinion be they men or women. That is not a good thing as I see it.
Who says that what a woman has to say either is worthless unless there is some man there to hear what she has to say or else is so prone to heresy that some male must be there to correct her? No thanks to either idea.
numo wrote:
okrapod wrote:
To be honest, I didn’t feel free to have my say even in a women’s Bible study. To disagree with the person teaching would be considered rude. Bible study was like another sermon with the pastor’s wife teaching instead. Only those in lock step position with what the leaders believed would be allowed to teach.
@ Bridget:
Numo’s quote isn’t supposed to be attached to that comment. I didn’t know it was.
Bridget wrote:
I do hear that it has come to that, and that is seriously wrong. I notice you also use the term ‘bible study’ and I wonder if the whole concept of what used to be SS has changed along with the name? I have been too long gone from that tradition to know what is going on now.
numo wrote:
I think we have here an example of the tendency of some people from a more evangelical background to see things differently than some people from a moderate or liturgical background. There is more of an all or nothing response I think among evangelicals. Sometimes that can be good, but the fundamentalists definitely carry it too far.
I have seen hard core alcoholics become hard core fundamentalists, and I have seen hard core fundamentalists become hard core atheists. I am thinking about Bart Ehrman, who was an all out fundamentalist until he says that he could not find within scripture/christianity the answer to suffering and he now describes himself as an agnostic atheist, but he still talks like hard core people talk, regardless of what side of the fence he is on; IMO he is still a fundamentalist only playing for a different team so to speak, but he cannot walk away from the idea of all or nothing-a comprehensible non-refutable answer or reject the whole concept seems to be where he is.
Anyhow, I agree with what you are saying about religions.
okrapod wrote:
My background is not Baptist of any flavor. So SS as you knew it was never in my world. Sunday morning church was always a 2-3 hour meeting with no SS. Bible study was a different day, sometimes mixed men and women. Women’s Bible study was a different offering.
@ Bridget:
That does look like a whole different system.
Here is a thought.
Based on yesterday’s sermon on the sovereignty of God at my non-calvinist church I have been reading up on that concept from different viewpoints this morning.
So, the question is, are there those who are the elect who live and die in other religions, or in the case of the material I was reading in other christian traditions, but who none the less die in a state of grace no less elect than any of the other elect?
In other words, are there elect and therefore ‘saved’ muslims, jews, catholics, protestants and even pagans (they used that word) based on the sovereignty of God?
okrapod wrote:
Now you are going to scare some people, the very ones who hang every word on the sovereignty of God as “they” know it. 😉
Bridget wrote:
Well, I certainly have had my own thinking stretched already. I plan to personally pursue the available information for a few days and get some idea of what I think.
Bridget wrote:
Even if you do make it known that you disagree with something said or taught in a segregated women’s class, it doesn’t matter, anyway. What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!
Nancy2 wrote:
It is worse than that. People stop associating with you because you don’t believe like everyone else on the secondary issues. You are shunned within the body.
@ okrapod:
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. I have seen people go from being hardcore fundies to well, hardcore fundies (fundy Protestant to fundy Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, atheist…). Without missing a beat, and certainly without realizing that they’ve traded one kind of fundamentalism for another.
A propos of this, Peter Enns has a vety good post on his blog about tolerance for ambiguity (within oneself and one’s own life experience) and how that might translate into categories of belief (regardless of whst one believes) – see http://www.peteenns.com/blog
@ numo:
Direct link: http://www.peteenns.com/tolerance-for-ambiguity-a-sign-of-christian-maturity/
PSA
Some nonprofit trafficking prevention and justice organizations are pointing to this newspaper article that discusses Level 1 Megan’s Law offenders aging off the registry. In 1996 the first of NY State’s Level 1 perpetrators were placed on the registry to be in compliance with the federal mandate to enact Megan’s Law, an amendment to the 1994 Jacob Wetterling Act signed by the President on May 17, 1996. Apparently Level 1 Megan Law criminals are the people who meet the 20 year requirement this year, 2016, and will no longer be tracked (if they do not abscond to fulfill more predatory acts).
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/for-first-time-low-level-sex-offenders-are-aging-off-new-yorks-registry-20160228
ION:
Finally repeated Kevin the Route at the climbing wall tonight!
Didn’t quite manage the tricky red 6b+ on the slabs, though missed by only a single move this time. The odd moment of the evening was trying out the new pink route on Line 20 and discovering that the provisional grade of 6a+ is a complete sandbag – it’s easily 6b+!
IHTIH
Interesting to see that you are cannibalizing one of your own and Paul Dosche is the main course. You should feast richly on that carcass.
When you say it out loud, one half of “evolution” is “evil”. Clearly, They don’t want you to know that.
Just sayin’.
numo wrote:
Indeed numes. It really is a pattern, I mean the jumps from extreme to extreme. There’s a show host on ixtian radio here in So. Cal. who brags about how he was a ‘new age practitioner’ at one time, and how he’s ‘totally on fire for the Lord’ at present. And then there’s the former fundagelicals on you tube who are now strident atheists. I think Dylan had the best focus with these lyrics:
…In a soldier’s stance, I aimed my hand
At the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I’d become my enemy
In the instant that I preach
My existence led by confusion boats
Mutiny from stern to bow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now…
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Maybe in british english if you use e as in eternity I guess if you all do that. We don’t do that. We use e as in bet.
Hardcore people do tend to remain hardcore.
It works both ways. I read years ago an article or interview (cannae mind which the noo) by a vociferous anti-racism campaigner. He’d started his adult life as a far-right, hardline racist neo-national-socialist. Then, as chance would have it, he found himself working alongside a black man. It didn’t take long for him to realise that this chap was a human being just like he was. Hey presto: a radical change of direction followed.
In his case, I certainly give credit where it is due; at least he was persuaded by evidence rather than just scratching a new ideological itch!
And maybe that does lie behind a proportion of extreme about-turns among radicals. That is, a “seven-year-itch” or something similar. They’re wedded to an ideology; they age a bit; the ideology gets a little boring; they’re ready for a change; a new one comes along in the right place at the right time; and a “Damascene conversion” happens. Except it’s not really a conversion.
okrapod wrote:
I realise that. But, of course, that just plays into Their hands.
O.K. I have a bit of a decision to make regarding accepting a friend’s invitation. She is an acquaintance at church, and someone I’d like to get to know better. She invited a bunch of folks over, and although she initially suggested playing cards, alas, another friend suggested watching the movie War Room. I had not intended to see the movie, and in reading online reviews, I discovered that, in addition to the shoddy art and poor theology, there is a suggestion that the wife could have been partly to blame as the cause of her husband’s abuse, and that turned my stomach. I hate being a part of groups in which I will be the lone naysayer. No fun for anyone. I have had other good times with some of the folks. Maybe I”ll go help her set up and leave when they put the movie on.
@ Former CLCer:
I don’t know anything about “War Room” other than the summary of the plot on Wikipedia, so I can’t comment on its merits or otherwise. But I wouldn’t personally trust online reviews from people I don’t know. I don’t mean I will on principle believe the opposite of what the online reviews say, which means it must be a great film. I mean that I won’t draw any conclusions from the reviews. The film might not actually suggest the wife is responsible for her own mistreatment. It might, for instance, contain that accusation, but put it clearly in the mouth of the husband, who might in turn be portrayed as a weak, philandering scumbag who is rescued from his own stupidity by the spiritual authority of his wife. The idea that “it’s her fault” might, in other words, be roundly named and shamed and sent home with its pasty white rump soundly tanned. Or the reviews might be correct, and the film, a steaming sheep of height.
“IHTIH” – but it’s not, of course! I, too, hate being the lone naysayer, and on top of that, my brain works by reflecting on and sifting evidence until I’ve reached a reasoned conclusion I’m clear about. That means I’m hated by both/all sides in polarised shootouts, and also that I don’t deal quickly with objections from left field. All of which might be entirely irrelevant to you…
I would decline to watch the film on the above grounds; and carry on having good times with some of the folks, whilst finding more opportunities to get to know the people better. That’s for no other reason than it plays to my strengths.
I’m interested to know what your decision is, though…
@ Former CLCer:
Looking at what Nick said, and also going to Wiki for the limited information that I have, and knowing that somebody has especially set up the occasion and invited people over, and-here is the most telling part-having the particular personality that I have-I would for sure go see the movie under those circumstances. No way would I let myself not see it especially knowing that person/persons that I want to know are watching it.
It looks sappy and childish to mean, and I want to say that life does not typically work out like this, but it is entirely possibly that parts of it may be just what somebody in that group needs to hear and it may be a conversation starter.
And how would it hurt you to watch it? I think that we cannot run away from things like this especially if they are off base. But that is my personality and my way of functioning.
I do so admire what Nick says, but when he talks about waiting to be sure about something that is where he and I differ. He has his calling and I have mine. I have no idea of your personality or calling but I do think that both Nick and I are correct and I also think that there are several ways of being correct in this situation. Listen to your heart/conscience and that will almost certainly be correct for you.
okrapod wrote:
error: ‘to me’ not to mean
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I don’t think so…
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/war-room-2015
Takes on the centrality of the abuse – the whole movie turns on the lead being abused by her husband.
@ okrapod:
The abuse is *the* centrsl plot point, and the “advice” that the abused woman is given could just get her killed, in real life.
Could provoke a good discussion on the realities of domestic abuse, maybe. But if I were being pressured to see this, i would not be happy about it. It is a propaganda film, really.
A quote from the film:
“Learn to duck so God can hit him.”
No. words.
@ Lydia:
I can see either side to the gender segregation thing.
In American cultural context (in average joe public schools and up to university level), teachers tend to pay more attention to male students, take male students more seriously, and get the males engaged in participation than females (there are numerous studies online that verifies all this).
I remember being in classes as a teen and called on by the teacher to give an answer or work a math problem on the board in front of the whole class.
If I fumbled an answer or got it wrong, many of the males in class would ridicule me, point and laugh at me, or crack jokes to make me feel bad.
Female students generally don’t humiliate or mock other students for making mistakes, like the guys do.
There were times I would have felt more comfortable being in all-female classes, due to considerations such as that.
If women were treated equally and given as much respect and consideration as the male students in U.S. classrooms (and around the world) – if there were no gender bias – I think educating the boys and girls together would be okay.
But I can see how sticking both genders in the same class room can be detrimental to some female students.
@ Daisy:
But P.S. I can also see how the motives should be taken into consideration.
Some religious traditions believe that the female gender is sinful, second class, and/or harlot temptresses, which is why they won’t permit women into the same classes/ rooms as men. That rationale I do have a problem with.
@ numo:
That movie looks to be quite disturbing. Although I’m the type who would watch it so that I can share a different perspective than what the movie is promoting. I realise this is not for everyone.
It is beyond me why a wife in this situation is held to an outrageous standard while the husband is free to abuse her!!!! Why is he not held to a higher standard?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yer’ crackin’ me up again laddie! But yeah, your comment is well reasoned and well put together.
@ Bridget:
I hear you, but i think I’d end up getting angry and have to walk out. I certainly wouldn’t pay $$$ to see this, and i find it a bit weird that someone would elect to change a games day into a “you must watch this” event… though who knows the reasoning behind it? They might genuinely think that this is a good movie.
@ Bridget:
Because he is biologically male, and she isn’t. Patriarchal, in a word.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I haven’t seen that movie either, but I saw interviews with the actors promoting it on Christian network TBN and read reviews of it.
Some of the reviews say that War Room teaches women that they can pray domestic violence away.
Which is a dangerous message to send, because usually, prayer does bupkiss (nothing) to stop DV.
Christian Movie War Room: You Can Fix Your Abusive Husband through Prayer
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/09/christian-movie-war-room-you-can-fix-your-abusive-husband-through-prayer.html
@ numo:
That is exactly the point. This looks to me like a golden opportunity to present an alternative way of looking at the situation to the women at the gathering, and it is for sure that there will be some sort of opportunity to do so. Opportunities to ‘witness’ as it were to whole groups do not come along all that often, and this looks like it has dropped out of heaven for the person who wants an opportunity to oppose this sort of thinking.
Even if no such opportunity arose at the time, seeing the movie would give people like me the opportunity to see what they were saying and the time to develop some ways to counteract some of the more vulnerable assumptions of the people who made the movie. How can one defeat an idea unless one has really listened closely to what the proponents of that idea are actually saying while at the same time listening to what the target audience is thinking?
There are psychological theories about how people differ like this, but those who want to avoid a situation like this and those who want to plunge into it are very different sorts is some aspects. I don’t think that either way is more right for everybody, but I do think this is an example of what Polonius was telling Laertes about being true to one’s own self.
Ah, it is on you tube. I don’t have 2 hours right now to put into it but I will have time tomorrow morning, so I plan to watch it. If it is unendurable I will be honest and let you all know.
@ okrapod:
Please do let us know!
And yes, it takes all kinds. ; )
Former CLCer wrote:
I received a similar invitation last year to attend with a pentecostal friend at the cinema to watch it. I think I put a query out on TWW at the time also. A quick google showed me the producers were the Kendrick Bros – Courageous and Fireproof were previous films. I have seen these films pushed by those with harsh theology and “woman ye must submit” thinking. So I ran for the hills…
I like the fairness and open-mindedness of the other responses to you, I’m not so.
I have a query of my own – an aunty who never writes or rings suddenly got in contact and said she was sending me a great book – and I just received it last week. No message, just the book by Richard Sigmund, “My time in heaven: a true story of dying…and coming back”.
This is an aunty who painted “Jesus is Lord” on her roof to witness to the pilots and passengers flying over, and loves Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn and Zionism because “the bible has prophesised it so”.
Should I even attempt the book just to be, I don’t know, fair? Or send her a link like this and tell her thanks, but I’ve joined the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/weddings-legalised-for-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/7208662
I don’t want to be too flippant, but I find it invasive, inconsiderate, and disrespectful of where I may sit on these matters now? (not that I’d ever get a chance to say so).
@ Haitch:
I’d be inclined to thank her for thinking of you, etc., but just politely let the rest go by without comment. It’s a tricky thing, but you really don’t want to rabble-rouse in this case, do you? (Unlike with, say, that movie, and yes, it’s “Woman, submit!” to the Nth degree.)
@ Haitch:
I wouldn’t dignify it with the word “theology,” either, but that’s just me.
@ numo:
Yeah, but that means I have to send the book back and….. argh ! I feel like I’m in my own very special episode of Black Books with this one. I don’t know why it’s so triggering, but it really sets me off. Maybe it’s better than not being in contact for fifteen plus years and suddenly contacting me to buy Amway or something.
@ Haitch:
Why would you have to send it back? I’m confused here…
@ numo:
Um, well I really don’t want to keep it. It’s a gift I don’t want. And I only chuck John Piper books, most other books are really hard to chuck if good money has been paid for them. Confession time – I’m a bit of a book hoarder.
@ Haitch:
Another book hoarder here, though not of books like this one. I think sending it back might really hurt her feelings, but you know her and I don’t. Otoh, do you think that maybe she has some idea that this book is, well, total fiction? And that other books like it have been discredited? (I mean, how can….?? But I digress!)
@ Haitch:
That is kind of an odd way of getting in touch, but I had to laugh at the illustration of painting her roof. I think we get the picture of her personality, and she would probably be more set off by you sending the book back. I personally like your second option.
@ Former CLCer:
Same here (roof and options).
Dag gone a milk cow. I went back to watch War Room and the site was one of those scams where they say the movie is free and about a few minutes in they tell you it is not free—I hate it when they do that. Okay, if I can find it free I want to watch it, but otherwise I am not going to watch it until it is free. I apologize for being such a you tube sucker.
@ Haitch:
If it was Amway, you’d be in much worse shape! Back in the early 80s, some friends of mine were invited to a dinner by an old friend who had just gotten back in touch after many years. They were happy to go, but dismayed to find out that it was *all* an Amway pitch, and included the “friend’s” insistence that the apostle Paul would buy these products.
@ okrapod:
I think that happens *all* the time. People spam Youtube with those kinds of videos constantly.
@ Former CLCer:
A friend of mine that hates this sort of thing was invited by her SS class to see it and have dinner. Her take( I have not seen it and probably won’t) on the premise is her dedication to prayer changes her husbands behavior.
My friend was appalled. So she asked the group over dinner: What if many years later, after fervent prayer, he never changes? Is it God’s fault, her faulty prayers or the husband. She said it was quite a discussion. Her view is leave the jerk and pray from a distance…. if you want.
There is this constant focus in Christianity that certain people are not responsible for their behavior toward others. I just don’t get it.
@ Daisy:
I was really thinking in terms of adults and gender segregation. Although I do think some churches and Christian schools are ridiculous when it comes to gender segregation for non academic reasons. It is like they are saying, “don’t think pink”. Girls have to lunch with girls in elementary school and such.
A 60 year old woman told me her new 31 year old pastor would not meet her at Starbucks for a talk. He would have to bring his fiancé. I suppose he either thinks she is an animal or he does not trust himself in Starbucks.
Thanks for the comments everyone. I would love to be the type of person that Lydia’s friend is, who can feel confident enough in my opinions and beliefs to initiate a discussion like that. Right now I’m feeling not that strong, due to some work stressors, but we’ll see how the rest of the week goes.
Lydia wrote:
I thought your friend might be in my SS class until you brought in the past tense of the situation. My class is hosting a dinner followed by a showing of this atrocity in the near future, and I’ve already made plans to not watch it.
@ Josh:
Oh man – how much time needs to elapse before you can gracefully leave this church? I feel for you.
numo wrote:
Glad I wasn’t eating when I read this comment – ROFL + LOL !
@ Former CLCer:
Thanks Former CLCer and numo – I think I’ll make out that it was a loan and return it after a certain period of time – with my thanks and unceasing gratitude, etc etc. I”ll tell her I’ve joined FSM and have started wearing a colander on my head.
It’s just odd to me as there’s no relationship there, and then out of the blue….
@ Haitch:
well, it *is* odd, but I guess she wants to make sure that you go to heaven…
numo wrote:
I only believe in a heaven for dogs, oh well.
@ Haitch:
I believe in an afterlife, but I don’t think we know much about it (based on what little Jesus said in the Gospels). Only that there are “many mansions,” etc. Imo, that includes plenty of room for animals!
@ Haitch:
i don’t believe in hell. Eternal conscious torment – no way. No merciful deity would inflict such horrors on people, I don’t think.
In Other News:
Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3 has been used to measure an unprecedented redshift of 11.1 for an obscure and inconceivably distant galaxy with the unromantic name of GN-z11. The practical upshot of this is that, 6000 years ago, God made it appear that GN-z11 is 13.4 billion light-years away – that is, he made its light appear to have been travelling for 13.4 billion years in order to reach us.
IHTIH. (It’s certainly interesting.)
numo wrote:
That’s the double-headed crunch – am trying to understand folks who have unswerving assurance of where they’re going next, and who think they know exactly what it’s going to be like. I’m happy to live with uncertainty.
@ Haitch:
How can anyone *know* exactly what it will be like? Revelations (which is highly allegorical and full of obscure symbolism), notwithstanding, there is next to xip about the afterlife in the Gospels and epistles. Paul seems to have been granted a vision of some of it, but he is pretty well mum on the subject, and Jesus doesn’t exactly provide many specifics, either. Because maybe we don’t need them, I’m thinking. I doubt it is terribly describeable, and that’s OK with me, really.
Certainly, popular ideas of “heaven” are not only unappealing, but vastly overrated, imo.
numo wrote:
Nor do I numes. Even apart from notions of mercy and non-mercy, why create and maintain a monument to the hatred and cruelty of the Devil? The very things he (the devil) stands for?
numo wrote:
I have no desire to go to fundagelical heaven.
Muff Potter wrote:
Muff Potter wrote:
How could one avoid Al Mohler or CJ Mahaney in fundagelical heaven? :o) the list seems endless.
Josh wrote:
Perhaps this is the in thing for SS classes right now. I don’t have one anymore so am safe. One thing I failed to mention about my friend is she has a great support system, awesome husband and is a no nonsense social worker who has seen a lot of junk. She is very down to earth in her beliefs. She has one foot in their long time church and one foot out because of all the ridiculousness from the immature YRR pastor. She can hold her own and has already been whispered about as a troublemaker. She doesn’t care. Her husband is fed up, too. Now they leave right after SS and the whole family enjoys more time for tennis, weather permitting. I love it.
Former CLCer wrote:
Dear one, it is not worth it. It is healthier to build confidence far away from that sort of junk. It is weird but I am not around anyone else who is talking about the movie except that one person who was appalled at the premise.
@ Muff Potter:
That makes two of us!
@ Lydia:
Fundagelical heaven is almost always a one-dimensional proposition. It is always someplace you ‘wanna get to’, ‘when I get to heaven’, ‘when we get to heaven’ type of thing, with little or no connection to this world in the here and now.
The Jewish notion of Olam Ha-Ba (the world or worlds to come) makes way more sense to me because it’s about the best of what this world has to offer by way of continuation into the next.
I saw a post the other day over at SBC Voices that J.D. Greear of Summit Church, a multi-site megachurch in the Raleigh-Durham area, will be nominated for SBC President this year. The comments are glowing about his candidacy. Summit is an Acts 29 church. Deebs, there might be a story there.
Summit is also a 9Marks church
I asked this question on the Greear SBC Presidential announcement over at SBC Voices:
From the OP:
“26 church plants the last five years in conjunction with NAMB”
Since Summit Church is an Acts 29 church, how many of those plants were in conjunction with Acts 29?
William Thornton, the author of the piece responded as follows:
You could ask the church. NAMB doesn’t ask or keep records of all affiliations and funding sources although one SEND city coordinator said that he makes himself aware of what NAMB sponsored churches are doing in this regard. The narrative offered by NAMB critics is that any ACTS29 connection makes the church ipso facto unacceptable as an SBC sponsored church. I reject that reasoning.
Summit is indeed listed as an A29 church (on the A29 website). So what?
It hasn’t happened yet but look for certain SBCers to begin the slow, grinding process of criticism of Greear and Summit.
*************************************************************************************
It’s my opinion that there may be a story there.
Muff Potter wrote:
Boy oh boy Muff have we (fundagelicals) got some clobber verses for you!
ION: I’ve moved over to Firefox and the font in the comment box has completely changed.
Ken P. wrote:
Ken P, you may wish to email this information to Dee?
FYI – some insight and opinion into Cardinal George Pell’s testimony this week to Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2016/03/05/cardinal-george-pells-royal-commission-testimony/14570964002967
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/opinions/item/6813-has-the-bell-finally-rung-for-cardinal-george-pell
So, I finally persuaded Lesley to watch The Babadook (on Netflix) tonight. Ordinarily, horror films aren’t her thing. But she saw why I think this one is so good, and why I consider it a “feel-good” movie.
On a personal level, it’s an extraordinarily many-layered examination of grief, rage and loss. On a purely cinematic level, it’s what The Shining could have been with a decent screenplay.
numo wrote:
I vacillate between wanting to flee town tomorrow and feeling like “Haters can hate, but I have as much right to be here as anyone else, so I’m staying until they kick me out.” Anyhow, they’re moving toward affiliating with the SBC, and if they ask for comments, look out!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Thanks for the laugh, Nick! 😀
So I know the thread has moved on, but here is the end result of my saga about whether I should go see the movie War Room at my acquaintance’s house. I had pretty much decided not to go, mostly because my work has been very stressful and I need to look for a new job. (Five employees resigned in the last week and, as one of them said, the asylum has been taken over by the inmates.) I attempted to call my friend that I was going to drive with, and had to leave her a message. This friend was in CLC with me, and is generally on the same page as me, although very different in personality from me. She left me a message back that I can work on my resume tomorrow and she’ll pick me up at 6:30. I called her back and was like, “What?” I told her no, I was going to stay home and needed time to recover from my week. It was not a pleasant conversation because she kept pressuring me, and I kept asking her why she was doing that. She normally is easy going and doesn’t pressure anyone. She wouldn’t tell me, so I hung up and just wanted to cry. So I called her back and she said she didn’t have anything against me, but felt I need more fellowship. Ugh! I told her I do want more fellowship, but what I didn’t tell her is that I feel like it’s difficult to find people who are on the same page as I am. And she definitely didn’t fit that category today. It’s sad because I do like my church and think it’s pretty healthy, so I don’t know why I’m running into people who want to watch War Room and want to guilt me into things. That’s my saga for the evening. Now I feel worse than I did before and definitely not relaxed, like I wanted to be.
@ Former CLCer:
Oh gosh, I’m so sorry – and I know the feeling.
Guilting people into doing things is such an unkind thing to do. Have you considered visiting some churches that are not part of evangelical culture/the evangelical and/or charismatic world? You might find a better fit elsewhere, I’m thinking, where nobody is after you to have to “be in ‘fellowship'” and the like. It’s a big world out here!
@ Former CLCer:
So how is watching a movie together being “in fellowship” anyhow – it’s like being out together at a cafe but reading the newspapers or your phone.
I feel that if this person was genuinely interested in you, they would have dropped their need (to get you to see the film) and offered to help you to get your next job, whether that be by leaving you alone to update your resume, or offering to search, etc. I’m sorry that she has got so much earwax she can’t listen or meet your needs. Here’s some to input to your ‘mind palace’ (ref: Sherlock!) that you can disappear to mentally and help you to relax and make the guilts go away ! http://www.lefayresorts.com/
Thanks guys. I do feel like I”m at a place in life where I’m not finding people I can enter into a mutually caring relationship with, and that’s very frustrating. I was out of commission friend-wise for three years while I was in school, and now I’m in the midst of a big transition. I’m not sure I”m ready to go outside the evangelical culture, but we’ll see how life goes. @Haitch, I do agree that when people really care, those are the things that they do. I used to have that, but not so much any more. Thanks for the validation, and support.
@ Ken P.:
JD Greear is in the inner circle. They are choosing the generation they groomed as the gurus for power. Thornton is like the cop telling folks to “move on, nothing to see here’ at the wreck that is the SBC.
I saw Greears CP Summit church stats for 2008. They were something under 2% of his very rich mega budget. I compare that with tiny churches who have historically given 10%.
He is totally qualified by the rules of the Calvinistas. He is a celebrity and very cool. This will help the SBC “brand” because he is all about “branding” and image management.
If you want shallow you don’t have to go any further than the new Calvinized SBC.
@ Former CLCer:
Are there things that you’re interested in that don’t have direct connections to church – maybe something like (pulling things out of my hat (cooking, martial arts, reading, etc.? Because I’m wondeting if a low-key class or meet-up (see meetup.com, it’s for social activities) might not be a good idea. Would give you the opportunity to make friends with some folks who have common intetests, I’m thinking.
I totally agree with Haitch, btw, about that person not really caring about you. Pushing people in that way is insensitive, not to mention downright rude.
@ numo:
Btw, i was thinking tai chi, not karate, but whatever works!
@ numo:
I do have some interests like walking and also thought about learning another instrument. Those are good ideas. If I could get a less stressful job I might have more time for those things, and can have more options and be more selective about who I hang out with. I seem to attract the needy type of people.
The friend who was pressuring me is an old friend who seems to be getting more rough edges as she ages, unfortunately. Hard to see and experience.
numo wrote:
I have found that true friends come in all sizes, shapes, colors and religions. In fact, some of the best people I’ve ever known have no religion. Common interests aside from religious dogma and constraints are in my opinion a better way to bond with other people because in many cases, sources of conflict (usually religious) can be avoided from the get go.
Muff Potter wrote:
Couldn’t agree more. It was liberating and I had richer friendships when I stopped judging people as Christian or non-Christian (now they use the term unchurched, it’s still a judging mechanism) – instead I look at the heart.
I think initially some Christians can be vulnerable when seeking out new friendships outside of a “Christian cohort” if you are the kind raised to accept everybody and judge not. I think Daisy has talked about this, and I relate. We’ve had to learn how to put our guard up in the right way and protect ourselves. And really, we should have been doing this when we were only socialising with ‘Christians’ anyhow, as we were sure no safer there.
Instead, judging someone (ie, good judging) by where their heart sits and trusting my call on this has seen an opening of new friendships. That, and giving up my need to be understood.
Haitch wrote:
It sounds like the same “fellowship” model you find in a church, everyone silently facing the back of the next person’s head.
I found friends hiking and backpacking. Pick an activity that allows interaction along the way. I found true friends take time to cultivate but the enjoyment of interaction can start immediately.
Bill M wrote:
Big YES to that. And safety in numbers also. Said by someone who attracts I would think nearly all the wingnuts on the planet.
FYI: I found this audio discussion an interesting one by the new Dean of St Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney, Kanishka Raffel, particularly his thoughts on pluralism.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/spiritofthings/the-dean's-story/7192472
Muff Potter wrote:
It has been my experience that – present company excepted – most Christians are not people around whom I can feel free to open up. My non-Christian, nominally Christian, and other religion friends tend to be better listeners, not judgmental, and are more likely to have down to earth, useful advice (not liable to say “I’ll pray about it,” which is way less useful than “You should take your car to so-and-so; they fixed that obscure problem on my car last year” or whatever). Sorry, I’m tired; I hope this makes sense…
Even when I was in CLC, I found true friends in the outliers. Not sure where they’re hiding right now.
Well, it’s the first leg of the Liverpool / Manutd tie in the European Second-Class Cup tonight. I fear the worst, as Manutd have been something of a bogey team to us in recent years.
Bah.
@Christina,
You posted on Shauna & Billy’s story that you were unemployed in Colorado, having to move out of your apt., applying for work in CO and near to your parents in TX.
Some ideas:
*CO. – Contact Catholic Charities and see if you can meet with a social worker or someone there about some type of assistance to help you with moving expenses.
*Depression/Anxiety. Contact your county’s health agency and ask to speak for a nurse/nurse advice line. They can refer you to mental health professionals in your area.
*Second Harvest Food Bank. You can get food through them. They are national and located throughout the U.S.
*Debtors Anonymous.
A free group located in the U.S. and in countries around the world. They deal with issues regarding debt, under earning and some related issues (medical problems and self-care). There are in-person meetings in most major metro areas.
There are phone-in meetings and Skype meetings as well.
http://debtorsanonymous.org/getting-started/
http://debtorsanonymous.org/getting_started/index.php/find/phone_meeting
Josh wrote:
Agreed, Josh.
ION: Newcastle United have sacked manager Steve Maclaren. Naebody saw that coming.
Well… maybe a few people did. As in, everybody.
IHTIH
Muff Potter wrote:
Wow Muff, we need to get together some time and swap stories. This was one of the last things I participated in before I dropped out, it was some type of “empowerment team”.
At the time I found everything was becoming structured to be controlled by the staff, complete with permission forms for the most ludicrously small endeavors. I recall a quote from one of the well meaning volunteers on the “empowerment team”, “how come we have so many good people but none stepping forward to lead or take responsibility”. Um, you have run them off? The staff and their controls, running over people, and frustrating roadblocks revealed their definition of empowerment was something far different than mine.
Two questions:
1). Are any counseling programs at Southern Baptist Seminaries that are not Nouthetic?
2). Is there any balanced information on the John MacArthur cult? It sounds like a cult to me — especially the strong emphasis on pastoral authority and the pattern of Masters Seminary students. These students follow a pattern of taking over congregational churches by imposing rule by elder and causing church splits. Lakeside Bible Church originated by a split from Walden Community church, for example. 250 of 300 members left Walden Community church to form LBC. Walden community church is a church that is congregationally ruled. Perhaps it is time someone expose John Macarthurs false teachings without getting into Druidism and free masonry and other conspiracies.
@Christina,
Job search/work: Alison Green’s blog Ask A Manager is a good resource/community for those looking for work. (There’s a free interview guide on the right side of the screen.)
http://www.askamanager.org/
I thought that I would weigh in on what may be a touchy topic. GoFundMe. I read Christina’s admonition with mixed feelings. On the one hand, Christina is in all likelihood in dire straights but on the other the purpose of TWW is “dissecting Christian trends”.
I feel that the Deebs have done a fantastic job in that regard. What I say next may make me sound like a jerk but here goes.
In the course of their investigations, they have come across wounded people in need. In many cases, these folks were very involved in the church and due to the circumstance they are in have lost much of their emotional, spiritual, and in the recent case of Shauna and Billy there was a financial impact.
In some cases, TWW has endorsed a GoFundMe for those in need.
Dee has shared from her own life the challenge of keeping up with the blog given her own personal challenges.
I would be concerned that TWW may become overwhelmed with GoFundMe requests, legitimate and otherwise with the outcome being a focus away from Christian trends.
We give to charity in our local area and volunteer my time with the local childcare centre. Like other middle class Canadian (and I’m sure this is true in the US as well) we struggle with stagnant wages, higher cost of living and raising kids. We are limited in how much we can give and to be honest, accountability is a big part of how we give. If we don’t know where the money is being spent then we’re not inclined to support.
This is why I don’t consider the success or failure of a GoFundMe through this blog any indication of the commitment of TWW or the community that follows TWW. Nor do I think that TWW has an obligation to endorse every GoFundMe request.
TWW has recently been a great resource for me in my spiritual walk. However I feel about Christianity, church or religion, I have always enjoyed the articles and insights of both the blog and commenters alike. My comments have always been responded to with respect, I find this one of the most well managed comment sections on the web.
Kudos to TWW on seven years. You do make a difference and I look forward to your future investigations and stories.
Jack wrote:
Agreed. If Dee and Deb know the person, fine. Other than that, I’m hesitant. I was in a Sunday School class that got into an awkward situation with a new member’s request for help.
Jack wrote:
Good comment Jack. As I told Christina there were recently two valid requests for help prior to hers, so I think people may be tapped out. I am sure the Deebs want to exercise some discretion on whose needs they broadcast. They would have to conduct some research into each individual request and that all takes time.
At the end of the day each of us weighs the request with what we can afford to give. Nobody should feel guilty or compelled to give.
Numerous people have said they cannot afford to donate but will pray and that is great. I have also seen some good advice offered on finding work. All most helpful, IMO.
@ Jack:
I absolutely agree with what you are saying. We have received a fair number of requests beyond those which you see.
With my current situation at home, I do not have the resources, time or strength to investigate each and every claim. At the same time, I know some people who have been deeply hurt by their churches and I feel guilty when I ignore the requests.
Christian has a back story in which she was deeply hurt by a Christian female leader whose name you might recognize. She has felt, for a long time, ignored and not cared about. When she asked me about this, I was a bit hesitant since, currently, I am concerned about the very real needs of Shauna and Billy.
But, I didn’t want her to view the Deebs as not caring. So, I decided to play it straight and put the request up since i did not have to deal with it personally like I have done, with Shauna, Brad and Julie McMahon. I did not expect that many people would contribute nor am I planning any posts about Christina’s situation. I just wanted her to feel cared for.
Please pray for us that we make good decisions in this area. My husband says that I remind him of Deanna Troi on Star Trek TNG because I am so empathetic. Thank you for your kind comment. I promise I shall contemplate it in the coming says.
On, perhaps, a less sombre note, it is a dry and still evening here in Scotland and the Midge Season Of Horror And Death is not yet upon us. Thus, we shall have an bonfire with toasted marshmallows this evening.
IHTIH
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Mmmmm, yum….. I like my toasted marshmellows nice and charred.
Progress report:
The bonfire is crackling away nicely and the girls (wife + daughter) are about to start toasting the marshmallows. While several thousand miles of geographical separation precludes us from inviting you, @ Patriciamc, you would otherwise be welcome to join in!
IHTIH
P.S. Whilst the comment timestamp reads 5:30 pm give or take a minute or two, that’s EST – it’s 9:30 pm in Scotland. That is to say, marshmallow-toasting time.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
LOL! Thanks! I’d be there if I could!
Today is pi day. One of my grandkids is trying to break the school record in some math thing or other. Fingers crossed.
Tomorrow is primary voting day for our state. Arrgh. I would vote for the lesser evil if I could figure out who that is.
And Wednesday I get my monthly retirement money. Depending on how today and tomorrow go I may just take the money and run away from it all.
@ dee:
The church I used to attend seemed to always admonish “give sacrificially”. And I guess someone did because the pastor then stated how important it was to pay your rent. One of those” it’s funny but it’s not ” moments. If you sacrifice too much then you can’t help anyone. You could do worse than Deanna Troi. Look at poor old Worf. Never seemed to win a fight. No wonder so much repressed anger. Take care. Not sure what my prayers are worth these days but you got’em.
okrapod wrote:
Er – that would be the guy who isn’t a troll, surely?
ION:
We’ve just had our Mac upgrade to OS X “Yo, Semmerty!” at the same time as replacing the hard-drive (with its seek-time and latency) with a solid-state drive. Several things are different – not least the default font – but the now-fully-supported version of Safari we have has managed to import all the bookmarks and inputs/passwords fae Firefox.
IHTIH
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I did not upgrade to OSanything because I am afraid to do it since I am pretty clueless about all this. However, various sites now tell me that my Safari is out of date and they just wish that I would go away. I hate computers even while I like some things that can be done with computers.
I think they are like a virus the way they spread to other gadgets. In order to get the tub volume (more) and the water volume (less) I had to buy a washing machine that works like? is? a computer. I hate it even though I do have more tub capacity and use less water. Mostly I hate it because I like to control those things and not have some machine telling me what to do. Why could they not have simply put in a switch for water level and just left good enough alone! Anyhow the appliance repair people told me they hate these new ones also because of the cost of repair which is right up there close to some horror level.
I won’t get started on the car with so many gadgets and options that it thinks it is the human and I am not. Sometimes I just drive my really old pickup to remind myself that vehicles were made for man and not man for the vehicle. And yes I am using the non-gender-specific word ‘man’ to be biblically consistent with the statement I allude to. People can just get over it. The sooner the better.
All these things bother me worse today because we have sickness at our house and because I either go vote today for some person that I hope will not win the election (because, of the options on the ballot I really do not want any one of them to win) or else I stay home and refuse to vote which is something I have never done before.
Now, before anybody else gets up I must go put in the first load of wash in that blasted machine and just get control of myself and function in a world that is pushing me over some cliff. Over at church they wonder why we oldies do not stagger over there for morning prayers. I might tell them why: because they don’t let you cuss at morning prayers.
@ okrapod:
You have my sympathies. I made my career in computing but I am frustrated by the computer based gadgetry around me. Each TV set and appliance has a different acting hierarchy of menus. Even my dumb phone has multiple levels of menus and a baroquely complicated way of entering characters from a 10 digit pad.
Still, my refrigerator is 25 years old, keeps things at appropriate temperatures and won’t report a date expired carton of orange juice to the FDA.
OldJohnJ wrote:
I like that. Thanks.
okrapod wrote:
Yeah, good luck with that….
OldJohnJ wrote:
One of the cardinal rules of engineering used to be the KISS (keep it simple stupid) rule. That’s out the window now and as you’ve said, products get ever more baroque and byzantine. Wanna’ know what the grand irony is? The guys design all this ‘new and improved’ stuff actually think they’re smart.
Muff Potter wrote:
I agree absolutely. No more complicated than necessary. I think the KISS prinicple should also apply to theology. Theologians glory in the complexity of their systems but Jesus’ words were simple and direct.
Hello Nick! I see England (the cricket team) is being buffeted by the Windies Gayle-force. Wow, three sixes on the trot. Exciting stuff.
By the way, my current favourite team is the local primary school’s Under 8 mini-cricket side. No prizes for guessing who is on that team.
@ okrapod:
TBH, we got the laddie in the shop to upgrade the OS while he was swapping the hard-drive for a solid-state version. In my defence, I did upgrade the RAM a while back, on both the MacBook (which needs unscrewing to access the RAM) and the iMac (which doesn’t).
@ Estelle:
Yes; sadly, a 6-wicket defeat with more than 2 overs to spare.
I must say, your comments are surprisingly articulate for a member of an under-8’s cricket team! Good luck with the next match. 🙂
OldJohnJ wrote:
Jargon has its uses in pretty much any field, of course, because occasionally you need shorthand to describe concepts that are familiar within the field even if they’re largely meaningless outside it. But (christian) theology is a unique field: it has purpose only insofar as it bows to Jesus who was known as a friend of sinners and scum, and who chose unlettered and unlearned men as his followers. And besides, jargon can also have quite a different purpose: to exclude anyone who isn’t One Of Us.
I think there’s some evidence to support the rule-of-thumb that the more a person knows and uses theological terms that are meaningless outside the theological in-crowd, the less that person knows Jesus.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
First, the KISS acronym was spelled out in the part of Muff’s comment I quoted so I don’t think I am guilty of brandishing undefined jargon. In your closing paragraph I think you are agreeing, at least partially, with my statement about theology.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
LOL
Cricket season is over in this part of the globe. I’m due to turn into a hockey supporter from next term.
@ OldJohnJ:
I may have phrased it badly, but I promise you my comment was not a dig at your use of KISS (which, rather like LOL, is – I think – quite widely known these days). Rather, I was setting the context for my dig at theological jargon – with which yes, I entirely agree with you, only more so.
I just meant that some jargon is entirely innocent. Especially in science and engineering, it would be difficult for professional colleagues to communicate without it. Nor do they need to, because as long as the finished products work, scienteers are dealing in concepts that don’t interest the man on the street.
ION:
On-sighted four new 6a+ routes at the climbing wall tonight, having first knocked off a third ascent of Kevin The Route.
IHTIH
Hi Dee,
I just saw the note at the top of the page that on the website that your mother-in-law is being put in hospice and will stay with you and your family for the duration.
What can our group do for you and your family at this incredibly hard time?
@dee @deb
Love and hugs and prayers,
Velour
@ Nick Bulbeck:
There is a use for esoteric polysyllabic vocabulary in medicine outside of merely talking to those who may understand it and think in those terms also.
We are required to talk to patients in terms which they understand-think informed consent. If it has not been explained in everyday language then they have not been informed. So far so good. But sometimes the response you get is continued disbelief, a result I think of either they do not understand or else they do not want to understand or else they do not trust the person talking to them. Sometimes this can be solved by saying something like ‘the actual term for this is (or perhaps you have heard this referred to as..) blahblahblahzingwhizaroo.’ At which point some people do come to grips with the idea that perhaps the health care professional talking to them does in fact know something which they themselves do not know. This does not often have to be done, but on occasion it is helpful.
Note: this may have been related to the fact than in my earlier years people did not tend to think that women doctors were real doctors, and a little vocabulary wisely used helped convince them.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes. Bonhoeffer talked about going into theology as an academic discipline and accumulating an impressive knowledge of theology and then he met Jesus and everything changed. I am of course using recognizable evangelical terminology but none the less that is what happened to him.
There seem to be a lot of people who will talk about religious ideas and talk about church and even talk about God or the Holy Spirt who will not talk about Jesus outside of discussing something which Jesus might have said or taught. It may be that some people can think about God as an abstract concept (that is safe enough) or think about the Holy Spirit as merely a personal experience of some sort (again safe enough) but Jesus is neither abstract nor impersonal. And He is not safe enough, so to speak.
I have formed a diabolical habit of dropping the name (Jesus) in some conversation and then watching for what response I get. It is surprising sometimes to watch somebody recoil at that point-somebody who has been trying to talk about some ‘biblical’ or theological point. The name Jesus gets more of a reaction at that point than blahblahblahzingwhizaroo ever got at the hospital. I conclude that some people suspect at some level a lot more than they are willing to risk knowing much less commit to.
Estelle wrote:
Cricket ….. Hockey??? Pfffttt. Don’t you people know that the University of Kentucky Wildcats are playing against Stony Brook tonight in the NCAA college basketball championships? If ya don’t, I pit ya! You don’t know what you’re missin’! ; o }. GO BIG BLUE!
I will pray for DEE and her family during the hospice care of her mother-in-law. This is a difficult time as all of us know who have had a dear one in hospice, and the prayers of all who care DO make a difference.
I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting support for this family and for our dear DEE who has done so much for so many in her work on this blog. May God have mercy and bring strength to the family in this time of need.
okrapod wrote:
It’s always been thus. Do you know what the universal cuss-exclamation-epithet (spoken in English) is across all national boundaries and languages is?
“…Jesus Christ!…”
@ Christiane:
Nicely said about our dear Dee and her beloved family as her mother-in-law is in hospice.
@ elastigirl
I think King gets an undeserved reputation as a genre writer of ‘uni-horror-pulp’. His works are multi-dimensional and far from being your garden variety horror romps.
My top two favorites are:
1) Rose Madder
2) Dolores Claiborne
Both are stories of strong and courageous women with steel in their spines who beat the odds and come out on top.
The quote I used over on the other thread (stand and be true) first appeared in The Stand. It was spoken by Mother Abigail in her exhortation and blessing of four unlikely heroes who go out to confront and fight against unspeakable evil.
The exhortation (stand and be true) also appears in his 7-volume Gunslinger saga.
Muff Potter wrote:
I bought Stephen King’s book On Writing. I have never laughed so hard in my life!
Yesterday I went and saw The Young Messiah at a Cineplex in my area. Beautiful and moving are two descriptors that don’t do it full justice.
I will also say this:
The people who made Fireproof and The War Room would do well to learn from Messiah’s writers and artisans what it takes to not make a schmalzy propaganda film.
@ Muff Potter:
I have heard good things about the movie, but instead of going to the movie I bought from Amazon both books in the series. I have just finished both books. The author does a great job of blending a look at the lives that people lived then with housing and food and social interaction and such with the sporadic dangers from raiders and the way they practiced their religion and the intricacies of their kinship system. She also brings in a lot of the non-canonical legends about the young Jesus-stuff that probably a lot of evangelicals never hear of. All of this she mixes with enough imagination to create a pleasant and thought provoking work of fiction. I think this may be a good illustration of how ‘the catholic imagination’ which Andrew Greeley talked about differs from ‘the protestant imagination’.
She throws in some speculation about some issues which have been quarreled about. For example she furnished a possible reason why Joseph went to Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth. She has him answer that question by saying that he owned some property there and had to go see about some legal stuff having to do with ownership before he lost the property. Well, that is of course the speculation of a fiction writer but it does address that sticky issue smoothly.
I highly recommend both books. Christ the Lord, Out of Egypt and Christ the Lord, the Road to Cana.
okrapod wrote:
Agreed. Awhile back I heard the head honcho (on ixtian radio) at Calvary Chapel state unequivocally that Jesus never went to Britain as a teen with Joseph of Arimathea. If it ain’t in the Bible, it never happened. How can I say it nicely? I can’t. Fundagelicalism has no imagination.
okrapod wrote:
I’ve read both of Anne Rice’s books about Jesus as a young boy and thoroughly enjoyed them. Rice is a master craftswoman in the printed word.
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
~ From John’s Gospel ~
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things.
~ From St. Paul’s letter to the Phillipians ~
@ Muff Potter:
I think there are probably more serious concerns with Calvary Chapel than their lack of imagination… indeed, they can be astonishingly imaginative when it comes to creating “biblical” doctrines that suit them! 😉
As regards the thing about Jesus visiting England… I haven’t heard the radio interview whereof you spake, but it sounds like the context was a discussion of “British Israelism”. Now, I can’t say unequivocally that Jesus never visited Antarctica (or even the moon) and planted a spaghetti tree there; I think it’s unlikely, though. The theory that Jesus visited England is a kind of late medieval urban myth, seized on in the 1800’s (IIRC) by various fringe groups who wanted to believe that Britain and/or the US were the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. This, of course, they took to mean that we have special favours and privileges under the Abrahamic covenant. And this in turn leads to all kinds of unhealthy dogmas. Like any conspiracy theory, Jesus-Came-To-England-Etc idea can be supported by isolated handfuls of cherry-picked data. But there’s no credible evidence for it. By analogy: If you toss (or flip) a coin a thousand times, you’re almost bound to get a run of 5 heads in a row somewhere. So you can quietly discard all the other 995 throws and pretend you’ve got a magic coin that always lands heads.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Neither of the books I recommended said anything about Jesus going to England as a child. That was not in the early non-canonical writings, of course, as you say it being a later legend.
As to the imagination thing, Greeley was in the sociology department at the university of chicago and among other things they did a poll/study looking into whether or not there was a difference in the catholic imagination vs the protestant imagination as had been postulated by somebody or other. They asked questions like, how do you more often imagine God the Father, as a judge to whom you will have to answer or as a paternal rescuer? Assuming you hold both concepts in tension which one is more apt to be your feeling, your more frequent attitude? Stuff like that. How often are you more apt to think of Jesus as older brother vs lord and master, again assuming that your theology permits both concepts. And they did find statistical differences in the answers but not as much as some people apparently had expected. At least this is how I remember it-I read the book at the time but it has been a while.
That is a little different use of the concept of imagination, but they were not talking about fantasizing.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Agreed. And to be fair and balanced, Brodersen (CC’s head honcho after Papa Chuck’s passing) may very well have been pointing out the soundly discredited doctrine of British Israelism. Still though, I cannot fully discount Blake’s wondering:
And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
In my opinion it’s not out of the realm of what I like to call a ‘reasonable plausibility’, whereas Jesus planting spaghetti trees in Antarctica? well…
Let’s just say it’s out of the tolerance band so to speak.
@ Muff Potter:
Personally I can discount the idea that Jesus went to England or that he studied Buddhism in India as a youth or that he married and had one or more children or that he stayed with the Essenes.
But when Anne presents Jesus as somebody who kept wanting some time alone, even as a child, that may well be since scripture shows that during his ministry years he went off alone to pray habitually. Or when she presents the idea that he gradually became aware that he had special powers as he grew older, that may well be since scripture notes that he increased in knowledge as well as in stature and that he grew in the favor of God and man, which certainly is talking about a gradual process of growth.
But that is as far as I can go with speculation. It has to be something congruent with probabilities either as shown in scripture or as known historically as common during that era, like a lot of people living in the same house for example which she also describes. She also presents him as competent in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic but barely in Latin. That is reasonable given the circumstances of the era and the fact that he is portrayed in scripture as a bright child/youth and the fact that they lived in Egypt during the years when we know language is most easily learned. This linguistic skill which she presents is a distinct possibility.
Nancy2 wrote:
No, I don’t know what I’m missing, Nancy2. But I did go see the Alvin Ailey Dance Co when they came town. They were awesome!
Reader, I wish so much that I could help you w/ a non-NeoCal church in Louisville, considering I lived there for 5 years. However, my old church has become a Complementarian, NeoCal bastion of insanity, & I can hardly converse w/ any of my old friends about theology. I wish you good luck, though. 🙁
I used to go to church when it was called “Easter”. Though I’m not an attender anymore, my wife wanted to go last year, so we went and it was still “Easter”. This year it’s “Resurrection Sunday”. Looked it up and apparently “Easter” is no longer “Christian”. Apparently there’s been a reaction with Easter being deemed pagan (Something to do with Ishtar) and associated with pagan fertility rituals. Also egg painting/hunting is also pagan. News flash, all the Christian holidays were pagan at one time. Halloween has been a favourite target for quite some time, now Easter. Guess I better get rid of the Christmas display and ditch the gift giving next year. Reading the recent comments about the reader looking for a non-Neocal church and not having much luck, I would say that there is definitely a puritanical/fundamentalist bent that’s becoming more and more pronounced.
So this Easter we did not go to church, watched a movie, indulged in too many nachos and yes, celebrated the fertility gods by having an Easter egg hunt.
BTW – the Christmas display will be expanded this year.
Hope everyone had a happy Ishtar uh …Easter!
Pam Palmer, Tiffany Stanley (Washingtonian writer) and Mark Mitchell will be on the Kojo Nnamdi radio show today at 1230 Eastern Time.
https://thouarttheman.org/2016/03/31/kojo-nnamdi-radio-program-discuss-covenant-life-church-sexual-abuse-scandal/
Jack wrote:
Jack 🙂
There was a bit of a stir here because the word Easter wasn’t used on chocolates and they had halal certification…
Since when is it not good to celebrate the creation, including but not limited to springtime? If God is the creator then it would seem that celebration of it would in itself be the right thing to do, regardless of some link or lack of it to the resurrection.
And BTW, the original ‘fertility god’ said ‘be fruitful and multiple’ to humanity. That does not mean that fertility surpasses God in value, but it does mean that one must see the pagan religions as distortions and heresies when it comes to their fertility practices while at the same time recognizing that the baby birds and baby rabbits and baby humans are part of God’s design for His creation.
Happy springtime to all!
@ okrapod:
I love to celebrate the equinoxes and the solstices for the same reasons you’ve cited. After all, the Almighty himself said that they’re there to mark times and seasons.
The Easter holiday thang rears up time and time again this recently passed season of the year. Be a discerning congregant when the pulpiteer spreads old husbands’ tales regarding springtime bunnies and eggs. Golly gee, folks, those cuties are not maligning our Jesus. They’re His. I bet those curmudgeons would even have something bad to say about the unfolding beauty of Mary Gardens because they are deliberately planted and bloom during our Christian observations that fall in the spring.
PSA:
http://blogs.loc.gov/folklife/2016/03/easter-bunny/?loclr=fbafc
THIS “These covers from Puck Magazine, from the Easter issues of 1899, 1900, and 1901, were the first to feature Easter Bunnies. Notice the development of the bunnies from regular rabbits in the grass on the margins of the first picture, to a pet rabbit in the second, to the strange anthropomorphic rabbits in the third cover, walking on their hind legs and carrying Easter eggs in their paws. Click for a larger view. See the originals with their bibliographic information here [1899], here [1900], and here [1901].”
AND
“Is the Easter Bunny Associated with a Pagan Goddess? Probably Not”
“We probably shouldn’t be too hard on websites that retell old tales about Eostre and Ostara, because such stories were once widely accepted. (Here is one example each of a respectable book, newspaper, and magazine that told versions of these stories in the period after Holtzmann’s 1874 book.) But elsewhere on the Internet, in religious tracts or websites about ancient history, you might encounter other claims that were never accepted by scholars: specifically, that Easter is named for Near Eastern goddesses such as Ishtar and Astarte. These claims are based entirely on the superficial resemblance between these names and the word “Easter.” There is no evidence these claims are true, and the languages involved are not related, so such resemblances are very likely to be coincidental. These sites tend to misquote the evidence I gave above from Bede, Grimm, and Holtzmann, making the association between Ostara, Eostre, and hares genuinely ancient instead of a 19th century conjecture. Most of the other claims made on such sites (for example, that hares or bunnies were associated with Ishtar) are pure invention.
This isn’t to say that hares, rabbits, and eggs haven’t been symbols of springtime and fertility for thousands of years…of course they have. But rather than explain their association with fertility and their connection to Easter with conjectures about fertility goddesses, it would be simpler and more accurate to say that these connections arise from common observations about eggs, rabbits and hares. Rabbits and hares have large litters in the spring, and eggs likewise become more abundant, so all these symbols are naturally associated with springtime. All of them are, likewise, obvious fertility symbols, rabbits and hares because they are among the most fertile mammals, and eggs because of their role in reproduction. These observations surely underlie any customs involving eggs, rabbits, or hares in the springtime, whether ancient or modern. The association is based in everyday lived experience, not religion, so these symbols of springtime can attach themselves to any spring holiday, no matter its religious import. In short, we don’t need a pagan fertility goddess to connect bunnies and eggs with Easter—springtime makes the connection for us all by itself. [4]” Stephen Winick
@ Introvertish:
Good info to bring to light.
The last thing these pulpiteers and shamans want is for their congregants to think and reason things out for themselves. There was a time when their same ilk had the people convinced that Jews used the blood of Christian children to make their Passover matzos.
@ Introvertish:
Steve Winick is really, *really* a good folklore specialist. Thanks for posting that quote. As for ignoring baby animals, i will say that i am completely against the use of them as gifts or giveaways, but people who get offended by cute animals on Easter decorations sound a lot like the disciples who tried to keep children and infants away from Jesus.
Of course, the philosophical position regarding precious little bunny rabbits and little newly hatched chicks kind of breaks down when it comes to baby snakes which I have found from time to time in the spring time. Cultural squeamishness kind of takes over at that point. And then there is Bambi whose distant relatives devastate some gardens.
Come really bad times we are going to be eating all of them so it is best to not get too sentimental I suppose.
My little anthropomorphic bunny (<<<thank you, thank you, thank you Stephen D. Winick) and I try not to cry too too long when hell fire, snakes and deer (ooookay, then, Bambi) rain down on our Easter parade. We just pop up our parasols, take each others hand, and skip to my lou. And when the Om Nom Nom's Om Nom Nom's grow louder and scarier we just remind each other we have the world's greatest Anti-Hero on our side making our quaking (and, true confession, sometimes quacking) blessed little hearts feel all tickle-y inside again.
Did my little anthropomorphic bunny for real lay an egg just now? Whoa!
@ Introvertish:
Hey, i have an actual bun (adopted from rescue). she lives inside and is my best buddy. How about you?
@ Introvertish:
The om nomming around here is mostly of hay and bun-safe greens. I never get tired of watching bunnies eat!
Jack wrote:
I have no problem with people from way back when taking pagan ceremonies and symbolism and applying them to Christianity. That makes them not pagan anymore. I wish churches wouldn’t give in to the pagans who complain about this. Besides, Resurrection Sunday candy doesn’t have quite the ring to it.
@ Patriciamc:
The thing about the supposed goddess Eostre is… that she’s more than likely a creation of 19th c. folklorists.
If people want to get all teed off about something “pagan,” they can always target the nsmes of the days of the week. 😉
@ Patriciamc:
Not to be, um, pedantic, but i think “pre-Christian” is more accurate. Contemporary pagans are trying to recreate rituals and beliefs for which there is very little written evidence. Nobody left handbooks lying around. 🙂 The ritusls and many of the beliefs are made up pretty much out of whole cloth. (Like those “Druidic” rituals that came up here a couple of months ago.)
Favorite Dallas Willard quotes were requested at Jesus Creed on Patheos. As I entered my favs, the conversation on the TWW regarding the problem with clergy and the child abuse fell in.
Later I realized what I had done and thought FOR SURE they would delete my comment (inadvertently, I had not saved it).
Well, a day later, and the comment stands. Wow.
Here it is:
My favorite quote from Dallas Willard is, “Hello,” because right after I read Spirit of the Disciplines, I called his office and he answered. We spoke briefly about his book.
Like Jesus, he was accessible, kind, and appreciative of a reader.
My second favorite quote is: “The greatest danger to the Christian church today is that of pitching its message too low,” from the same book.
From ChurchLawandTax.com, the top reason churches end up in court from 2010-14 is the sexual abuse of a minor. How low can we go? According to the conversations on The Wartburg Watch, it isn’t all Catholics.
In the documentary The Hunting Ground, a psychologist said that as far as he knew, not one university president has said they’ll do what it takes about that issue.
It seems this way in the church with regard to the #1 issue above. Rather than outcry, there is concealment or denial.
A high school administrator friend got a call one night from a coach about hazing. He immediately contacted police. Procedure was followed by the book. He says a documentary was made about his school because they did exactly the right thing, but they are not proud of the hazing.
It takes guts, fortitude to aim high and make the difficult decisions. It is in no way glamorous. Willard was not glamorous. His last words were, “Thank you.”
@ Introvertish:
I absolutely love the 2nd part ov Winivk’s article, where he explains the PA Dutch origins of the Easter rabbit (the one that brings gifts and candy). Definitely 8ne of my,peoples’ best cultural contributions, along with shoo fly pie, apple snitz, pickled eggs and… Groundhog Day. 🙂
http://blogs.loc.gov/folklife/2016/03/easter-bunny/?loclr=fbafc
@ numo:
Love pickled eggs!
@ Muff Potter:
And pickled herring too!
@ Muff Potter:
Well now, that’s Scandinavian…
I just had to share. I’ve been watching The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, and they refer to Gosh and his son Jeepers. I love it!
I just got back from the pharmacy and there was a new pharmacist, a woman looking to be in her fifties and totally swathed in clothing except for face and hands. The clothing was also in layers judging from the layers at the wrists. The skirt was dragging the floor. We have muslims around here but I never saw anybody dressed quite like this. Her English was understandable but with an accent I did not recognize. She had northern european skin coloring-pasty white like me-and did not look like the middle east.
So I could not help but wonder what she would do if the only potty available was a multi-stall unisex potty. Can muslim women, assuming that is what she is, go to the potty with men? Usually I don’t spend time thinking about people’s potty issues, but this is trending right now in my state.
It’s Friday night and I”m bored and avoiding doing my taxes, so someone needs to start an interesting conversation!
O.K., so maybe I will. I had dinner last night with an old friend that I never see any more. We used to have some disagreement on CLC’s method of counseling, so imagine my surprise last night when I found that we are now in agreement on a lot of things about what’s been happening at CLC. She told me she was jealous that I’d met Dee and Deb, and she also told me that I probably DO have spiritual PTSD. It was a nice dinner and good validation about where I”m at and what I’ve experienced.
And to add to my comment, I also ran into another old friend from CLC on Sunday at lunch and unfortunately our whole conversation was about all the issues occurring at CLC. It’s a bit crazy. And yes, all we former CLC’ers do is go out to eat!
@ Former CLCer:
Is it not a wonderful feeling to be validated?
In other news, apparently there’s a War Room study guide – I had no idea, but then why would I? I don’t feel particularly inclined to go looking for that stuff. But I’m sure the producers make more money on merch than on the movie itself, so it was predestined to happen.
Anyhow, my SS class has decided to go through said study guide, which is doubly fun for those of us who haven’t seen the movie. Which, of course, they’ve graciously offered to show a second time for those of us who “missed out” on the first showing. I don’t know what I’m going to be doing the evening when that’s going to happen, but I’m sure it’ll be very important and exceedingly urgent.
So, uh, that study guide. I may just forget that daylight savings time happened for the next few weeks. Blech!
@ Josh:
So sorry, Josh! I’m right there with you. I can’t even imagine what they’re studying, and pray none of my friends find this guide. You can tell them that you have to cut your toenails.
Help! Need a conservative church in Louisville that cares about the downtrodden, is not legalistic/fundamentalist, and is not pastored by a Southern Seminary graduate! Is this too much to ask?
Any denominations in Louisville where this might be found?
@ Josh:
Josh, like I keep asking you, don’t you think maybe it’s time to move on? If this church is seriously using propaganda films that excuse domestic abuse as “teaching” materials, I know that I wouldn’t be able to stick it – and I think it says a whole lot more about this particular church than the congregants might realize.
Yes (replying to your last response to me, a few weeks back) you do have as much right to be there as anyone else, but why would you *want* to be there? There just have to be better places out there, though you’ll likely have to leave the evangelical world in order to find them.
@ numo:
Does it actually excuse domestic abuse? I was going to watch it but scrubbed that idea when I found out it would cost me actual dollars to do so, but I get the impression that it is trying to present a way of dealing with domestic abuse other than divorce. Have you seen the movie and if so in what way is it excusing violence? But if it does and some church pushes the idea of excusing violence then I sure agree with you that the thing to do is flee that church.
I am not trying to excuse abuse, but having survived a divorce I do tend to think that if marriages can be rescued and behaviors can be changed then that would be better than divorce where possible.
War Room has problems in many areas, according to the reviews [1]. I haven’t watched it myself; I trust the reviewers’ perspectives enough to conclude that it’s not worth wasting the time.
Former CLCer, that’s a good idea. My toenails can always use some TLC.
While I could give a number of excuses for why I’m still stuck in this codependent relationship with this church, the bottom line is that it’s not hurting that bad (I’m sure it’s worse than I’m willing to admit), and if I left right now, I would have to field questions that I’m not ready to answer from my parents (who are satisfied congregants), and from the pastor (who has no idea that my views have changed significantly).
Numo, your point about evangelicalism is well taken. I would not be the least bit surprised to see this sort of material in any of the evangelical churches in this town, except probably the Evangelical Lutheran Church, whose pastor, well… I just don’t see her tolerating that nonsense. And from what I’ve heard, our UCC is middle of the road for that denomination, but that would still make them way liberal-er than any of the other local churches, so that could work.
I know there are egalitarian evangelical churches that would be safe places to hold egalitarian views, but that’s only a small part of what makes me a controversial basket of hot potatoes in conservative evangelicalism. But I’ve rambled long enough…
[1] http://www.thewrap.com/critics-destroy-war-room-7-worst-reviews-crushing-christian-drama/
@ Josh:
Thanks for the link. I have read the seven worst reviews on that link and not one of them even hinted that the movie excused domestic violence. One of the seven mentioned that just praying and nothing else can be fatal for some people in abusive situations. That is a legitimate complaint which I take to mean that the movie takes it too lightly. One of the seven thought it presented an ‘anti-feminist’ view of christianity. Five of the seven merely thought it was sappy or had a wrong view of prayer or objected to mentioning satan as an ultimate cause of the problems or was too long and too preachy and too poorly done but they did not echo the sentiments of the the two who were the most concerned about it.
I don’t see that you should go see the movie, and for people who think differently about prayer or marital relationships or satan or who hold to a certain view of feminism that would not be compatible with the movie it would probably be better to avoid the movie. But these particular reviewers did not say that the movie excused domestic abuse. Surely if it is no ‘worse’ than these reviewers say then it would be no reason in and of itself to pack up and leave a church and go looking elsewhere.
There is no perfect answer down the road and around the corner.
@ Josh:
I’m ELCA. It just means “Gospel,” and has nothing to do with revivalism or the evangelical movements (lowercase e) that I was referring to.
I mean, the word has a history that *long* predates the Holiness people, Or John Wesley’s other followers, or…
@ Josh:
you’d have little difficulty finding an affirming congregation in the ELCA.
@ okrapod:
not disagreeing, but the main character is being actively abused and nobody mentions a single strategy other than prayer. not a shelter, not any kind of other help for battered women.
imo, that’s excusing it. IRL, a woman can easily get killed that way.
@ numo:
i.e., not any different than “endure for a season.” Imo, anyway.
A couple of reviews that very directly address the issue of ongoing battery in War Room:
http://www.hurtbylove.com/war-room-is-unsuitable-for-victims-of-abuse/
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/aug/28/war-room-review-religion-christianity
There are many, many more links of this kind, that clearly explain what is going on with the plot, dialogue, etc.
@ numo:
I have got to see this movie. Reviews are all over the place from great to horrible and everything in between. It has five stars on amazon. If it really and no kidding condones battery while at the same time so many people miss that then there is a bigger problem out there than just the movie. When the price comes down I am going to get it.
@ okrapod:
It definitely condones “submission” to a chesting, abusive spouse who is also emtionally/verbally abusive to his daughter.
I doubt people who aren’t attuned to abuse and help for the abused are going to react yo it in the same way that people who get and/or have lived through those things will. Equally, the patriarchy (excuse mr, “comp”) types are going to love that it pushes their pov over any other. Besides, it’s the devil’s fault.
@ okrapod:
Well, of course it has 5 stars on Amazon! In a word: shills.
@ okrapod:
Also, you could find more discussion here from a couple of months back, on the previous page, when another commenter was being pressured about going to see it…
@ numo:
Let me be clear about this. Have you actually seen the movie or are we both just talking in general principles here?
@ okrapod:
No, i have not seen it, and would not see it. I have read a great deal about it, though. Includes detailed descriptions of plot elements and a fair number of scenes.
The marketing of “War Room” books, stickers, post-it notes and what have you – make me ill, on general principle. I’ve never cared for “Jesus junk.”
Also, one of the characters literally preaches directly to whoever’s watching, at the very end of the film. I got junk posts promoting it on FB, and that alone made me suspicious, as one came from a friend who … well, i can’t believe they’d approve of it, not really.
numo wrote:
Oh, me neither.
@ okrapod:
Well, the guys who made this have been making and selling bad movies + associated Jesus junk for quite a few years now, so i think you will understand why i felt suspicious based on that alone. I have yet to see a “Christian movie” that was any good, ever, so there’s that as well.
I really wish people would stop creating these things (bas xtian infotainment *and* Jesus junk), but i guess they sell enough that it’s not going to stop any time soon.
Fitba’:
Sadly, Scumbagchester United’s opponents tonight – on this occasion, Dr Fundystan’s West Ham – have lost.
IHTIH
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Heartwarming result. We ScumbagU supporters have endured supporting a team that has been languishing in the company of the likes of Liverpool for too long.
This blog has been a real eye opener. I’ve followed with interest all the goings on & have enjoyed the interaction. I came here after a 10 year hiatus from church & even considered going back. Christianity hasn’t really gelled with me but I’ve come away with a deeper understanding of what faith is. It’s a good community built here. For what it’s worth, I think the neo Cal movement will eventually eat itself. Based on the recent sermon I heard at our local church, they may say ” Evangelical ” but they’re really playing to the house. And this church isn’t even Calvinist. Time for me to go back on hiatus but I did want to say “thanks” & good work to the TWW. You do make a difference.
ION:
Liverpool crash out of the Europe League in catastrophic fashion, with a heavy defeat at home to Borussia Dortmund.
#DisappointmentOfSport
While I had glanced at the articles on the latest T4G conference, the full significance of the fact that it was happening today didn’t hit me until I was stuck in traffic this noon on Main Street right in front of the KFC Yum! Center (what a name!) in Louisville, waiting for hordes of church leaders to be escorted across the street by some friendly police officers who were directing pedestrian and vehicular traffic. But what was not lost on me was the humor of seeing male complementarian pastors at a conference with John Piper, being told when to cross the street by a female police officer. So there’s that… 😀
@ Josh:
🙂
@ JohnD:
Sorry, JohnD – I was so sunk in morosity that I didn’t see your post. It’s certainly true that most MUFC fans don’t live in Manchester, though by the same token, I’ve never been to Anfield!
@ Josh:
I love it.
Fitba’ update:
Well, it turns out that Liverpool actually won, 4-3 on the night and 5-4 on aggregate, thanks to twice coming back fae two goals down, capped with an injury-time winner.
Emdy who knows me will tell you that I am nothing if not a pessimist, and when Liverpool were 2-0 down after 9 minutes I switched off. Clearly, we were on course to be 20-0 down after 90 minutes (my arithmetic is unassailable here, though sport is not played out on paper).
IHTIH
IFON:
Midweek European glory-nights at Anfield are invariably followed by hung-over defeats to mid-table opposition the following weekend. Admittedly, we ourselves are mid-table opposition at the moment, but our opponents on Sunday are Bournemouth. They’re currently three places below us in… you guessed it… mid-table.
So, that’ll be 3 points for Bournemouth, which will all but guarantee their place in the Premiership next season. And I can’t say I’m unhappy with that; it’s their first ever season in English fitba’s top flight, and it’s always nice to see some new faces on the big-money-dominated block that is fitba’.
IHTIH
Josh wrote:
Well, God’s got a sense of humor…
this one might just be for numo.
Heard of this title?
Women’s Divination in Biblical Lieature: prophecy, necromancy and other arts of knowledge
Esther J Hamori
Yale University Press 2015
I guess the Ichthus no longer cuts it. http://tpr.org/post/pastoral-medicine-credentials-raise-questions-texas#stream/0
So: despite a dominant first-half performance, Spurs let it slip in the second half and conceded an equaliser. Thus, Leicester are 7 points clear with three games to play. If they were to win at Old Trafford this weekend… they’re champions.
IHTIH…
Dang! My attempts to get blue text continue to fail. I tried <span style=”color:blue>…</span>”, but to no effect, even though I’m signed in on WordPress. It works when I comment on my own blog, but I suppose the operative words there are “my own”…
I shall content myself with being a humble Wartburger.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
… except I didn’t mess up the quotation marks first time around…
[Too clever by ‘arf, as they say in the sahf of England…]
Is not easy to watch how some men portray themselves as Christian and look down on women as ‘lesser’ beings. Especially women who are single parents struggling with a life where they cannot get ‘equal pay’, a life where the ex-husband or the ‘baby daddy’ does not contribute to the cost of raising the children, a life where they are progressively more vulnerable in red states where their clinics in poor neighborhoods are being shut down . . .
these women are my heroines and when they are maligned, I can see in ‘macho’ men only that pride and hubris connected more with ‘the ancient enemy’ than with the humility taught to them by Our Lord.
Kirk Cameron–I will never support anything he does or watch movies he makes again. He says any marriage can be saved if one person changes. Last I checked it takes two people to actually make a relationship. Sure, you can try to avoid the verbal punches, but if that is happening those are the people who need support and not denigrating. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3566323/Kirk-Cameron-urges-wives-submissive-follow-husband-s-lead-former-actor-continues-nationwide-Love-Worth-Fighting-marriage-tour.html?ito=social-facebook#comments
Through a set of circumstances which are not related to this comment I went to a Lutheran service Sunday. In the liturgical part of the service when it came to the prayers of the people they did something which I think was really great. The prayers of the people were done in a call and response format which was in a different form than I had ever seen. When they prayed for an individual on the prayer list it went like this:
We pray for Susan Somebody.
Response by entire congregation: Susan
We pray for John Whoever;
Response: John
and so on down the entire list. I thought it was a great idea.
After reading several of these posts, it is discouraging to see how even this website is being used in subtle forms of exploitation and gossip, rather than standing in the gap for those who the devil has bound, tormented or used. Spiritual understanding brings the Word of Wisdom and a Word of Knowledge that breaks the cycle that Satan has done in someone’s life. Often, those people were abused by others or buried deep pain with alcohol or drugs that impaired them. Who is the real enemy? Is it Satan or is it people? Has the church forgotten who the enemy is? The world today is in such an attack mode because many, including pastors, churches and congregations have entered into satan’s terms to destroy lives, families, and homes. It’s a compromise to take and gain. Yes, I have been church hurt and even hurt badly by my own family (used and abused), and every day, my life is threatened and continually harassed by people who should know better. Churches, leaders and communities have decided who is worthy to get things or have things (and idolally exults those individuals), and yet, this is not what the word of God tells teaches. As a faithful tither for many years of my life (except this last year), I have been robbed, abused, lied about, spied upon, compromised and viciously attacked by people because I was obedient to follow the Holy Spirit into places to pray, fast and intercede for people and congregations who were ungrateful, didn’t understand my gift and callings, and was instrumental to tear my life apart. I am viewed by some as someone who must have done something so horribly wrong, but I can tell you, all this happened because I stood alone for over 20 years for truth and righteousness in my own home and refused to compromise that truth (even with my church). If it wasn’t for the grace of God in my life and the strength of God’s Word (and his presence), the church and people would have killed me. But I have learned that it is OK to cry out to God against such people and their actions, while doing my best to reach out, be friendly, be respectful in such hostile environments. This time of castaway has strengthened my faith and trust in a loving God (Jesus Christ) who has seen me through some horrible situations and confirms his presence in ways that people cannot control. I praise God daily for his grace in my life (even when others treat me differently). When leaders decide to close the doors to compromise (including pastors, elders, members, government, etc.), we will see change. As long as the church continues to act and lead the way they are in some unbiblical/unethical ways, they will kill some of their members and their blood will be on their hands. I do not plan to be silent but be sure that those people (including myself) receive justice, even if it means lawsuits (if that is how the Holy Spirit directs me). People try to wash their hands daily, but on judgment day, I am not sure that their hands will be seen as clean. Why spiritually destroy lives?
Christian websites should be used to encourage one another, correct one another in love, and not gossip, but pray for one another and learn how to walk in the gifts and the fruits of the Holy Spirit. The ministry of Jesus Christ was setting people spiritually free from all the ways that Satan was trying to destroy lives. So tonight, I remember how Jesus bent down and began to write in the sand. How many were left standing in his presence when he was done writing? Sins of exploitation are just as bad as any other sin (lying, stealing, sexual, cheating the IRS, idolatry, etc.), and yet, pastors and churches (or others in the congregation) think they have God’s permission to publically exploit or remind others for their sins that God has already cleansed or is cleaning up in someone’s life. What good shepherds are really left in America today?
Here is a funny website that satirizes the quirks of bthe American Evangelical Church. Even if you are part of a large church (as I have been) you might find it funny and a little too close to the truth sometimes.
http://babylonbee.com/
@ Bilbo Skaggins:
The guy who established this website and writes most of the articles is a frequent commentor on the SBCVoices website.
Nancy2 wrote:
I don’t frequent SBCVoices so I’m curious what his spin usually is. A latest offering on babylon bee on Mohler was more of a puff piece than a satire on human foibles.
Bill M wrote:
True, but I do like the idea of thinking of Mohler as a machine with a motherboard instead of a human with a heart. Maybe a Trojan virus will shit him down!
@ Nancy2:
Oh my! Bad typo! Should say, “shut him down”!
Nancy2 wrote:
Freudian slip
@ Bill M:
Who is this “Freud” fellow, and why is he so obsessed with slips? 😮
O.K., after reading the latest post, I started thinking about the whole bathroom gender issue. I have a cousin who is gay and his sister was born male and is transgender. He posted on facebook that the transgender females are the most in danger in bathrooms. It kind of made me think. I guess some men could take advantage and I might feel differently if I had children; but the transgender population (I think especially male to female) are very vulnerable to violence, and also very psychologically vulnerable.
testing...Well, I wasn’t expecting that.
Nancy2 wrote:
No, you were right the first time.
😉
Has anyone read the latest on Robert Morris at Warren Throckmorton’s blog? Apparently, RM can now pray the childlessness away, and even turn hair salons into fertility-enhancing places.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2016/05/08/for-mothers-day-robert-morris-speaks-conception
From what one hears, RM in his younger days made sure of these conceptions personally … 😉
Dee, some forty million gay folk are presently sick in large numbers world wide, and it is said some 8000 gay people are even dying here in the U.S. of their illnesses every day.
Can you help them?
(sadface)
Sopy
__
Da Good Samaritan? : “Ten things gay men might wanna discuss with their health care providers” :
hmmm…
A thoughtful commentary written by Dr. Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, MPH
Board of Directors, GLMA
Co-Editor, Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
Private Practice & Assistant Professor, Columbia University, New York.
http://educateforlife.org/ten-things-gay-men-discuss-health-care-providers-commentary/
—
__
Good Samaritan: “Who Ever Captures The Kids, Owns The Future?”
hmmm…
Christian Apologist Josh McDowell (http://www.josh.org/)
presents heartfelt concern for the future of young people in the Christian church.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOSbUjmupWE
—
__
Good Samaritan: “Churxh Trends Get Da Plunger?”
hmmm…
Q. Will 501(c)3 churches now be compelled to comply with federal non-discrimination statutes for transgender bathroom access or suffer the possible loss of their federal tax exemption status?
__
Retailer Target’s bathroom policy:
“We want to make sure we provide a welcoming environment for all of our guests” -Brian Cornell, Target CEO
(talking about complying with transgender bathroom policies while maintaining safety for all customers)
North Carolina’s “Bathroom Law” :
On May 9, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced dueling lawsuits regarding HB2, a law that requires people to use public restrooms according to the sex they were assigned at birth, rather than the one they identify with. – Monica Akhtar @The Washington Post
—
@ Sopwith:
Yes. You don’t like homosexuals. I’m so glad I live in a country governed by a Constitution & not the Bible.
Sopwith wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that religious groups are protected under the First Amendment and for instance don’t have to perform gay marriages and can’t be sued for it.
Attorney Richard Hammar at Church Law & Tax (website) has articles on these topics. (Other articles are part of a paid subscription.) But he gives a good overview.
@ Velour:
Probably just as well. In a religion where they are (for the most part) despised, I can’t see transgender bathrooms getting much use anyway.
Jack, I think you can find a lot of supposed Christians who would agree with your statement, but there are, also, a lot who are loving to the LGBT community.
@ Jack:
As a Christian who also happens to be gay, I thank God regularly that I do not live in a theocracy. When it comes to comments like the ones in question, I scroll past and remind myself that “human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.” Life is too short to waste posting on comment threads trying to convince my enemies (or more likely just people who “love” me by shouting hateful, false things about me) of facts to which their worldview has been thoroughly vaccinated.
Jack wrote:
Yes, it was one of the things I found so difficult about my ex-NeoCal church. So many church members (and leaders) made relentless attacks on gays. Frankly, it never crossed my mind. I work in the real world, at a real job, where we have a diverse work force, we have anti-discrimination laws (including protecting gays), and I have gay colleagues and superiors who do great work, and I respect and admire them.
The people who run gays into the ground in my opinion have:
a) not worked on their own personal problems and use the attacks as a smoke screen to digress; and
b) have too much free time on their hands that they need to put to better use.
Josh wrote:
Agreed, Jack.
^ Correction in the name.
Agreed, Josh.
@ Stunned:
I assume the statement is being governed by a constitution not the bible. Not sure what you meant by “supposed christians” agreeing with me. Full disclaimer – I’m not currently subscribing to Christianity right now. I’m guessing that most of my fellow citizens agree with me, and most U.S. citizens as well – being a democracy and all. I would agree there are Christians who love the LGBT community. Some denominations have ordained gay & lesbian pastors. But I have never seen a tolerant evangelical community. In that environment I’ve heard phrases like “love the sinner, hate the sin”.
I know and have worked with a number of gay and lesbian people. It’s not a choice and it’s not wrong. It’s not a sin. The bible states, the punishment is death. This is terrible but those who cling to an inerrant bible actually believe that God stated this. For that matter so do all the religions based out the old testament (Islam, Judaism, Christianity).
In keeping with the Christian Trends of the blog, as more churches (mainly evangelical but gay marriage & ordination has created massive rifts in my former Anglican denomination) seem to embrace a more fundamentalist worldview, that gets pretty scary. Think young earth creationism is detrimental to education? It’s positively wonderful compared to the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Just sayin’
@ Josh:
You’re a good man. That is a very tolerant outlook. I haven’t been commenting here for a few weeks now but as I read Sopwith’s comments and even watched part of the sermon link. That pastor in effect equated the “homosexual agenda” (whatever the blink that is) and the “gay marriage agenda” (blink blink again) with the rise of pornography. That just bugs me to no end.
Velour wrote:
And here’s the crux of the matter. Most of us who live in a liberal democracy agree that it’s a good thing. We would never harm someone who was different from us, and yet many Christians will not repudiate those passages in the bible. If they do the bible is no longer inerrant (ie: if God didn’t say it then the whole book must be a lie). It’s a very literal fundamentalism – and I think it’s emphasized within many churches. Once you set up a system with a narrow worldview that allows for nothing outside of the strict bounds of holy scripture then no wonder Neo Cals find the pickings so easy when they “hijack” a church.
@ Jack:
Don’t give me too much credit; I’m not ignoring this stuff because I’m good, but because I’m tired and worn out and don’t care any more whether conservative evangelicals like me. My pragmatic outlook is that their minds aren’t going to change no matter how eloquent or passionate or logically correct my arguments are, so why raise my blood pressure over this peculiarly intractable facet of human stupidity?
Speaking of porn (now there’s a way to start a sentence!), have you seen this research?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/how-many-american-men-are-gay.html
Jack wrote:
There’s another reason I find the Neo Cal’s argument so bizarre and their relentless attacks on others. First the Neo Cals claim they are in God’s chosen, The Elect. O.K., then if others aren’t The Elect (no matter what their orientation) then why argue and attack them, seek to change them?
I managed to sit through most of McDowell’s presentation in order to give it a fair hearing. I think he plays fast and loose with stats. Who doesn’t?, religious or secular when they have an axe to grind?
The sky is falling…
Lather, rinse, repeat…
The sky is falling…
@ Josh:
Interesting article. The reason I felt compelled to respond to Sopwith is that individual would not just state their case & let it rest. I had no intention of changing their mind. I’m glad we live in a society that is becoming more open about sexuality in general. I think the damage is incalculable to force a person to believe that their orientation is “wrong” & worse that God hates you for it. People have committed suicide over it.
@ Velour:
I had read on TWW somewhere that Neo Cals believe everyone could potentially be an “elect” & they could be punished for losing them. One reason they don’t want to let you leave their churches without excommunicating you. Something whack like that.
@ Muff Potter:
I do notice that in the evangelical church that I attended (and some of the guests they had), playing with the truth is a matter of course.
The latest one was some guy from Creation Ministries using volcanism on Jupiter’s moon Io to prove the universe is about 6000 years old. You can’t have volcanoes in space, it’s all old and cold out there. Io is affected by the Jovian systems gravity. It’s basically pulled around like a ball of taffy creating internal friction. Sure it was unexpected when discovered but the mechanism has been understood for years now. Again keeping with the Christian Trends motif, this is an example of the fear that if the bible is wrong on even the tiniest of points then the whole exercise has no point. It’s a very weak faith when you come right down to it. I’m no bible scholar but didn’t Jesus say something about those didn’t see it with their own eyes when he appeared to Thomas? That’s the very nature of faith – we don’t see it, or quantify it. But we can discern right from wrong, justice from injustice.
80 000 of my countrymen were displaced from their homes by wildfires. Looking that the response, I feel blessed to live where I live. It isn’t perfect, there’s still crime, poverty, hunger, racism but there are principles built into our governing documents that give us a base to work with.
If there’s a belief that God is still active in this universe then is it possible to see the U.S. Constitution as a “godly document”, or the UN Declaration of Human Rights as a “godly document” or the fact that we haven’t annihilated ourselves in nuclear fire during the Cold War as an “act of God”. Starting to ramble. Sorry.
Jack wrote:
Oh, I don’t in the slightest want to take away from your response. I do appreciate that you did not leave the statements in question unaddressed. Having allies who stick up for tired, cynical folks like me is quite encouraging. So, uh, thanks for the support! 🙂
@ Josh:
No worries. One thing about the trend of neo Calvinism & fundamentalism in general is how it deceives otherwise good people into abrogating their own rights using their basic desire to do the right thing.
The irony is it’s the secular institutions that have to pick up the pieces. It harms all of us, Christian & non Christian alike.
Jack wrote:
In their world there is no such thing as good people. Once you swallow the lie, it’s easy to get stripped of your own humanity and sign on to whatever they see fit. Your conscience gets suppressed, and the moral compass you once had spins wildly in the artificial field they’ve created.
Megachurch Pastor Stabbed 4 Times in NC Home Invasion
http://www.christianpost.com/news/megachurch-pastor-stabbed-4-times-north-carolina-home-invasion-163856/
“When Matt Bentley opened the front door to his Charlotte residence on Wednesday afternoon he walked in on a burglary in progress. The intruder stabbed Bentley four times”
@ Muff Potter:
I recently read a book on cultic behavior that described what you wrote about indicative of cult behavior
@ Jack:
Sorry. Meant to say cult membership.
From Piper’s website today: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no-power-of-hell-no-scheme-of-man
This particulate theory of atonement was invented during the reformation. If true, it means that the church got it wrong for 1500 years. Some go so far as to say one cannot be a Christian without believing this theory, which means there were no true Christians until about 500 years ago.
So let’s take a look at the theory. First the definition:
Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.
– http://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement
Now let’s ask where to find all of this from the Bible. I developed this list of questions about six months ago. I based it mostly on the above definition, but just about any definition will due. So far I have yet to get any convincing arguments that Penal Substitution is true based on answers to these questions.
1. Where does the Bible explicitly state that on the cross Jesus bore the punishment that we deserved?
2. Where does the Bible explicitly state that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins? To whom was the penalty paid?
3. Where does the Bible explicitly state that Jesus satisfied the wrath of God?
4. Where does the Bible explicitly state that God’s wrath can and must be satisfied?
5. Where does the Bible explicitly state that God cannot forgive without first being appeased?
6. Where does the Bible explicitly state that God cannot simply forgive without compromising His own holy standard?
7. How is it justice to punish the innocent in place of the guilty? (see Deuteronomy 24:16 – Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin)
8. How can an infinite being, who needs or lacks nothing, be unsatisfied based on human sin and then consequently satisfied by sacrifice? If God’s wrath can be satisfied, how does it not imply that God lacked something prior to being satisfied? What did the satisfaction change about God (e.g., His mood?, His attitude?, His disposition?)?
9. Was God’s wrath fully satisfied or partially satisfied? Where does the Bible state this?
10. If fully satisfied, why does the Bible describe it as something that remains for unbelievers? (see John 3:36 – He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.)
11. If fully satisfied, why does the Bible describe it as something that will still be poured out in the last days? (see Rev 16:1 – Then I heard a loud voice from the temple, saying to the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.”)
12. How does full satisfaction not logically lead to universalism, since there is no wrath left for anyone to endure if it was fully satisfied?
13. If not fully satisfied, what distinguishes the wrath that was satisfied from the wrath that was not satisfied? Where does the Bible most clearly state this?
14. If not fully satisfied, what was “finished” on the cross? (see John 19:30 – Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.)
15. Since we have been crucified with Christ, did we also participate in satisfying God’s wrath by being punished with Him? Why or why not? If we were not punished with Him, in what essential way were we united with Christ in the likeness of His death? (see Romans 6:5 – For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death; see also Romans 6:6 – knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him; and see Galatians 2:20 – I have been crucified with Christ)
16. Was our debt fully paid by Jesus or fully forgiven by God? If fully forgiven, what was left to be paid and what was accomplished on the cross? If fully paid, what was left to be forgiven? Or was it partially paid and partially forgiven. How is it just to forgive a debt by requiring payment? Doesn’t forgiveness negate the requirement for payment?
17. If the penalty for our sins is eternal separation from the Lord (see 2 Thessalonians 1:9 – These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power), how could Jesus pay that penalty? How would it not require Him to be eternally separated from Himself? Where does the Bible say that Jesus paid an eternal debt or suffered eternal destruction or suffered eternal separation from Himself or the Father?
18. What does it mean for God to command us to forgive others in the same way that He forgave us? (see Ephesians 4:32 – Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.) Does God needing to vent His wrath as payment before He can forgive us mean that we must also vent our wrath as payment in order to forgive others? Does God hold us to a higher standard than He holds himself? Why or why not?
As a companion to the questions I posted above, here is a list of some of the better links I found over the last year that critique penal substitution. It’s a lot of reading.
http://preachersinstitute.com/2011/06/02/orthodox-problems-with-penal-substitution/
http://www.pravmir.com/the-original-christian-gospel/
http://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/gods-righteousness
http://reknew.org/2014/06/why-did-god-require-animal-sacrifice-in-the-old-testament/
http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/
http://www.throwbackchristianity.com/leviticus-1711-and-penal-substitution/
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/11/09/the-recapitulation-theory/
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/02/24/the-death-of-jesus-as-sacrifice-an-orthodox-reading-of-isaiah-53-and-romans-325/
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/ReardonExpatiation.php
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=35999.0
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-atonement/
http://orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/2011/02/biblical-view-of-christs-death.html
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-symbol-of-faith/redemption
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_wrath_of_god
http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-Blood+Sacrifices+and+Forgiveness
http://www.antiochian.org/node/17816
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/46463.htm
http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf
http://therebelgod.com/CrossPaper.pdf
http://www.biblical-theology.net/ANTI-PENAL%20SUBSTITUTION.htm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/06/22/the-wrath-of-god-satisfied/
https://fullermag.fuller.edu/christus-victor-the-salvation-of-god-and-the-cross-of-christ/
http://www.covenantoflove.net/theology/the-problem-with-christus-victor-part-1/
http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/08/george-macdonald-on-penal-substitution.html
http://bjorkbloggen.com/2013/03/15/the-penal-substitution-theory-is-not-biblical-youtube-film-about-the-atonement-of-christ/
http://www.academia.edu/2019111/Punishing_and_Atoning_A_New_Critique_of_Penal_Substitution
http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2011/09/why-i-cannot-in-good-conscience-be-a-protestant/
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/why-im-becoming-orthodox-2-of-3/
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-so-many-catholics-believe-in.html
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/04/does-catholic-view-of-christs-atonement.html
Jack wrote:
If McDowell didn’t have the ‘queer’ bogeyman to go after, he’d waste no time in inventing some other ‘crisis’. That’s how these guys make handsome bank. By getting the pew serfs fired-up and ready to embark on some other ‘crusade’.
The only ‘agenda’ I’ve seen throughout this whole imbroglio is the one in which fundagelicals want to craft laws (Prop. 8 in Calif.) that say only Jack can marry Jill, never Adam to Steve, and certainly not Jill to Julie.
I have yet to see gay and lesbian folk wanting to force others to adopt their lifestyle.
@ Ken F:
Very interesting stuff. The Orthodox & Early Church stuff I’ve looked at so far seems to say that there were several ideas about ‘how’ Jesus saves us around, & discussed, mostly Christus Victor, but none of them were Penal Substitution.
Are you coming out of all this study with a totally new set of beliefs? Where were you before? Where are you now?
Jack wrote:
In my experience, the NeoCals use excommunication to punish any dissent, critical thinking skills, questions, autonomy and not because they fear they are going to be punished for losing someone (which wouldn’t be Biblical). It is whack — a proverbial Salem Witch Trials II. I saw it done at my ex-NeoCal church to anyone who questioned (professionals, the elderly, the well-to-do). Hateful.
Beakerj wrote:
Great question. I’m not sure that I have an answer yet. I grew up Methodist, but never really heard the gospel there (I probably wasn’t listening). I’ve moved all over the place due to my career, so I’ve had to find new churches fairly often. I’ve attended several types of churches, but I would consider myself mostly mainstream evangelical (I’m just no longer sure I understand what that means). I am currently a member of a Southern Baptist church that so far has only seemed to be taste-testing the YRR kool-aid. But I don’t consider myself Southern Baptist. I have read quite a lot of apologetics along the lines of Ravi Zacharias, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Norman Geisler and Hugh Ross (I am NOT a young-earth creationist). I’m fully convinced that the early church got it right in how they canonized the OT and NT. But I’m not so convinced that we Protestants are properly interpreting it because we have thrown away so much early church tradition.
I now know that I had never bought into all of Calvinism, but I had been exposed to enough people who did that many of their ideas rubbed off on me. It’s these ideas that I am challenging right now.
The theologian who is making the most sense to me is Baxter Kruger (see http://perichoresis.org/). I came across him when I was listening through this series of interviews: https://www.gci.org/youreincluded. GCI’s background is pretty freaky, but they appear to have made a pretty strong break from their past. It makes me feel uncomfortable to be listening to stuff that the YRR crowd would call heresy, but most of the theologians in this list have been sounding pretty solid, much more solid than the YRR crowd. The common thread is their look back at the very earliest Christian theologians. I intend to pursue this track further.
I investigated Eastern Orthodox theology a bit. It looks very solid. But their church structure seems to rigid for my tastes. I respect much of Roman Catholicism, but I believe they’ve added too much baggage over the years.
So basically, I think I’m in a place where I can pretty much be attacked by all sides. But I don’t care as much about who attacks me anymore. I want to find the truth.
Jack wrote:
I wonder why they would believe that when the Bible says that keeping believers is the job of God.
“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” – Jesus (JOHN 10:28)
Daisy wrote:
In my experience, because NeoCalvinists are as a group very ARROGANT, lacking in humility.
Former CLCer wrote:
Just a couple of things I’m going to point out here.
1) I have yet to hear of a transgender person sexually assaulting a child on a public restroom.
2) However, hardly a day doesn’t pass that we don’t hear of some pastor who has sexually assalted children or teens, or was caught in possession of child porn. That is happening constantly.
You’re correct that transgender persons are more likely to be assaulted and killed. I have a very dear friend who is transitioning right now. She lives in a Southern state and I think she’s incredibly brave. It’s nothing to stand out in front of a church with a sign. It takes guts to make the effort, do the work (and it’s a lot of work) and then start going into work every day dressed as a woman when everyone knew you as a man. I. Can’t. Even. I don’t even have that kind of bravery.
Ken F wrote:
A big amen to this. I’ll pray for you.
@ Ken F:
Man-o-Manischewitz Ken. All eighteen of your theses should be done in fine calligraphy on real parchment and then nailed to the door of biggest and richest Neo-Cal bastion there is.
mirele wrote:
So do we take care to keep pastors out of bathrooms? 😉 (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
mirele wrote:
Last week I was at a private school’s end of year watch-the-kids-on-stage-perform thing. One teacher was transitioning. I could NOT believe this teacher’s bravery. I loved the example of love and respect which the school administrators were setting for the children.
Josh wrote:
A good many Christians who happen to be straight are very glad not to live in a theocracy, too. It has enabled us to survive these many years without wiping out those among us who don’t fit the current Party Line. Hang in, Josh, we are quite fond of you in these parts.
Ken F wrote:
Interesting stuff which I wish had been around 20 something years ago when I was at L’Abri & encountered Calvinism for the first time, even if in a highly nuanced form I failed to appreciate at the time.
How far apart are the beautiful pictures of God of the early church & men like these & the malevolent trickster God of mainstream Calvinism. It’s like a theological game of Chinese whispers that has gone very wrong over a long long time.
zooey111 wrote:
@ Josh
Allow me to ditto zooey111’s sentiments!
Muff Potter wrote:
It would be more effective for people to ask their pastors and elders these questions. I’m still waiting for a Calvinist to make an honest attempt to come up with real answers to these questions that don’t require re-defining words or going down twisted paths of flawed logic (“flawgic”). Many cite “The wages of sin is death” as a proof-text for death being a punishment. But that’s not what the verse says. Wages from a job are normally not considered punishment, so we should not read more into that word than is there. This is one example of the type of word games people will play when trying to defend penal substitution.
Does anyone have any experience with the GCM Collective? It’s one of the groups I ran across through internet searches over the last year. The leader is Caesar Kalinowski. He does not seem to have any direct connections with the main YRR leaders except through The Verge Network – http://www.vergenetwork.org/tag/caesar-kalinowski/ and through Soma Communities.
The leader of Soma Communities is Jeff Vanderstelt, who wrote that Caesar Kalinowski joined his team: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/you-do-who-you-are. Jeff Vanderstelt is the author of the Missional Community Leader Checklist for GCM: http://www.gcmcollective.org/article/missional-community-leader-checklist/ (note complementarianism under the Family section). Jeff Vanderstelt is well plugged into the YRR leadership. Here is his bio from http://www.desiringgod.org (Piper’s website): “Jeff Vanderstelt is the visionary leader for the Soma Family of Churches and the lead teaching pastor at Doxa Church in Bellevue, Washington. He is the author of Saturate: Being Disciples of Jesus in the Everyday Stuff of Life.”
GCM is connected with Mike Breen through 3DM: http://www.gcmcollective.org/article/learning-community/ and http://launch.3dmovements.com/partnership/ . 3DM has all kinds of potential issues, as I posted yesterday: http://bobhighlands.faith/3dm-warning/.
Also note GCM uses covenants: http://www.gcmcollective.org/article/missional-community-covenant/
On the bright side (I suppose), they advertise their prices: http://launch.3dmovements.com/communities/.
The connection between YRR and 3DM seems to be through Missional Communities. On the surface Missional Communities don’t sound so bad. But digging a bit reveals connections, hierarchy, covenants, complementarianism, and authority structures similar to the Shepherding Movement. Weird.
You said “Do not let anyone spoon feed you. You are smart. In spite of the beliefs expressed by COH, you have the Holy Spirit who can guide you in asking questions.”
But I just see a bunch of opinions here very knowlegeable opinions indeed,none of the Holy Ghost! When you say the Holy Spirit can guide you,im asking you now has the holy spirit guide u in mocking somebody elses like COH church who desires to reach out more people in Christ and shares the vision in Christ Jesus? No, you are in the “super-spirits outsiders” in short the evil spirit.
You should have let yourself be bath by the Holy Spirit so you would fully understand the knowledge of the spiritual realm.
Truly…
Proverbs 18:2 A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinion.
I will know between you and the COH who speaks the truth coz Mathew 7:17 says “Likewise every good tree bears good fruit,but a bad tree bears bad fruit.”
Please read 1 Corinthians especially 1,2,3,4 and 12. Also the whole 1 John but I will qoute: 1John 4:6 We are from God,and whoever knows God listens to us;but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
If the spirit that was in me is in agreement with the spirit of COH congregation,then we have the same spirit and we are in unison in Christ!My testimony is my own experience which is the truth in my own personal life and we have the same revelation this is not just mere opinion but an experience of truth and the works of Heavenly realms,if the Pastor just affirms of the revelation that I had and convey what was in my heart “that is not spoon feeding” it is the work of the Holy Spirit that is true and living amongst us Christ follower.If the pastor ask for intercession in the congregation I see his meek humble countenance in Christ,not relying on his own strength but he needs the church congregation who composes the body of Christ to fight the evil of this world especially in spirit realm.
May the Lord see us through and may He discipline or correct the wrong and uplift those who carry out His purpose in Christ Jesus!
John 3:21 says But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light,so that it may be seen plainly that what He has done through God.
1Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time;wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men`s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
@ Maricar:
Chatbot alert!
Ken F wrote:
Can’t help you there, I’m afraid.
IHTIH.
(BIPN)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
Trying to get two loads of washing dry on a day of frequent showers in central Scotland…
#Firstworldproblems
http://www.youtube.com/comedy-sketch-on-first-world-problems
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Scotland is not known for their gas or electric dryer?
@ Bridget:
We don’t have a drier. (Though we have a dehumidifier.)
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Living in the mixed climate of Indiana, which has hot/humid summers and cold/dry winters, to stay comfortable I have a furnace and humidifier for winter and an A/C and dehumidifier for summer. And, of course, a washer and dryer for the laundry. I could get by without a dryer, because it gets hot enough to dry clothes on a clothesline even on a humid summer day, or I could just hang the clothes in the basement and let the dehumidifier slowly take care of them. But that wouldn’t be “green,” LOL.
We’ve avoided the drier, partly because there isn’t really anywhere in the house to put it, and partly because of the power consumption; the ideal solution is to dry stuff outside, which happens by magic for free. But living in the mixed climate of Scotland, which has mild/wet summers and mild/wet winters (quite different in spring and autumn, when we have moderate temperatures and it rains a lot) that doesn’t always work.
Because of the north Atlantic conveyor (including, but not limited to, the gulf stream), the British Isles are much warmer than they would otherwise be at 57 degrees north. Anything below -10°C is pretty rare, even in the Highlands. It’s actually the rain that’s the problem, oddly enough. There are large populations of deer in the highlands, and there’s a certain amount of attention given to managing their numbers – with no natural predators, the population would cycle catastrophically between boom and bust, quite apart from destroying the vegetation cover. But the natural mortality rate among Highland wildlife is much higher during a relatively mild winter than during a really cold one. That’s because a mild winter is a wet winter; the deer’s fur gets soaked and they can’t get dry. By contrast, in the dry, still air of a heavy frost, the deer are actually able to maintain body temperature more easily.
Ergo, we have no drier.
IHTIH
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Only you could get there via that route… hilarious. IDH.
__
“Bibles Not Included?”
hmmm…
Jack wrote:
********
Jack,
Hea,
The LGBTQ community face grave health concerns today. Much helpful information has been offered by the WHO and the CDC. Staticitics now show that members of this community are facing much shorter lifespans. This brings great concern within the Christian community.
P.S. Years ago when I was without a place to stay or food to eat, it was members of the gay community that reached out to me and gave me shelter and a bite to eat. I was very grateful. My outlook and attitude and actions have continued gracefully since that day.
You should know, I have a close friend that is a life long gay and married to a gay person as well. He has told me on numeral occasions how kind, graceful, and sympathetic I have been.
Skreeeeeeeeeeetch!
“Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger and welcome You, or naked and clothe You? And when did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?”
And Jesus will answer them:
‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you did it to Me.’ -Jesus
Hope this helps.
ATB
Sopy
—
__
“Is There A Future Christianity Makeover In The Works, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
The world is changing.
bump.
Fairly recent events have caused many folk to stop and simply wonder why things are happening the way that they are…
OK.
Science, politics, sexuality (for example) , all are moving in very different directions, at a rapid pace, leaving the 501(c)3 Christian church to wonder how to regain (if possible) its ‘voice’ in a culture that continues to ignore or ridicule Jesus’ good news of the gospel message.
Yep.
Q. How do professional 501(c)3 pastors and ministry leaders respond to this?
Q. Should they follow the dictates of the culture, or close ranks and ignore what’s going on around them, or is there a better way forward?
Q. What voice can help them engage the world instead of abandoning or surrendering to it?
Gump.
You Decide…
Not a sermon, just a thought,
ATB
Sopy
__
ref: CT Today; Logos Bible Software.
—
Sopwith wrote:
Your first concern seemed to be with churches forced to have Transgendered facilities.
The sermon you linked to equated the “gay marriage agenda” with pornography.
My wife is in healthcare, HIV/AIDS & other diseases cross all cultural, sexual & class boundaries.
I don’t know the stats but perhaps shortened lifespan has more to do with generations being seen as pariahs.
I have no doubt you have gay friends but how many did you share that sermon with?
Many Christians don’t understand why we secular folks don’t get them. Homosexuals aren’t going back in the closet any more than women are going back to the kitchen.
Sorry to be harsh. Most times I enjoy your poetry. But on this we will have to differ.
Jack wrote:
Churches in the U.S. don’t have to perform gay marriages under the First Amendment and practicing their sincerely held religious beliefs. Ditto for transgender bathrooms.
For further information check out Church Law & Tax (website) and articles on these
topics by attorney Richard Hammar.
@ Velour:
The bathroom challenge has not come to Canada yet but I don’t think churches would be forced into anything either.
It’s a sticky issue though. Religious institutions scorn secular law, yet happily accept tax free status. I’ve heard Christians get quite offended when the issue of prayer in public schools is brought up.
Try & get a book published now that advocates the death penalty for any group. It’s the unpalatable side of religion for me.
@ Jack:
In the U.S. tax code a religious group (like an environmental conservation group, medical group, children’s group, arts group or other charity) can qualify for non-profit status.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501-c-3-organizations
54 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New York schools’ voluntary, non-denominational prayer at the start of the school day was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment’s “Establishment of Religion” clause: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468
I do agree that there are some Christians who get up in arms about the issue of school prayer and see it a sign of a culture and values in decline. (I pray wherever I am, silently.)
@ Velour:
Thanks for the info. I found this article interesting.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/16/the-yearly-cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/
Jack wrote:
Thanks, Jack, for the article. I’m not surprised at all by the numbers. As the country changes, I think the tax code may change in this regard but not without a fight. A lot of pastors are raking in money hand over fist.
@ Velour:
I was watching a documentary about Scientology. The IRS really got it handed to them in the courts trying challenge their claim to religion. I don’t think the tax agencies will go after churches unless they get too political. I recall Jerry Falwell losing his tax status for a while because of that.
Velour wrote:
In my opinion a voluntary prayer in the public schools is no more the establishment of a state religion than is a Starbucks in the Capitol Rotunda the establishment of a state coffee.
My liberal colleagues really got their boxers and panties in a dither over that one.
But oh well as they say, that’s Muff.
@ Jack
__
HIV: “In The Beginning?”
hmmm…
Medical Report: “Pneumocystis Pneumonia — Los Angeles” – June 5, 1981
M.S. Gottlieb, M.D., H.M. Schanker, M.D., P.T. Fan, M.D., A. Saxon, M.D. and J.D. Weisman, D.O. *
* Note: At the time of this ‘initial’ HIV report these doctors were with the Division of Clinical Immunology-Allergy at the Department of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine. I. Pozalski, M.D., was with the Cedars-Mt. Siani Hospital, Los Angeles and the Field Services Division, Epidemiology Program Office at the CDC.
“In the period October 1980-May 1981, 5 young men, all active homosexuals, were treated for biopsy-confirmed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia at 3 different hospitals in Los Angeles, California. Two of the patients died. All 5 patients had laboratory-confirmed previous or current cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and candidal mucosal infection. Case reports of these patients follow.
* “The fact that these patients were all homosexuals suggests an association between some aspect of a homosexual lifestyle or disease acquired through sexual contact and Pneumocystis pneumonia in this population.”
__
References:
Walzer PD, Perl DP, Krogstad DJ, Rawson G, Schultz MG. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in the United States. Epidemiologic, diagnostic, and clinical features. Ann Intern Med 1974;80:83-93.
Rinaldo CR, Jr, Black PH, Hirsh MS. Interaction of cytomegalovirus with leukocytes from patients with mononucleosis due to cytomegalovirus. J Infect Dis 1977;136:667-78.
Rinaldo CR, Jr, Carney WP, Richter BS, Black PH, Hirsh MS. Mechanisms of immunosuppression in cytomegaloviral mononucleosis. J Infect Dis 1980;141:488-95.
Drew WL, Mintz L, Miner RC, Sands M, Ketterer B. Prevalence of cytomegalovirus infection in homosexual men. J Infect Dis 1981;143:188-92.
Lang DJ, Kummer JF. Cytomegalovirus in semen: observations in selected populations. J Infect Dis 1975; 132:472-3.
__
http://www.thebody.com/content/art47280.html
—
@ Muff Potter:
And the key word is voluntary. If a Christian group wanted to hold optional prayers that’s ok. For that matter any religious group could do so. Just don’t force myself & my kids to participate.
__
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?”
hmmm…
@ Jack
News Report: “1982 – 1992 News Clips On HIV/AIDS (The First Ten Years)” [1]
Skreeeeeeeetch !
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?”
Could b.
(sadface)
Sopy
__
Reference: [1]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zPO5wausim8
—
@ Muff Potter:
I’m a conservative. I don’t see any need for a state-sanctioned prayer in the schools.
Had school prayer been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, it could change depending on the dominant religious beliefs of a geographic area and who is in power. No thanks.
@ Velour:
Like I’ve said here and elsewhere. I’m neither liberal nor conservative. I borrow ideas from both sides of the aisle. Rogue anomaly, free thinker, and yes, (depending upon who ya’ talk to) ‘unsaved’ theological heretic too.
Jack wrote:
Indeed. Voluntary was the operative word I was careful to include. I would NEVER, let me repeat that: NEVER advocate the force of law to force others to participate in any type of prayer by those so inclined on school grounds. I simply believe that those who are so inclined (public prayer) should not be prevented from doing so.
@ Muff Potter:
I understand, Muff, and I’ve seen that in your posts.
I guess when a legal issue is serious enough, called a “split of authority” in the lower appellate courts where one appellate court rules on a legal issue one way and another appellate court rules on the same legal issue the other way, the U.S. Supreme Court is given the final authority to resolve the legal issue and its constitutionality. In the school prayer case, while not a burning issue and not one that I would get bent out of shape about, I agree with the Court’s ruling and how they arrived at it.
@ Velour:
Well I gotta admit, it does bend me outta’ shape. One of my credos is live and let live. Gay, lesbian, atheist, fundamentalist ixtian, Jew, Muslim,… in my world view all have right and claim to practice whatever they see fit so long as it doesn’t violate criminal statutes and they don’t try to force their beliefs or lifestyles on others.
Muff Potter wrote:
Well the U.S. Supreme Court took the “live and let live approach” to school prayer. People can pray however they want, but the government can use its authority to impose it on others.
There are legal issues that while not criminal (jail time, prison time) are still illegal and unconstitutional (separate schools based on race is just one of many issues).
Sopwith wrote:
I find this statement disturbing in the context of your post. What kind of “prevention” do you insinuate?
I’ve heard these sentiments echoed in the evangelical church I used to attend. You know, that “homosexual agenda” thing. Chills me to the bone and makes me again thankful I don’t live in a theocracy.
There’s a great book called “The Coming Plague” by Laurie Garrett. The title is dramatic but she gives a great overview of AIDS epidemic including the social environment in North America at the time the disease was identified. The book is from 1994 but is well researched (including other emerging diseases such as ebola, Legionnaires disease & antibiotic resistance.
Nothing is as simple in this world & I truly don’t believe that diseases are a punishment from God any more than the weather is a punishment from God. Natural selection is why disease organisms find the best vectors to propagate. Look at syphilus, Used to be a disease of the legs called yaws, before it found a better way to move around. Viruses, bacteria & parasites are neither good nor evil, they just do what they do.
This is where the fundamentalist, inerrant interpretation of the bible falls completely flat. It paints God as some arbitrary giver & taker. He heals some & not others. He smites some & not others. Good people get cancer, good people die in car wrecks & plane crashes, good people lose their jobs. These aren’t acts of a loving God, the manifestation of the loving God is that we can draw strength to get us through cancer (whatever it’s outcome), get through the grief of losing our loved ones (& give us courage to face our own death, to provide comfort to get through the lean times.
And a big component of that is compassion of others towards those who are suffering. Because the universe doesn’t owe you anything, all we have is each other.
I’ve admitted before that I don’t know if Christianity is “real”, I think there are many ways to the truth. But without tolerance, empathy, compassion & love, we’ve got nothing.
___
“When Help Was Needed, the 501(c)3 Christian Community Was There?”
hmmm…
My Illustrious Friend Dee,
Hea,
IMHO, You may of overlõõked my point…
Please allow me to explain, OK?
Gay folks are very concerned about HIV/AIDS. Their communities are very much affected by these health concern as well.
huh?
With the national normalization of gay marriage, gay couples will (more than likely) be more and more –seeking acceptance in the house of worship of their choice with-out prejudice.
What?
We are talking about Christian trends this site, Right?
bump.
These Americans ‘may’ have special need which the greater Christian comunity may not, as of yet, felt the need to address; such as questions such as –wether gay marriage can be biblically incorporated successfully into many 501(c)3 houses of worship today; –do they require special changes to 501(c)3 bathroom policies, for example.
Skreeeeeeeeetch !
In light of newly minted executive federal policy with the revision of the 1964 civil rights act, gender discrimination has now been addressed on a national level and new federal laws enacted and seeking the proper enforcement.
It still remains to be seen if 501(c)3 churches will reach out anew to this group of individuals; or will the federal government have to step in like they did with the national handicap regulations. Does the greater Christian 501(c)3 community share these concerns?
hmmm…
Please excuse my clumsy attempt at concern for my fellow citizens,
“We’ll try harder…” 🙂
(hope you had a wonder pause, rest, or a change of scenery…)
THANK -YOU! for reviewing and posting my comments, addressing my concerns, and conversing with me since 2010,
ATB 🙂
Sopy
—
^correction in a word to my reply to Muff: but the government CAN’T use its authority to impose it on others.
Sorry..fingers.
Sopwith wrote:
I am not sure why you keep bringing this up. According to the U.S. Supreme Court the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords religious groups broad protections to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs (such as not performing gay marriages,
firing thier own staff for discriminatory reasons (age, illness), inflicting church discipline including excommunications and shunnings (and not being sued for it) when private businesses and government ones (schools for example) are held to different legal standards.
The New York Times has frequently written on this subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html
@ Velour:
My interpretation is this individual seems to think there will be some sort of invasion of Christianity by diseased people of a certain sexuality. Base fear mongering. Reading Leviticus & Deuteronomy. I don’t they need to worry too much. I found this sort of attitude quite common when I attended an Evangelical church.
Jack wrote:
I agree, Jack. I found the same kind of thinking at my former NeoCalvinist, evang church.
Jesus commanded us to take care of widows and orphans and help the needy. There is so much that needs to be done. And if people stopped with the whining about this and put it to better use, maybe the lives of widows and kids could be improved!
@ numo:
As teens.
Apologies for typos.
Not sure why this issue keeps coming up, either.
numo wrote:
I think that for many in the faith, human sexuality is a huge litmus test and an even bigger hill to die on. Why this is so is puzzling to me. I think it’s time for people of faith to rethink human sexuality in terms of common sense and a responsible pragmatism. The dogmatic approach is not working.
@ Muff Potter:
It keeps coming up because God expressly condemned homosexuals to death. Paul also had strong words about it as well. Fundamentalist Christians of all denominations seem to struggle with it. Among other things it comes when the understanding of the Bible is literal. Interesting that the son of God didn’t mention it in his ministry. His message was he had come that none shall perish.
__
Q. What denominational church groups have integrated same sex into their religious communities?
“I think it would be better for the pastor to tell the whole truth as opposed to pretending that the church is somehow open and diverse…” -Dee
“The issue of same sex and Christianity is a subject of on-going theological debate within and between certan Christian denominations. ”
The following is a short list of church groups that have successfully integrated same sex into their communities:
The Church of England currently maintains that same-sex partnerships are acceptable for laypersons.
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists is committed to the “full inclusion” of gay and lesbian persons in their churches.
Disciples of Christ affirms the faith, baptism and spiritual gifts of all Christians regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, also endorsed the ordination of LGBT clergy; their congregations also performed same-sex marriages.
Community of Christ has extended the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples; allowing also the ordination of individuals in same-sex relationships to the priesthood.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America allows non-celibate gays to become ordained ministers; LGBT individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and participate in the life of the congregation. ELCA congregations that specifically embrace LGBT persons are called Reconciling in Christ congregations.
The group Lutherans Concerned supports the inclusion of LGBT members in Lutheran churches in the ELCA and ELCIC.
Most Lutheran and united state churches in Germany view same sex as moral and allow gay and lesbian clergy. Many of the Lutheran and united churches in Germany are blessing same-sex unions.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Sweden allows blessings of same-sex unions and same-sex marriage and allow gay clergy.
In the Lutheran Church of Iceland same-sex marriages are allowed.
The Lutheran Church of Norway allows the blessing of same-sex unions and is a LGBT-friendly church.
The Lutheran Church of Denmark allowed same-sex marriages.
The United Protestant Church of France allows blessing of same-sex marriages and is LGBT friendly.
The United Protestant Church in Belgium allows blessing of same-sex marriages and is an LGBT friendly church.
Unity School of Christianity ministries and outreaches strive to be free of discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, age, creed, religion, national origin, ethnicity, physical disability, or sexual orientation.
The United Reformed Church in United Kingdom allowed the blessing of same-sex unions, and is an LGBT friendly church.
___
source: Wikipeadia
—
Jack wrote:
This is true. It is also true the the first word of both St. John the Baptist and Jesus Christ as they began their ministries was “Repent…”
He told the woman caught in adultery that her sins were forgive…”now go and sin no more.”
He also said, “You are my friends if you do what I command you.”
So all of this is addressed to any who is a sinner…including gossips and gluttons and the prideful and and and. And me. He didn’t say, “Oh, that’s OK…everyone gossips from time to time…” “It’s OK if you’re a glutton…you were made that way.”
But neither does He leave us without hope, and He does offer great and overabundant mercy when we do repent. That’s so we don’t perish in our sins.
May God give us all, me especially, the ability to see my sin and to repent from it.
PaJo wrote:
Yes.
And in the meantime, why aren’t we going out into the world and doing what the Lord commanded? Taking care of widows and orphans in their distress? I just don’t get it.
The biggest haters of gays at my former NeoCalvinist churches had the most messed up personal lives themselves. They did precisely ZERO about their own problems, harming relationships with family members, friends, co-workers, and church members.
I work in a diverse workplace, where anti-discrimination laws are required to be followed, as well as basic professionalism. My gay boss is a far nicer human being than ANY of my former NeoCalvinist pastors and elders, and many church members. And I’m a conservative Christian!
@ Sopwith:
I’m part of the ELCA, fwiw. Though individual congregations can opt out of having LGBT clergy, or at least, they could when i last checked.
I really like the way that nobody sits at the church door, or in the pulpit, with a measuring stick or accusing people of blotting their moral copybooks for being gay. Whst is emphasized: good ethics. But we get treated like adults, not kids.
@ Sopwith:
Your point is?
@ PaJo:
Adultery is a choice. To gossip is a choice. Sexuality is not a choice. It is how a person is wired. What kind of God wires someone a certain way then condemns them for it? I’ve heard ” love the sinner, hate the sin”. This was pertaining to homosexuals in a sermon I heard. What do you do when the “sin” is hardwired in? What’s being hated then?
Testing...[Wartburgers: please ignore this, I’m just testing what will happen if I combine a particular group of html tags…]
Jack wrote:
That would be the kind of God that forbids a straight dominant male access to his neighbors’ wives, for example? That is if and only if one assumes that everything that is ‘natural’ to humanity is by definition consistent with the will of God for humanity?
What kind of christian theology, however, says that man does not have a fallen nature, that man is nothing more than his biology, and that God does not give a rip about any of this? Answer: none. That is not what christianity says; that is something else entirely.
I am addressing what seems to be a style of thinking about human nature, sin and God. I am not here specifically limiting my comments to sexuality and sexual behavior, but neither am I excluding human sexuality and behavior from the discussion.
As to what one does when the sin is hardwired in, that is two different questions. Is sin hardwired in such a way that to remove the sin would destroy the person, for example, or is sin more like a disease/malfunction which needs divine intervention before it itself destroys the person? In The Great Divorce C. S. Lewis addresses this very question in regards to human sexuality. Or are persons already dead in trespasses and sins (all of us and all our sins and sin nature sexual or not) and the only hope is to bee reborn a new person in Christ by the power of the Spirit of God?
I do not think that it is by the will of God that we are any of us hardwired by God to sin, and I am not a calvinist to think that it is to the glory of God to see any of us destroyed. But we are wired to sin, just not by God, and God does not seem to admit some personal defeat to Himself by this condition into which we have fallen. He does not capitulate to our sin/sin nature due to some overwhelming sentimentality or cowardice or impotence on His part. He is not defeated by our sin/sin nature. Rather he not only enables but demands that we forsake our own very selves, re-align ourselves to His Self and let Him remake us from step to step toward His own image. A little something called salvation. To think this, however, requires the idea that all of creation is impacted by the rebellion of humanity against God, which itself is a christian theological idea.
It was not God who wrote ‘I am OK; You Are OK.’ It is God who is OK and who can deal with our sin condition by the new birth. Are we then rid of our old nature? Nope, not yet. Are we then, having been given grace to say yes to God in the first place then given grace right on to let ourselves be being transformed by that grace? Yep. Is it easy? Not remotely. Is it worth doing? Worth? It is the only effectual answer to the sad condition of humanity.
__
“Fnding A Affirming Church?”
Jack,
hey,
One may find a affirming Christian congregation near them by searching: http://www.gaychurch.org/; they have a large directory which lists some 7578 churches from around the world. One might just find that very church they have been searching for. Hope this helps,
ATB 🙂
Sopy
—
okrapod wrote:
Well thought out and well said.
__
Q. “What Does The Bible Say About Christian Behavior?”
hmmm…
When we talk about “Christian” behavior, we are talking about the behavior of those who have accepted, by faith, Jesus Christ as their Savior and thus are indwelt with His Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9), making it possible for them to serve God.
Examples of Christian behavior are woven throughout Scripture.
Indeed, our Savior Himself spoke at length about the way we are to behave toward others, friends and enemies.
More than that, however, the life He lived, accentuated by His love and compassion for the lost, provides the consummate example of what Christian behavior should look like.
Christians are “God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10). And these last four words “to do good works” epitomize the behavior that glorifies God and makes Christ real to others.
Granted, there are obstacles in our daily lives that can encumber our minds and hinder our spiritual progress, but only if we let them.
Nonetheless, Christians are called to live lives that are “holy and pleasing to God” (Romans 12:1), and exemplary Christian behavior that allows us to fully commit ourselves to serving the Lord is made possible as we are empowered by the Holy Spirit who enables us to do the Father’s will (Romans 8:9).
Indeed, “the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to Him” (2 Chronicles 16:9).
Christians are a chosen people, belonging to God so that we may declare His praises (1 Peter 2:9).
To “declare His praises,” then, it is essential that we spend time in His Word not just so we can learn how to behave in Christian fashion, but also so we can battle against the schemes of Satan.
As the apostle Paul pointed out, without this biblical knowledge we are not only subject to buying in to every new teaching that comes along, but we can also fall prey to “the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming” (Ephesians 4:14).
However, knowledge alone is not enough; we are called to do more than to know and believe.
Christians are to be “doers of the Word” (James 1:22).
As the apostle James informs us, we are deceiving ourselves if we think we are spiritual by only hearing the Word.
Hearing is not the same as doing.
“Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17, 26).
Faith must be demonstrated by actions.
The “actions” that glorify our Father in heaven are those that bear much fruit (John 15:8).
This is, in fact, how we show we are His disciples. Indeed, the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23)—should be the hallmark of Christian behavior, especially love.
Yet our tendency is to sometimes look down on unbelievers or those whose lifestyles are not in sync with our Christian faith, and this is where the Christian life can be challenging.
It is easy to show love to those who walk as we do.
It’s not always so easy to be kind to those who ridicule our beliefs, show contempt for our Savior, or make a mockery of the institutions that Christians hold sacred.
Yet Christ taught us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us.
Recall how He dealt with the woman caught in adultery. Her captors wanted her dead; our Savior showed compassion even though He was the One who would have to die for her (and our) sinful behavior (John 8:11).
Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), not to condemn them (John 3:17), and if Christ did not come to condemn sinners, neither should Christians.
Christian behavior includes heeding Jesus’ call for us to be His witnesses to “the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
We are to share the gospel, which Paul defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
As it was said, “Preach the gospel always, using words if necessary,” which means the validity of our witness is in how we live our lives.
In the second half of Ephesians (chapters 4-6), Paul discusses Christian behavior which can best be summed up in these few words: “Be imitators of God…and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us” (Ephesians 5:1-2).
Paul urged the Romans to “offer your bodies as living sacrifices…” (Romans 12:2). This, ultimately, is the essence of true Christian behavior – surrendering our hearts and yielding our bodies to Christ so He might continue God’s work through us.
We are to be beacons of light in a dark world, using our spiritual gifts to advance His kingdom.
It is living here on earth the way Jesus lived when He was here.
It also means living to please one Person – that is God Himself.
We do this when we abide in His Word and then live it out as we are enabled by His Spirit, just as our Savior did until He took His last breath.
As He was dying on the cross, Christ looked out at His executioners and asked His Father to forgive them (Luke 23:34).
Jesus was doing more than fulfilling prophecy and making “intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12), He was practicing what He preached (Luke 6:27-28).
ATB
Sopy
___
Resources:
Logos Bible Software; http://www.logos.com
Jerry Raferty – “City To City”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G3D7Cmr_9hQ
🙂
—
Here is the latest. It is June 1 and I’m still short of the rent. Scary, but I am at peace in the middle of the anxiety. Hard to explain. June’s bills ($500) start coming due next week…. I have applied for the position at the county land title office. The application process doesn’t close until next Friday. Another county job opened as administrative assiatance that I will apply for, as well. We will see. Tumor has shrunk some more. I am still tired a lot an need a lot of rest. I so appreciate all the prayers and positive energy and love you all are sending. As I say every time, and mean wholeheartedly, thank you for you kindness and assistance. It is beyond anything I ever expected or deserve. May joy and peace and blessings be yours. Love you all.
http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp
@ Jeannette Altes:
I’m praying for you. I’m sorry but I am not in a position to help others right now due to some major expenses.
Here is a link to services in Grand Junction, CO. (I thought you live in this location.) Perhaps you can contact the Salvation Army and other groups for assistance?
http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/mesa_county_assistance_program.html
And also see if you can get into low income housing if you are not already.
Hugs.
@ Velour:
Velour, thank you. I understand.
Thanks for the links. I have looked into Salvation Army, Catholic Outreach, and others. (One church I went to has on the cover of their application, “We will not help ann situations that are the result of sin.”)
With the SA and CO, they will not help unless you have an eviction notice, which I don’t and hope not to…
The low income housing is similar and locally has a 8 to 12 month waiting list. Oy!
I am keeping my eyes and ears open but honestly, for this area, a 1 bdrm apt with water, sewer, trash, electric and gas included for $565 is hard to beat, even with low income housing. This apartment was a gift from God from the beginning and over the 8 years I have lived here, my rent had been reduced by the landlord twice. I’m paying $75 less now than when I moved in.
I am also considering applying for disability, but that is an arduous and lengthy process, too.
Thank you for all your prayers and suggestions. They are much appreciated!
@ Jeannette Altes:
What a kind landlord that you have. I will continue to pray for you.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Yet Jesus helped the woman caught in adultery. Geesh!
@ patriciamc:
Yeah, this application was more intrusive than the one to get food stamps or medicaide. It asked for a lot of fetails, the asks, “describe your relationship with Jesus,” and, “explain what you did to get in this situation.” It ends be asking for a signature with a disclaimer that states that by signing, you waive your right to privacy on the information provided (some very personal) and give them permission to talk to anyone they choose concerning your request aND info. Oh. And they ask for the name of your pastor.
I can’t and won’t sign such a documrnt. Oh, and if they approve your application, that is only step 1. Then you have to go through a face to face interview. The whole process could take weeks. And all you might get is a $25 gift card to Safeway. Sigh.
@ Jack:
I think you just love the sinner.
There is a lot of disagreement as to what is hard-wired. Sexuality. Gluttony. Lustfulness. Different sorts of mental illness. Addictions. Pedophilia. These and others make the claim to hard-wiring.
The church must welcome sinners or empty the pews. But to ignore the commandments of Christ is not the pathway to friendship with Him. Repentance, humility, and obedience to what He commands…that is the path to friendship with Christ.
It is a interesting exercise to go through the Gospels and write down every command of Christ. And then to try to obey even five of them.
I have learned that I am not a very good friend to Christ. Mercy.
@ Jeannette Altes:
80
And this is what they call “mercy to the poor”…
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
Yeah, it feels like if I sign it, I’m signing away my soul. It’s one of the local megas, pentacostal (sort of) in flavor. It’s funny…there are around 130 church’s in the county (pop. 150,000), and very few of them have any sort of benevolence program. Most of the ones who do are geared toward single moms, which is fine, but I have no need for diapers and formula. 🙂
There is one AofG that gives out food every Sunday after service and the only question they ask is, “how many people in your house and are there kids?” They have the boxes prepackaged by household size and composition. And their food is fresh and includes frozen meat and eggs, none of which are expired.
The church with long application? They gave me a box of food as sort of a token gesture (long story) and when I got home, it included a 1/2 gallon jar of hot sauce that was 5 years past it’s pull date. Every thing in the box was at least a year past it’s pull date aND none of it was aNY kiND of cohesive planded stape kiND of food. Don’t they realize that giving food to the needy that you don’t deem fit to eat yourself gives the message that the person asking for help is less important and worthy than you are? If you mention it (which I did, thinking they were unaware that the food was expired), you get lectured – they knew and frowned and said, oh the food is fine, your just picky and ungrateful…. Sigh.
Sorry for all the typos above…phone comment window is tiny and hard to proof…. :/
@ PaJo:
I agree with loving the sinner except that I cannot equate sexual orientation with lustfulness, gluttony etc. I also cannot equate mental illness with gluttony, lustfulness etc.
I worked for 8 years in a mental institution as a nursing assistant. Many who suffer mental illness may do odd or strange things, even what we would call sinful but do they sin insofar as what Christ would say is sin? Well there’s a can of worms. In many of the cases that I was exposed to, the person’s senses send entirely different messages to the brain and/or brain is biologically unable to process the information it’s receiving. If God is going to condemn the mentally ill then he may as well condemn everyone who suffers a medical condition from diabetes to hemorrhoids. In biblical times these people may been considered “demonically possessed” and Jesus was compassionate towards them. Healing them like he did those with physical infirmities. If someone is a danger to themselves or others then we need to protect the wider society but for most of the mentally ill, I feel deep compassion. I think they should get a free pass to heaven as they have already lived a hell on earth.
As for sexual orientation, while LGBT folks can be criminal just like anyone else, who does it harm? As Dee mentioned above, both homosexual and straights are equally prone to promiscuity. This is now recognized as genetically predetermined. God may as well condemn me for green eyes or balding hair.
As for pedophilia, whether a compulsion, condition or choice, it is evil. In many cases the pedophile knows what they do is wrong (unlike the schizophrenic). The pedophile is fully aware and often plans their activity by looking for vulnerable targets. Protection of children trumps all consideration in these cases.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
I am so sorry to hear that. When I was stocking a food bank at a church, I was also surprised at the junk people dropped off that they wouldn’t eat and that should be thrown in the trash. Things like expired clam juice in a bottle. I would have to toss things out all of the time to keep the food pantry items safe and usable for recipients. Donors expected me to be grateful. I wasn’t. It was extra work. What were people thinking?
@ Velour:
In my experience, I believe that cleaning their shelves of the old stuff and donating it to a food bank makes them feel like they’ve done their part to help the needy without actually having to sacrifice anything. I think that’s why they get so defensive when you point out the uselessness if the donation…it invalidates their reason for feeling like they’ve done their part.
I know one person who does it differently (they are long gone, but it taught me a youthful lesson I’ve remembered). If they were going to help someone, when they went to the grocery store, whatever they bought for themselbes, they’d buy 2 and put it in the other cart. Then have the bagged separately and give the extra directly to the person in need.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
This is my motto, too. I refuse to give anyone anything to eat, use as a personal care product, household product, that wouldn’t be good enough for me, my family, friends, and neighbors.
@ Jeannette Altes:
I think it would be a good idea if you applied for disability, even Social Security disability if you qualify with your medical conditions. I think you should check it out, perhaps someone at Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army, like a social worker could give you an assist. That way, if you qualified you would have some income coming in.
Just take it slow, but do think about the action steps. Look at the form, etc.
And here’s somethin’ for y’all on this 3rd of June by way of a country ballad from long ago that had way more questions than answers…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/all-southerners-come-home–as-has-long-disappeared-music-legend-bobbie-gentry/2016/06/02/3988aba2-28df-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html
Jack wrote:
I think sometimes God is watching how ‘normal’ people sit in judgment and condemn ‘the others’ as a part of figuring out the sheep from the goats. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this is true. 🙂 I agree, sexuality (sexual orientation) is not a choice. So being gay, or trans, is not a sin if it is not chosen. You have to choose to sin, and when people are born ‘different’, like my Down syndrome son, they are not going to bear responsibility for their difficulty, but people that attempt to belittle them and cause them problems will face judgment, I believe.
This is an article I first read maybe five years ago. It’s both disturbing and healing because it exposes patterns of victim-thinking. It talks about the dance on the victim triangle that we all tend to get drawn into. Here is the link: http://www.lynneforrest.com/articles/2008/06/the-faces-of-victim/#victim. It’s not an easy read. I’m posting this because I think most people who follow this site have either been victims of some kind or have been there for victims they personally know.
@ Muff Potter:
Ah, Muff. That song was one I grew up on. My mom learned it and used to play the guitar and sing it. I have it on my MP3 player even now…I used to have both of Bobbie Gentry’s albums. I remember mom talking about how shocked some people were by the song and all the theories on what it was about….caused quite a stir in the church youth groups….
@ Jeannette Altes:
She was an extremely talented artist (Gentry) far ahead of her time. A wordsmith who knew how to tell a story and draw you into it. There are few who can do that.
@ Muff Potter:
I agree. Her music stands the test of time.
Is anyone familiar with Epiphany Fellowship (Acts 29) in Philadelphia, PA? I left when some major red flags were waved.
Anomy wrote:
Epiphany Fellowship in Philadelphia, PA is listed on the 9 Marks website:
https://9marks.org/church-search/
Therefore, I’m not surprised you had problems there and red flags. It’s the heavy-Shepherding Movement and authoritarianism conveniently disguised.
Also they are part of the Acts 29 network, more authoritarianism and heavy Shepherding:
http://www.acts29.com/churches/epiphany-fellowship/
And they espouse Comp doctrine from Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood:
http://euaopa.typepad.com/blog/2013/06/manhood-restored-how-the-gospel-makes-men-whole.html
Consider yourself fortunate to have escaped!
Latest update: Thank you all so much. Because of your help, my June rent and bills are covered. I have food for the next week. So, all I need now for June is gas and food for 2nd half of month. I’m still waiting to hear on jobs I’ve applied for. Helped a friend on Friday and he paid me $60 – which paid for groceries. 🙂 There are no words to adequately express my gratitude for all your help. It is overwhelming and teaching me that love really is more than a word. Thank you so much….
http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp
Jeannette Altes wrote:
That is great news Jeannette! I have been fervently praying for you.
@ Velour:
Thank you.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Welcome!
@elastigirl
That is all very impressive, but you do know I suppose that the potty laws are not restricted to trans sexual persons. If implemented, the entire male school population can go shower with the girls’ softball team. If you have a teen age son (I have no idea) and you advise him to do that to show solidarity with the movement let us know how that works, because just a whole lot of people are going to have to be dealing with it. And if your daughter (if you have one) shows up looking like photoshop you-know-what on some internet social site from some snaps some guy got in the rest room (I am not making this up) then tell her that is the price that one must pay to be Christ like, if I understand your comment correctly.
But on the bright side, it might mean more jobs for more SROs (on site school cops) most of whom are women and excellent at their job. At a certain high school from which I get first hand information there are already potty problems, and there is concern that the current problems will only worsen if the new laws are implemented.
Or we could have individual potties for individuals who need that, like they do at hospitals and doctor’s offices and such. It would cost a bit for public spaces to install this option, but it is an idea.
@ okrapod:
What I have a problem with are the edicts from the government demanding schools comply or they withhold federal funds.
Where is the Democratic process when spending taxpayers money? Yes a debate would be grueling and our congress wants to avoid it. Cowards. I can live with votes I disagree with. What I cannot live with are dictatorial edicts from our government. I really do hope Americans wake up soon. We are being micro-managed to death with no say in the matter.
@ okrapod:
I can see how Non-Trans people (cis men) will exploit the more lax rules to attack women and girls in public restrooms and locker rooms if the policy is anyone can use any public restroom whenever, where ever.
A guy does not have to be truly Transgender, or even wear a skirt and lip stick, to get into a ladies room now: all he has to do to tell anyone questioning him is that he “identifies as a woman” now, and bingo presto, he will be permitted in.
There was a cis woman who was in a store using a fitting room, and if I remember correctly, a burly man with a beard came into the room, or she heard a man with a deep voice enter.
She expressed alarm to store management, who told her there was nothing they could do about it, because he was “identifying as a woman that day,” and if she did not like it, she could step outside the fitting room.
Here’s that story:
Ross Dress for Less Shopper Says Manager Dismissed Dressing Room Complaint: He Was ‘a Woman Today’ (May 2016)
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ross-dress-for-less-shopper-transgender-dressing-room-complaint-164323/
There have been other stories in the news of men exploiting this.
———-
“Politics: Of course: Missouri man caught filming women in Target dressing room” -April 2016, via caintv site
(and the page says it’s not the first time the guy did this)
I posted this months ago on this blog:
“Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter” -via Life Site News, March 2014
“Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying Into Mall Bathroom Stall, Police Say” – via NBC Washington site, Nov 2015
“University of Toronto learns why mandatory unisex bathrooms are a bad idea” -via Hot Air blog, April 2016
(Men filmed undressed women without their consent in locker room/ showers)
“Florida Woman Allegedly Chases Convicted Voyeur Out of Target Store” -via ABC News, May 2016″Even in Liberal Communities, Transgender Bathroom Laws Worry Parents” – via Time magazine, May 2016
(little girls spot men with beards in girl’s locker room areas, are now afraid to change after sports practice)
okrapod wrote:
P.S. I am sorry I don’t have the links available, but I’ve seen several news reports that this idea has already been shot down by P.C. activists.
They don’t want fair, workable, and safe solutions like yours, but rather to force people who disagree with Transgenderism to accept completely accept it and say it’s moral and peachy keen.
I don’t even care about Transgenderism. If men want to wear dresses and fancy themselves girls, I don’t care all too much.
However, I do care about NonTrans men who will find it ten times easier to sexually harass or assault girls and women in bathrooms or locker rooms thanks to this P.C. movement about bathrooms.
@ Daisy:
It is written in some student’s education plan in the public school system that they get to decide what gender they are day by day. It is a nightmare in some schools. Teachers are expected to use the correct gendered pronouns which can change day-to-day.
We have over corrected a real problem and created a bigger one. Middle schoolers are pressuring each other to declare their preference. It is a huge problem in the system.
@ Lydia:
Use Wrong Pronoun for Transgender Person? Get Fined 250k
http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/06/in-new-york-you-could-be-fined-250k-for-failing-to-use-a-transgender-persons-preferred-pronoun/
@ Lydia:
I’ve never heard of this. Is there a source? My kids are in middle school and gender identity is not forced on anyone. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen but….
As for guys skulking in women’s bathrooms, there’s been perverts for as long as there have been men, I suppose. And yes, I said men, I’ve never heard of women skulking around men’s washrooms.
For me the transgender issue comes into play only when the person has completely crossed over (ie had the operation) By then they have had a full assessment and have the scars to prove it.
We’re a fairly liberal community, pretty diverse (not without problems) but I think the discussion in the last few posts takes an extreme position. I don’t know how laws work in the states but here, it would be a hard sell to let bearded men use the women’s washroom. Particularly a girls change room. Even our most tolerant politicians wouldn’t go for it.
@ Jack:
As to whether accommodations might be written into some students IEP (individual education plan) for claimed gender fluidity, it certainly seems plausible though I have not read of an actual case.
I have read about students having to state their gender identity but not in public schools, so I did not think too much about it other than that some people who send their kids to private schools who would do that probably have more money than they do sense. However, if you look at the reactions from various public school systems to the edict from the president about conformity to alleged Title IX requirement for multi-sex/gender potties on pain of loss of monies for noncompliance, I would not be surprised if some would do that if their masters in DC told them to.
I don’t know what you all are doing up there (your flag says Canada, I assume that is right) but we down here are fighting an epidemic of apparent dementia of the populace in a lot of areas. I think that there are more people who believe that they are right than there are people who actually understand what it is they think they are right about.
Jack wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by “forced”. The pressure to proclaim your orientation is fierce among middle schoolers. If a girl does not think a popular guy is cute she is labeled. And visa versa. Everything is about sex and orientation. It is not considered negative labeling except perhaps to the kid labeled.
What sort of source are you looking for? This is not something the school system announces as a problem. The teachers are encouraged to not say a word. They are so afraid of offending. And the labeling is considered bullying. Political correctness has won.
The school system here has an official violence incidence report and an internal one. The internal one was over 4000. The official was under 200 if that gives you any clue how thing work. Image is everything.
Lydia wrote:
Oops. The labeling is NOT considered bullying
@ Lydia:
By “forced” I meant that it doesn’t appear that my children have had to declare their “gender identity” to anyone. No girls though but I’m not hearing that this is a big issue among my coworkers and friends that have daughters. I know that teen boys can be homophobic (epithets like “f*g, gay” are still slurs) but I’m pretty involved in our school as a parent volunteer and it’s not something I’m picking up on.
The school has a zero tolerance bullying policy, I haven’t seen the level of bullying or violence that was going on in the schools like when I was growing up.
Maybe this is something that will hit us when high school comes along or maybe it’s unique to your jurisdiction. We have problems like drug use, alcohol abuse, even some gang activity but I have never heard anyone claim that their “gender identity” has been challenged.
I thought you might have come across stats somewhere, so that’s what I meant by “source” . I’m guessing that you work or are involved in the school system to be privy to the incident reports you mention.
If you mean “political correctness” meaning you can’t denigrate based on sexual orientation as “winning” then is that a bad thing?
okrapod wrote:
We have the same issue in Canada with populace dementia. I’m not familiar with Title IX and it’s statute. Education is a provincial, not federal mandate however the supreme court can rule whether an action or law is against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our constitution). So far no one here has made a fuss about transgendered bathrooms and so far no one has brought it to the supreme court. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen eventually but it’s not a “hot button” topic here.
In our area, if a private school avails itself of tax dollars then it will fall under the auspices of the Ministry of Education as far as policies/laws are concerned. This is why so many religious private schools from Islamic to Christian to Sikh all were upset with our anti-bullying legislation when it included sexual orientation. Very heartwarming to see intolerance bringing diverse people together.
@ Jack:
Jack, How is it homophobic for a 13 year old girl to deny she is gay simply because she is not that interested in guys yet? But her peers insist she has to be one or the other?
The world has gone mad.
Jack wrote:
We are on the heels of 40 years of busing. There is no real memory of neighborhood schools. This has been a horror for low income students. There is no school connection in communities. Their parents cannot even visit their schools for activities and be involved in the evenings and such for sports or art shows, etc.
We have a very large school district. Many students spend up to an hour and a half on buses each way. Moving to a certain neighborhood does not guarantee your child a place in the neighborhood school.
The Supreme court ruled on local school here but they get around it with cluster engineering.
It was a noble idea with unintended horrible consequences.
Lydia wrote:
No, but the fact that the others instinctively consider her gay denotes homophobia as they think she might be “one of them”. Unless her cohorts are somehow thinking it’s “cool” to be gay. I have no idea, this is way beyond anything I can claim knowledge of. I’m not plugged into the current teenage girl zeitgeist (or whatever you call it), I have sons but I’m not hearing of peer pressure to “out” gays at the schools from my friends daughters or as an issue with their girls. Yeah, the world’s probably gone mad, I just haven’t caught up with it yet, I’m only moderately cheerful.
@ Lydia:
I see. We live about a block from our school, three minute walk at most. The school has maybe 200 kids from Kindergarten to Grade 8. Then they’ll go to the high school which is 3 blocks away. There are before and after school programs for parents who work (like us). On the whole we’re pretty happy with the arrangement.
@ Lydia:
I manage an LGBTQ project for 11-16 yr olds & one of the things we say is for them to define themselves by their humanity first, any other titles can wait until they have thought everything through & are happy to take on a certain title. Even then we tell them they have space to reconsider if they want, or to go in & out of the closet, or gender spectrum, several times. We really steer away from them feeling anyone has to be permanently labelled or pigeonholed at their age, or older. It is a tough tough world for those YP who really feel who they are needs an identifying label, & I much prefer to hear YP say ‘I think I am…’, ‘I’m probably…’ etc to give themselves space.
Does that make sense? It’s a huge pressure & welfare issue for us.
@ Jack:
We are confusing two things in this conversation: sexual orientation of the one hand and gender identity on the other hand. Lydia seems to be talking about sexual orientation, not gender identity. My answer was about gender identity. So let me weed this out.
The issue of sexual orientation is huge as far as I can tell at all age groups. Some of the middle school girls at the school where some of my g’kids go are even praying at the lunch table that the new boy who has registered for next year will be gay because they want to be able to say they have a gay friend. Young g’kid thinks that to pray like that is an offense to God. So it is a social issue to some and a theological issue to at least one. Either way it is a big deal. These are young teens.
Gender identity as far as I know is being driven in the schools by the bathroom edict and the federal Dept. of Education and the current AG Lynch and by the president of the US. Alleged grown ups are doing this, and in our state some corporations and one city council who passed a law pushing it. This is mostly the adults, not the kids.
That said, I did read where one or more private schools was pushing the claim your own gender identity issue with even little kids. Sicko to do this to little children in my opinion. Educational malpractice. Perhaps even outright evil in trying to confuse little children for the purposes of political correctness. The people doing that were adults and no excuse of simple youthful curiosity can be used in their case.
Lydia wrote:
Oh, yes. Except the reality behind the reality is not madness but rather power and money.
This nation has done hideous damage to some low income people by the very damage it has done to the concept of neighborhood-the neighborhood school, the local parish idea of church, the local grocery store, the kiddie park just a few blocks over, the plethora of mom and pop businesses, the local politician on the city council, the cops who walked the beat, the kids of the preacher man who went to the same schools as everybody else, the local family practice doctor’s office, the relative nearness of the extended family-all of it is gone.
I was invited to a local gathering of the Woman’s Club in my neighborhood, a modest working middle class neighborhood, and you should have heard the lamenting of the loss of neighborhood as it effects right here. The women all blamed it on the fact that most of the women had gone back to work and were not home during the day time for meetings and block parties which they used to have and for socializing and building relationships. So, it is not just the poorer neighborhoods that suffer. I am not thinking that those literally across the road from here in a gated community with high brick walls and within walking distance of the country club necessarily may feel this same loss.
We are trying to turn people into semi-isolated drones which used to be something that was helpful for the industrialization of the US and which are now needed to be slaves of the coming tyrannical socialist/communist government which may be upon us. And now somebody wants to even tell them that they don’t know whether they are male or female and it does not matter anyhow and that the whole sexual binary needs to be destroyed since it is an erroneous concept and is merely learned behavior. No, to the machinery it does not matter. To people, it does matter, because that is about all that is left to some people at some level, a sense of self.
Which may be part of the attraction of the neo-cal emphasis on gender and gender roles, including family and church. Identity and belonging.
okrapod wrote:
Yes. The aimlessness, the nihilism. We let the financial oligarchs do it to us. We played right into their hands with our endless desire for more toys, gizmos, and vapid entertainment.
“I first began to understand what I have learned since, that there are forces in this world, principalities and powers, that wrench away the things that are loved, people and land, and return only exile.”
— From Denise Giardina’s Storming Heaven —
__
Choice Elimination: “Under Pressure?”
hmmm…
“Middle schoolers are pressuring each other to declare their preference.” – Lydia
**
Lydia,
hey,
Young females today in middle & high schools are now ‘pinching’ other young female’s behinds.
huh?
Yes.
When asked why the unanounced and unsolicited ‘pinch’, the progressive pincher summeraryily responds, ” I am just checking…”
This pronounced situation has got other school female students ‘under pressure'(R) ?
bump.
Some proverbial progressive student’s ‘educational plan’, huh?
Informing your child about the changes that come with their ‘personal choice’ ™ of sexual identity?
hmmm…
This ain’t Kansas anymore, huh? [1]
Sopy
—
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sA1gx_3jPrw
—
@ Jack:
Is is very cool to be gay now in middle and high school. You get all sorts of special attention. Are you so dead set on finding offense you can’t see how being labeled when you barely understand the concept is not a form of buying?
okrapod wrote:
Bingo.
@ Beakerj:
This issue has become impossible to discuss in any meaningful way because the accusation of homophobe is a career killer. And everyone knows it.
Personally, I think schools have become more about social engineering and not so much academics. Here, in many ways, it is the social engineers who can’t just live and let live.
Any kid who has a problem being labeled is a homophobe and the adults are afraid to say a word. They are in jeopardy of losing their jobs. Political correctness won.
I am all about humanity over gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. That is the answer. But it is not what is being taught.
I wish those who use this issue as a club to control and box people in felt the same.
@ okrapod:
We have become an oligharcical nation. Congress votes “good” laws for us yet exempt themselves. There’s a clue! The unelected Supreme Court makes laws that have not been debated or passed by Congress. You can serve one 2 year term in Congress and have a pension and health care for life.
People are attacked for supporting a candidate and the police watch and do nothing because if they do, they are accused of brutality because we now have special protected classes.
(I will note that the fat kids at school get no such special protection and are bullied mercilessly)
The gap between rich and working class is at its worst since the robber barons. And our government has done a fine job using class warfare to make government even bigger with more power over personal choices. But, if you say a word about these inequalities you are homophobic, mean, hater, etc. Binary thinking is alive and well in these instances, too. And people fall for it –so glad they are better than those people on the other side of the aisle.
Reminds me of churches we discuss here. :o)
@ Sopwith:
I had some public school elementary teachers tell me and some others that their job was to teach the children to be activists. I kid you not. I told them I was confused. I thought their job was to teach them how to read, write and do maths. We are talking elementary concrete thinkers, right?
Lydia wrote:
I can only speak to what I know. And here’s what I know.
– I’m involved in our local school, child care center & soccer team. This is not a hot button issue in our community. So I’m not seeing it.
Now the discussion is has somehow linked the concept of gay rights to everything that apparently plagues the United States.
Guess what? Our liberal democracy has been oligarical almost since day one. Has anyone ever been really able to be elected without some endorsement by the ” money & power” establishment. We’ve just been able to pull the curtains back in many ways because of the instruments of that same liberal democracy.
It’s far from a perfect system and it still has nothing to do with what we were discussing.
It’s even starting to get contradictory. Okrapod is claiming we’re being subsumed by communism & socialism, & apparently put on by hyper capitalist robber barons according to Lydia.
Lydia, you’ve given me anecdote after anecdote that I can’t confirm so I can’t argue against in this forum. I would have to do some research of my own but suffice it to say, I think we’re on opposing sides of this debate.
And if I’m being bought then what am I being paid? A more equitable society? My grandfather in England couldn’t vote until 1936 because he didn’t own land.
Marginalized people are coming to the table and the conversations will need to happen & getting back to Christian trends, I think this is driving the push for a more authoritarian theology like being discussed on the main page.
As Sopy said, it isn’t Kansas anymore. I’m not sure I could live in that individuals version of Kansas anyway.
Thanks for engaging. Have a great Sunday. Peace out.
Lydia wrote:
Indeed. Religious fundamentalists give all sorts of “special attention”, like what happened in Orlando overnight.
I know a teacher who works in the school district where I live here in the Midwest. According to their observations, which I trust, students who are out are regularly harassed; it’s far from ‘cool’ to be out in this part of the country, and from reports in other rural areas, this is the norm. This is how things are in the majority of the country – by area, if not by population. I can’t speak to the cities, but in places where the regressive left holds sway, I could see things being different.
As to this morning’s atrocities in Orlando, this hits close to home on multiple levels. I have no words…
@ Josh:
I doubt that this is any help, but the problem of harassment is way larger than just anything sexual. My informant tells me that the kids get on social media and harass anybody they can for any reason, and when they have no reason they make something up. It is brutal they say.
okrapod wrote:
Yes it is, much larger.
@ okrapod:
Agreed. Harassment is a large issue. At one time you could escape the bullies by closing the bedroom door. Now they follow you right to your private time.
However nowhere does God dictate that the fat kids be put to death, nor the uncool girls, nor the kids who read too much, nor kids who suck at sports.
from NPR
“As of 2010, Christianity was by far the world’s largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31 percent) of all 6.9 billion people on Earth,” the Pew report says. “Islam was second, with 1.6 billion adherents, or 23 percent of the global population.”
This makes all the difference.
Over on the main page there are those who would rewrite Christian theology with express purpose of subjugating 52% of our population. There is a definite Christian trend turning away from enlightenment thinking towards a more literal interpretation of the bible. In some parts of the world, this has already come to fruition – Uganda comes to mind.
Muff Potter said “not on our shores”. I am not so certain.
Would this lead to some sort of “American Theocracy”. No, I don’t think that will happen.
However I think it’ll go farther than telling the Sunday school that their ancestors rode dinosaurs.
Thousands of Christian adherents will find themselves down a very dark rabbit hole, where their rights will mean nothing, their opinions rendered worthless, their children open to all sorts of abuse.
Catholics and “mainline” protestants shouldn’t feel smug either. Evangelical trends such charismatic and contemporary worship movements have certainly influenced liturgical worship. I was shocked that some Anglican churches are part of the Gospel Coalition.
We’ve already seen the outcome of spiritual abuse on this blog, if Christianity doesn’t address some of what’s in its Scripture, it’ll get much worse.
Jack wrote:
Like I said somewhere, I am basically a simpleton, so you need to be more specific for me to ‘get it.’ What is it in scripture that you think that Christianity needs to address, and what does ‘address’ mean in this context?
Latest update…. As I mentioned in my lasy update, my June bills are paid. It feels strange to have them paid before they are late. 🙂 I am still looking for means to make money. The county job application phase closed on Friday, so if they want to interview me, I should hear this week. My current needs are for food. Have enough for about 5 days (thank you!) and gas. I will also need to get some more supplies that aren’t covered by insurance soon – about $150 worth. I seem to have hit a plateau, healthwise – it is not getting better, but it is also not getting worse. I am making some adjustments to help tip that balance back toward healing – one of the biggest things is learning to not allow anxiety/stress to get big. Acknowledge the feelings and then let them go. Easier said than done, right? 🙂 I know I will he okay and this season will pass. As I keep saying, I am overwhelmed with the generosity and love that you all continue to show me. I pray that you all know the deep love and peace of God that He is teaching to me. I love you all and thank you so much.
http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp
@ okrapod:
These for starters.
http://www.owl232.net/biblequotes.htm
The trend appears to be towards a more fundamentalist view of the Bible.
Atheists have a field day with this stuff. In one documentary Dawkins called it “barking mad”.
This is the Bible of neocalvinism. A literal translation with no context.
@ Jack:
If one sees scripture as a procedure manual then there is a real problem. I don’t think much of Dawkins, but Ehrman makes some reasonable points. IMO if we cannot come to grips with the fact that the biosphere did not materialize in a few consecutive solar days we got problems. And the nasty issue of the fact that there was death before Eve’s encounter with the serpent can get right disruptive of some people’s theology, if in fact one even thinks any of that is literal, historical and accurate in that sense.
Some christian traditions are doing better with this than others, but for some people it is a real faith destroyer. And of course the contradictions and inconsistencies. All that cannot be just ignored.
We need to get Nick to talking about scripture. I have heard part of what he has to say and there is some real substance in his thinking. At least I think so, but perhaps I am fooled by his vocabulary and sentence structure which can be quite impressive.
Christiane wrote:
If a scientist identifies a set of genes that establishes the proclivity to commit adultery or be unusually judgmental of the “other”, how does your argument survive?
Even if science were to discover once and for all the genes that prove sexual preference is never a choice and is inextricably hardwired into our beings from conception, it would still have no bearing upon whether it’s right in the eyes of God to act upon those impulses. E.g., if a man is born with an extremely high libido that could never be satiated by one partner, why should he, a serial adulterer acting upon natural impulses, be treated any differently from one born with a libido that inclines towards a same sex partner?
Finally, what do you say to the homosexual person who derives great enjoyment from relations with multiple partners? Do you point a finger in judgment upon him or her? And if you do, how are you different from one who judges “the other”?
Thanks to kind donations, Jeannette Altes who posts here was able to pay her June rent and bills. She has been facing hard times: lost her job, being treated for a tumor, and she is looking for work.
She currently needs donations for food, household supplies, and gas money for her car.
https://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp
Prayer needs: Please keep her in prayer – stress/anxiety, health, job, provisions.
@ Velour:
Thank you so much.
okrapod wrote:
Not to fangirl here but I agree. Nick’s thinking is often very enlightening to me.
Lydia wrote:
I don’t know where you live, Lydia, but I’m at the southern end of the Jell-O belt. Every high school around here has a “seminary” for release-time clases for Mormon religious education. You know that church, right? That churc is dominant here. The church’s current stand on LGBT persons is that if a parent is in one of “those” relationships, his or her children cannot have a single Mormon ordinance dne, starting from a baby blessing. Of course it’s caused a hooraw. But my point here is that it is NOT cool to be out here in my part of the world.
I also hsve a friend who is transitioning right now in one of the deepest of Deep South states. She can be fired at any time for any reason because there are no restrictions in her state against discriminating against LGBT persons. This oes not make for “cool” life, far from it.
(I also learned from her that there is a lot of gender policing among transgender persons. “You don’t sit right,” she was told. I laughed and said I must be an awful woman because I don’t get the whole cross your legs like a lady thing.)
I also listned to a program on the BBC World Service today. It was about an Iranian family dealing with the daughter’s lesbianism and gender non-conformity. The way Iran “cures” homosexuality is to offer sex change operations. Like women? You can become a man and the state will pay for part of the operation! The only country which does more sex change operations than Iran is Thailand, and a lot of that is medical tourism. But it only obscures the issue. Oh yeah, one of the people in the program said being gay was fashionable…in a country where you can be stopped for not wearing a headscarf. Riiiight. About as popular as in a society where being gay gets you drummed out of church.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Welcome!
Law Prof wrote:
It doesn’t remove or address the fact that in a literal Bible reading, god condemns people to death for moral crimes. If the trend is toward a more literal interpretation regarding women then it’s not a big step to see where this thinking will lead. Doug Wilson is on record saying homosexuals could be executed in certain circumstances. American Evangelical pastors exported this garbage to Uganda. May rational minds prevail.
@ Jack:
Sorry, my response to Law Prof wound up in the same font. First paragraph is his, second mine & so forth.
okrapod wrote:
This is the crux of the matter. Neo Calvinists & fundamentalists use the Bible in exactly this way. A literal recipe with absolutely no interpretation allowed. And it causes untold misery. It is the prime reason I no longer partake in the faith.
@ okrapod:
And you a more intelligent than you give yourself credit for
@ Jack:
See, I can’t even string a sentence together! The irony in the above statement is pretty funny.
__
“His Eyes Are Upon Da Widdle Sparow?”
hmmm…
Jack,
hey,
It is my sincerest hope that you will reach out and accept Jesus’ abundant offer of eternal life. For God so loved you that He gave His only Son Jesus, that if you will believe in Him, you will receive eternal life. The angels in heaven patiently await your answer…This is your invitation, Don’t get no bedder…
In my prayers…
“Carry on my Wartburg friend,
There’ll be peace when you are done,
Lay your weary head to rest,
Don’t you cry no more…
Once I rose above the noise and confusion,
Just to get a glimps beyond this illusion,
I was soary never higher,
But I flew too high,
Masquerading as a man with a reason,
My charade was the event of the season,
And if I claim to be a wise man,
It surly means that I simply don’t know…” [1]
ATB 🙂
Sopy
__
[1] carry on…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1AGQbe9mWZU
—
Jack wrote:
Yes they do, and this is one of the reasons that I no longer believe some of the things that used to bother me about the bible. But I have not ditched the faith over this, because frankly I never thought it was a certain view of the bible or nothing. Not saying that you do/did think that, just saying that I never did quite buy that understanding especially since the fourth grade when we learned that our species has been around a whole lot longer than a few thousand years. That was the start of getting free of some things for me. Just the start, not the whole story.
Jack wrote:
Realize that I was responding to arguments that both you and Christiane had made, so there may be some confusion. But in your post you were at least implicitly judging those who were adulterers, do you judge them?
Law Prof wrote:
Why is this any of our business? I’m a conservative Christian. But if I can’t order you to get a particular haircut and you can’t order me to get one, what makes one think that anybody’s business is our business?
I just don’t get that.
I don’t get the relentless energy exhausted on the topic by conservative Christians. OK, there are widows, orphans, the elderly, pregnant moms, and a whole bunch of other people who need help. Time, money, and energy better spent there.
Jack wrote:
Jack, I agree with you. And I’m a conservative Christian. But I get so tired of these people who shove Scripture verses down peoples’ throats. Just love people, be kind.
The thief on the cross didn’t have to: read a tract, say a prayer, read and memorize Scripture verses, didn’t have to do anything special, to be forgiven and to be with Jesus in paradise.
I’m a Protestant but Mother Teresa I think brought more people to believe in God by simply loving and caring for them than all of the Bible verses in the world and lectures.
@ Jack:
One other thing, Jack, were I still practicing law and had you given that response in a courtroom, it’d have drawn the following reaction: “Objection, your honor, witness is non-responsive”
Your original point to which I responded, near as I can discern, was: “If an inclination’s hard-wired, acting on it cannot be wrong, if one acts on something by choice, it can be wrong.” If that isn’t your position, please correct me.
To that, you replied “But the Bible condemns some moral sins to death, and what of Doug Wilson, who says homosexuals could be executed? You then punctuated this with “Let rational minds prevail.”
Your response has nothing to do with my point. (FWIW, I don’t believe in the New Testament era that any moral failings are grounds for execution and I didn’t say a word about Doug Wilson, who I believe to be a great fraud).
Here’s the question another way:
If A is born with homosexual impulses and engages in homosexual acts and B is born without homosexual impulses but chooses to engage in homosexual acts, do you condemn B but not A? Further, if C is born with an unnaturally high libido and engages in extramarital sex, do you condemn C but not A?
Velour wrote:
I didn’t say that it was anyone’s business; I’m not talking about pointing a bony finger at a particular homosexual person or a group, they can work things out between themselves and God just as I must do likewise.
What I’m engaging is Jack’s position. My response to his position (which I inadvertently omitted in the previous post) was, in short: “What if all these things are shown to have a genetic component? Does God thereby forfeit the right to judge anything because someone has a natural inclination?” I’d also like to know the scientific basis for his contention that adultery and gossip are a choice, but sexuality is not. I thought one of the purposes of online fora was to engage others and work out differences or find which ones can’t be worked out. As you say, it’s a free country.
Velour wrote:
The thief on the cross, judging from his own words, already knew who Jesus was and what sort of life Jesus had led (not deserving of execution) and what he had taught (the kingdom) and already knew that there was an invitation to the kingdom which he wanted to accept and already had come to faith that all that Jesus had said would come to pass-cross or no cross and death or no death. and he called Jesus ‘Lord.’
Law Prof wrote:
Yes it’s ultimately between a person and God.
okrapod wrote:
I think that folks like our Canadian friend Jack, weary from these abusive churches and mis-uses of Scripture, should not have more shoulds and Scripture verses thrown their way.
I think Jesus understands.
Velour wrote:
I hear what you are saying but I find the whole thing tricky. Jesus cared/understood enough to go to the cross, but also he understood that it was our sins that put Him there. So Jesus understands both love/mercy better than we do and also understands the wages of sin better than we do. I am not advocating abusing anybody, never have and I hope never will. But IMO we also cannot avoid some realities that some things, like for instance the adultery that LawProf talked about, are forbidden and destructive and sinful. (You know that I am divorced and so feel very strongly about this and I admit that some of what I feel is personal.)
Anyhow, I think it is tricky to deal with, and I am not Jesus nor can I read His mind. Just as well, then, about the mercy business; we all need as much as we can get.
@ okrapod:
Yes, adultery is a betrayal and is destructive. And I’m sorry for any betrayal that you’ve endured in your former marriage.
But how does that have anything to do with the topic – gays – in the first place? I guess the argument could be made that because some straight people cheat that ALL straight people must somehow be bad, be warned, etc. It seems juvenile to me.
People are adults, tax payers, voters. They can do whatever they want, as long as it’s legal. I’m a conservative Christian and I don’t care. I have met more hateful, immoral people in church than in the workplace. I have a gay boss. I work at a real job, in the real world, where we work as a team, and are expected to get along with a diverse group of people. We are also trained and expected to adhere to anti-discrimination laws (California). My gay boss is hands down a nicer human being than ANY of my ex-NeoCalvinist pastors/elders.
@ okrapod:
I said that “I think Jesus understands” because I’m not a big proponent of beating people over the head with Bible verses and “shoulds” (do this, do that) who have already gone through the ringer.
I think Jesus does understand and I leave it up to Him. When He said He cares for His sheep and will pursue them, I believe Him.
__
“Concerning Permissable Activities Practiced Within A New Testament Christian Community?”
hmmm…
Apostle Paul, in the New Teatament book of Romans, stated that suppressing ‘the knowledge of God’ (R) was to include: idolatry, fornication, maliciousness, disobedience to parents, hate for God, inventions of evil things, and male to male, or female to female sexual union.
(Note: Apostle Paul was addresing his letter to the growing Christian community there in Rome, Italy…)
Apostle Paul in his letter, plainly declared these actions from within the Christ following community he was addressing, to be dishnoring to God.
As you may know, the word homosexuality is not specifically mentioned in the Bible New Testament scriptures, but this scripturally forbidden union practiced from within Christian community was clearly described by Apostle Paul with no other interpretation possible.
Please note also: The New Testament scriptures does not ‘expressly’ forbid Gentiles, (those ‘without’ Jesus’s church) from practicing these unions, but it is clear that such practices from within the New Testament Christian community that Apostle Paul was adressing, were.
By the book?
Admonishment to those outside Christian community was beyond the commission Jesus gave the Roman citizen Saul of Tarsus, later to be named Paul. Please understand, Paul’s directive from Jesus was to present the Gospel (i.e. the good news) in the hopes that ‘many’ would hear and believe upon Christ Jesus, the Son of God, and receive His gift of eternal life.
Please note further, that although (obliviously) I didn’t pen the books of The New Testament, yet as a Christ follower, –a member of ‘Christian New Testament Religious Community’ ™, I have a responsibility (present tense) to adhere to the guiding principles presented from within it’s hallowed pages.
In cnclusion, I can be friends with those without New Testament Christian community, and I don’t necessarily have to admonish then concerning their behavior or actions. The ‘good news’ presented in that light, may possibility receive more of a hearing…
Whew!
ATB
Sopy
—
Sopwith wrote:
Nice post, Sopy.
We may be the ONLY Bible someone ever reads. Do we live it out in our actions?
I’m a Protestant but I keep coming back to the example of Martha Teresa. I think she did more to advance God’s cause, to get people to love God and believe in Him, by being a loving and kind person than any Scripture verses or lectures. She lived it out.
I’m unimpressed by all of the Christians who talk, talk, talk Scripture verses but don’t walk, walk, walk it.
@ Velour:
LawProf stated that what he was engaging was Jack’s position. That is a quote. This is an argument about the validity of arguments. It has nothing to do with how people treat each other. I also addressed the issue but I tried to emphasize that the arguments extend to more than just gays, and I referenced LawProf’s illustration of adultery to do that. What I said also has nothing to do with how people treat each other.
Then you made a statement about the thief on the cross. I thought the statement was not accurate and was misleading so I addressed that issue. My mistake probably. But this still has nothing to do with how people treat each other.
Then you said something else about Jesus and I said that I thought it was tricky, but the whole topic still had nothing to do with how people treat each other, gay or otherwise.
I hope the pattern here is obvious. I have no plans to get into any discussion about how people treat each other. I do have some very strong opinions about the validity or lack of validity of certain arguments and the applicability (or not) of certain arguments to the issue or sex or anything else. Obviously that is causing some level of disquiet however and I will hush.
I’ve been exhausted from work (that’s a good exhaustion, I’m not complaining) and from feeling all of the feels – and then some – about Orlando, but I felt that I needed to push past the inertia of lurking to come out and say that, well… As someone who is a follower of Jesus (though some Christians won’t admit me) and is, like, totally gay, I don’t personally find “born this way” useful as an argument for the morality of some forms of same-gender intimate relationships. It forms part of a good argument against long since debunked pseudo-Freudian therapies and reparative drive theories which we still have to keep debunking because some Christians insist that “change is possible” for everyone, not just – as research has shown – for people who already have an orientation that has a built-in degree of natural fluidity.
To get this away from the more divisive topic of sexuality, consider how this would apply if NPD were inborn. Would we excuse T*** J**** for being a massive jerkwaffle because he was “born that way”? Alcoholics are apparently born with a greater propensity toward alcohol abuse, but we don’t excuse that because of their genes.
Now – and here is where I potentially tick off the greater part of the audience – I have moved toward a belief that healthy same-gender intimate relationships between two consensual adults based on a lifetime commitment (thus entirely analogous to how the church sees “traditional marriage”) are possible and permissible based on a number of factors, including the ambiguity of meaning in many of the clobber passages, the trajectory of growing inclusion in the New Testament and in church history, and the teaching of contempt by many church leaders who argue from a traditionalist perspective (which leads me to question how much their bias affects their arguments).
So for those reasons, I think that it can be counterproductive to invoke the born this way factor for this specific argument.
@ okrapod:
Thanks Okrapod.
I respect Jack, appreciate his comments, understand that he struggles with God (and he’s explained why) and I respect that too, no Scripture verses or lectures.
That’s why I mentioned the thief on the cross. (I don’t believe that Jesus requires that we jump through hoops.)
As a Christian, I weary of the relentless attacks on gays — including at my former NeoCalvinist church. Like I said, I work at a real job, in the real world, and what
is tolerated at this churches would get any of us fired from our jobs. I just find it tacky and low-class too. Just leave people alone is my attitude. They’re adults, vote, pay taxes.
Velour wrote:
Yet many can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Directing such remarks at comments here appears to be establishing a taboo that strikes me as the type of suppression that I escaped from elsewhere. The “Many pontificate” was an unsettling inference of guilt by association because someone’s point of view may be shared by some negative group.
Law Prof wrote:
I don’t condemn anyone. If someone chooses to engage in homosexuality, then it’s their business. If someone with a high libido engages in extramarital sex then they’ve hurt someone else. That’s wrong.
If we can’t call a harmful action wrong then why do we condemn pedophiles & complementarians? Because it harms people. It’s wrong.
And the individual with a high libido who makes a choice to get married when they could have stayed single & had as many partners as they wish is wrong. Or is he/she a compulsive marrier too?
Homosexuality isn’t wrong.
And it’s a little hypocritical to go against all the phrases that denigrate women, as we do here & then declare the rest of the bible off limits.
@ Velour:
There is no good way for a church to deal with homosexuality at this time in our nation.
If you are liberal you get in trouble, like The Episcopal Church got in trouble with the Anglican Communion, and like church splits happen and like people think that Episcopalians have denied the faith.
If you are conservative the ACLU, and perhaps even the investigative branches of the government put you on some list of right wing haters and radicals.
The only other option is to try to avoid or at least down play the issue as much as possible, but apparently not only the religionists but also the secular thinkers on sex and gender and also the individuals who are dealing with the issues in their own lives are determined about seeing that nobody gets to ignore or avoid the whole thing.
So, it’s decision time. It looks to me like in this situation everybody gets hurt one way or the other. We cannot avoid offending somebody when failure to take up the cause is itself an offense, but we can decide who we are willing to offend. We cannot avoid getting hurt, but we can decide how much we are willing to suffer for what we believe, whatever that is.
@ okrapod:
I know, we should go back in the closet and things would be easier for all the “normal” people. But years ago, when we were largely invisible, Christian/government leaders (basically indistinguishable) were killing us – literally. I’m not happy with the way some are swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, but sorry, I’m not shutting up either.
With that said, on a public level, I will advocate for churches to be allowed to hate us as loudly and freely as they wish. What that will do to their reputations is their own problem; they can make their bed, and they can sleep in it, as far as I’m concerned.
@ Josh:
I’ve known 3 gay men well enough that I can call them “close friends”. My buddy from university who I shared an apartment with for 2 years, my wife’s cousin, my friend’s son. In all of these cases, they told me that it was not a choice. I also read a book a while ago by Mel White, an evangelical who tried to live a “straight” life and failed. He also stated that he knew early on that he was gay. I can’t speak for your experience but based on what I’ve heard and read, homosexuality is not acquired or chosen in most cases. It’s not a condition in the way that common cold is or cancer so certainly there’s nothing to cure. Christians who believe in reparation therapies do more harm than good.
To use alcoholism as an analogy doesn’t work for me. People may be prone to addiction in general and society is more enlightened in this regard but I do not agree that homosexuality causes society in general anywhere near the pain that alcoholism does. I mean being gay in and of itself does not turn an automobile into a weapon.
Like what you said about the ‘clobber’ passages.
Sopwith wrote:
Now here’s a statement I can get behind! And thank you for your kind prayers.
@ okrapod:
These hard conversations need to happen within the church as they are already in progress without the church. Christians have been fractious from the beginning so I imagine this will be no different. And getting back to Christian Trends, the trinity has been a touchstone that all Christians have been able to go back to. The SBC is (I believe anyway) the largest protestant denomination in the largest liberal democracy on the planet. For it to start on the road to abandoning the trinity for ESS opens the door for all sorts of biblical interpretations that do not bode well for the adherents of that denomination. And may not bode well for others as well, given the influence the SBC wields.
Don’t know how things are in the States but only if you promote hate (ie in a Neo Nazi sort of way) would you get yourself on a watch list here. I know the ACLU has gone to bat for Christians in the past so I’m not sure conservatives or liberals can beat the persecution drum.
Bill M wrote:
Thanks for your response.
I think it’s hard to have this type of serious discussion online without seeing peoples’ faces, hearing their voices, reading their body language. There’s a misunderstanding between us about this and what I was trying to convey, my sincere questions about why people talk about this in the church.
I think you completely missed my point. I didn’t say “ALL [conservative Christians] pontificate [about gays]” nor was it intended as “guilt by association”.
In all honesty, I NEVER think about this, lecture people, etc. They are grown adults, voters, tax payers. We would each be offended – you and me – if other adults interfered in our lives and told us what to do. It’s simply none of their business.
I didn’t understand the people at my ex-NeoCalvinist church, consumed with talking about this [gays] and being disparaging about them. I actually, in all honesty, wondered why they hadn’t gotten busy and knitted a baby blanket for a pregnant mom at the local crisis pregnancy clinic.
I’m a Christian who works in a diverse work place and I have a gay boss who is a far nicer human being than ANY of my ex-NeoCalvinist pastors.
Since we respectfully disagree, I will drop the discussion.
Jack wrote:
JACK, I was told yesterday that using the term ‘fundamentalist’ as a negative (which I do) was ‘throwing mud on people’. I agree with you, that there is a strain of ‘fundamentalism’ in all religions that is a brutal, dehumanizing and vicious orientation known for it’s judgmentalism and its condemnation of any and all that it decides are ‘unworthy’. I despise that kind of fundamentalism, but heads up: don’t be surprised if you get called down for speaking negatively about it on by some of our commenters.
Please pray for the families of the victims in Orlando and for the injured. It is a holy thing to weep with those who weep.
okrapod wrote:
You’re correct that the topic has caused deep division among even moderate and more liberal denominations.
The passage that Paul wrote about also included liars not going to heaven and lots of other people. I don’t know why the conservative church doesn’t give equal weight to those sins that Paul discussed. It’s like it’s completely glossed over and one word stands out for these relentless critics. They never discuss, in my opinion, all of the other words in that passage that the Apostle Paul gave weight to.
One night years ago, the gay neighbor of some friends who lived in the countryside was taken to the hospital by ambulance. He had AIDS. God just put it on my heart to go see him int he middle of the night, in a pouring rain storm, at Christmas time. I asked a little old lady friend if she wanted to go with me. She was 100 years old and a Catholic, a retired social worker. She said “yes”. We took a teddy bear, homemade Christmas candy, and I stopped by the 24-hour supermarket and got one of those little table-top living Christmas trees, some magazines, and some snacks.
The young man – disowned by his family years ago – wasn’t expecting us. It was 2:00 a.m. in the morning. He was so surprised to have visitors and gifts. He said it was “the best Christmas [he’d] ever had in [his] life.” We spent time with him, hugged him. He was quite sick and the doctor let me give him a soda with a straw, which the young man had requested. I’d said I’d be back later in the daytime. When I called, he’d passed on in the night.
I’m glad the Lord sent me on that mission that night. It was a beautiful thing. I could feel the presence of God in that little room in the emergency room.
@ Velour:
Yes, the debate has caused and is causing major divisions in Methodist and Episcopal thinking and churches, for example. The priest at our parish has yet to deal with the issue that he is now permitted but not required to do gay marriages, but should it become a requirement I fear for the survival of the parish. I don’t know, but I think it could be really bad. Right now this is how it applies to me personally. And if we all have to choose up then my family will go separate ways religiously just like families did during the civil war. I don’t want to see us forced to choose sides on this.
About why this is such a hot issue in some churches, I think it is because of the politics as much as anything else.
Your story from the ER is precious. I think that God can be noticed in hospitals and libraries with some regularity.
@ okrapod:
Well, that is misleading. The only ones who might require the performance of gay marriages by the priest would be TEC itself, not the government. They have not gone that far at this time.
@ Velour:
What a beautiful story Velour. This is faith that is real. This is the living water Jesus spoke of. The real McCoy, not the long winded dissertations of academics and the pat pronouncements of preachers.
Muff Potter wrote:
Thanks, Muff.
The Lord was just leaning on me that night. I couldn’t have said “no” if I’d wanted to.
I was like a train on the tracks…being sent to do something. I’d never done something like that before, and in all honesty in my own strength I would have been afraid. But God was just very insistent that I go. And so I did. And I went expecting to minister to this dying young man, and I came away having been ministered to.
I felt the presence of God and the angels in that room that night.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks, Okrapod.
@ Christiane:
Part 1
Back in baptist history there was a split over the idea of the ‘fundamentals’, a set of beliefs which some maintained and some had mostly dropped. Groups went their separate ways. The classic baptist fundamentalists would be those calling themselves ‘independent fundamental baptist’ but there are many fellow travelers in other baptist denominations. These people are strict, sometimes to the extreme, but by and large they are not the wackos of fundamentalville. Fundamentalism looks different in the different major strains.
There came a time when the SBC had become theologically progressive we would say now, some would say backslidden compromisers depending on how they felt about it. At that same time it was the more moderate fundamentalists who were maintaining a serious and committed approach to baptist-ism more than some folks in the SBC. So there was pretty much a choice between too strict and legalistic on the one hand and basically barely hanging on to the faith on the other hand. At this point the conservative resurgence resurged within the SBC. However, they did not want to be seen as fundamentalists and the word ‘evangelical’ took predominance in people’s understanding of what it was to be baptist. They were, in fact, fundamentalism light IMO. On the heels of this the neo-cals began their move for turning the SBC into full blown calvinism, though with a twist (no infant baptist for example.) Baptists have always been a mix of calvinist and arminian, and a mix of almost fundamentalist light and not so much that (I am lacking a vocabulary word to describe it.)
@ okrapod:
Part 2
For example, within baptist thinking, and by that I mean what the pew persons actually believe but may not admit it, there is a strain that believes in the virgin birth of Jesus, actually should say the virginal pregnancy since they do not define virgin birth like the RCC does, and a strain of believers who just really don’t believe that too much actually and if you pin them down. This has been one of several issues with Mohler who says basically that you cannot be a christian sort of if you do not believe in the virgin birth (pregnancy) and he has made this one among many of his issues. This issue was one of the original fundamentals argued about back when.
Personally I agree with the fundamentalists on many doctrines like this but I disagree on the level of rules and legalisms that tend to accumulate around their movement. This sort of thing is why I say that there is some good and some bad in fundamentalism, but most that I know are sincere christians.
Here I stand; I can do no other.
Hi OKRAPOD,
thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective which has credibility because of your background … I admit that my perception of the term ‘fundamentalist’ is focused on that group you call ‘the wackos of fundamentalville’. I think we both would recognize who they are and the types of activities they are involved in. I must say I also have no good opinion of patriarchists who treat women poorly, or of those who teach the extreme discipline of little ones using cords to beat them with, even little babies to ‘break their spirits’ ….. I can’t imagine anything like this as ‘Christian’, no.
As far as people who are ‘young earth’ Creationists, I am not including them in the ‘wacko’ grouping, so for those kinds of people who are more literal in some of their interpretations of Scripture, I have no ill will towards them.
The ‘wackos’? They are the mean-spirited judgemental and vicious people who are cult-like in their hatred of ‘the others’ and I cannot see them as ‘Christian’, no. Some of those who identify as ‘fundamentalists’ do cross over into this negativity at times, and I think that is very regrettable for them, and for their intended targets, so I do find the whole movement to be vulnerable to ‘leaders’ who would take advantage of their fears and motivate them to hatred of whole groups, without knowing individuals.
We have our own troubles in my Church and from time to time, there are crises followed by a change of awareness that brings some healing: an example would be how the United States bishops have apologized to the families of LGTB children for not serving them with the support that they deserved within the Church.
The Jewish people have their fundamentalist extremists who are destructive, and we certainly know the destructiveness of Islamic fundamentalists who are extremists.
I wouldn’t throw mud at people of good will whose faith was different from mine, OKRAPOD. But I cannot see the place of the kind of fear-mongering and destructive prejudice that arises from extremism within the Church. I oppose viciousness clothed in ‘righteousness’ as being anything other than ‘of satan’ BECAUSE the malevolence brings injury to others.
I am grateful for your comments. The word ‘fundamentalism’ I will now try to express with more adjectives for clarity: ‘wacko’, ‘crazies’, ‘extremists’, ‘cult-like’. Language is a powerful thing. It needs to be used with respect for what it can convey and what it sometimes fails to convey.
@ Christiane:
I agree with you in what you have said here. There is some really bad stuff out there which, I think you are correct some of it is satanic. I tend to think that some of it attracts the actual mentally ill. But, and let me say this carefully, the history of religions is replete with that stuff, not just christian protestant fundamentalism. Wherever it is it is wrong and evil.
On the other hand in our family there is one really good take away (not only one but this one) from our time with FWB moderate fundamentalists. The church where we were had quite a few ‘refugees’ from other churches who were fed up in what was happening in churches in the late seventies and early eighties. I had children which I did want the local SBC church to damage-theologically and such. The pastor was a former missionary, a good man and a great preacher. I mean really good in the pulpit. So I gathered up the younguns and off we went. One of my children, a preteen and then teen, used to sit in church without moving such that when he stood up for the final hymn his legs had gone to sleep. And he did this week after week. I thought there is no hope for this child. I had no idea what he had absorbed or not and/or what he thought about except girls. That pastor died in a car accident way too young.
Fast forward.
That child had become a lawyer, a career prosecutor. I had never watched him in court. I had been to court with my father as a child (the law is kind of the family tradition I guess) but I had never heard my son. But it made him nervous so he said I could listen to his opening remarks to the jury but then had to leave. Okay, no problem. It was a child abuse case of shaken baby syndrome. So he made his opening remarks and everybody in the courtroom looked like they would cry any minute. I did cry I think. But here is the thing, the lad seemed to be our old pastor back from the grave. Same speaking manner, same way of relating to the listeners, same speech patterns, it was almost creepy. And it was really good. So I thought this good pastor left us something before he went, a gift which lived beyond the giver.
This sort of thing can be found in a lot of places, it just happened to be a moderate fundamentalist FWB church with a good man and good preacher for a pastor.
A tribute to John Craft. May eternal light shine upon him.
@ okrapod:
Awesome story about your son the prosecutor, speaking in the same manner as the old pastor!
Velour wrote:
In addition to being salt and light, you and your friend were also balm and morphine to a human being in need. All heaven smiled that night.
“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others. Past and present. And by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future…””
From David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas
Muff Potter wrote:
Thanks for the beautiful quote, Muff.
And the reason I can’t shun folks who are gay, do what my ex-pastors and so many church members did (and my ex-pastor went to John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary) is that
it violates the Royal Law of Love.
The Lord called us to help the least among these, and that we did it for Him. Not our same denomination or whatever.
Christiane wrote:
Maybe. All the fundamentalists I’ve ever been exposed to had no trouble judging me but point taken. I’m definitely thinking of the people of Orlando.
@ Velour:
Wonderful story. Muff said it best.
@ okrapod:
Another wonderful story. And something to reflect on.
Jack wrote:
Thanks, Jack.
okrapod wrote:
Not ‘creepy’ …. beautiful! Wonderful story. Our children absorb like sponges more of our example and ethos than we realize, so their ‘models’ are far more important than we could possibly know.
okrapod wrote:
I spent the night some years ago in the ER with my father who was waiting for a bed to open so that he could be admitted. On a gurney, across from us, was a man who was mentally ill, perhaps schizophrenic, but certainly dillusional. I remember how it was that people would walk by him and ignore him EXCEPT there came a minister (had a Scottish brogue) who stopped and stood by him for a time and listened to the man’s rantings patiently. But then, the minister laid his hand on the man’s shoulder and prayed for him, it seemed for quite a while. And the poor man quieted. Shortly after, the man slept for a while. I will never forget this as an example of a Christian work of mercy for someone the police had brought to the ER who had no home and no one else to help him. I would say if you spend the night in any ER, you find God’s Presence there, yes.
@ Christianne
In answer to your question.
Let me post this link, not for you but for anybody else who might be interested. This link is consistent with what they taught us in RCIA but is less graphic about anatomic genital details and how anybody would know anyhow.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/
The Baptists agree that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant, but from there on there is a difference. They do not teach what Augustine believed about the virginity of Mary. That is to say that the Baptists do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and have no doctrine about intact genitalia during and after childbirth. The assume a normal vaginal delivery. I have never heard virginity used to mean anything other than never having had vaginal intercourse with a man, which indeed she had not. This is a striking difference in what ‘virginity’ means and a difference in understanding of the actual physical birth of Jesus, as in how did that happen. And there is a real difference in thinking about whether that matters or not.
In RCIA they said that protestants believe in something more like that Mary conceived Jesus while a virgin but not actually that she would have been a virgin during or after the birth itself and that therefore He was not born actually born of a virgin. Technically this is correct, depending one one’s definition of virginity. They also mentioned speculation about how this might have happened and have a tradition? about some midwife doing a post partum vaginal exam on Mary and declaring her anatomically intact. Baptists don’t care about Mary’s anatomy during or after the birth and disagree as to what it means to be born of the virgin Mary.
These are quite different ideas. Different definitions of virginity mostly. This concept is far more important to Catholics than to Baptists. In short, from the Baptist assumptions about virginity they do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, but from the Catholic assumptions about virginity the catholic position is that the protestants do not hold a belief in the virgin birth.
I brought this up with anonymous because he keeps citing original documents of incorporation of the SBC and what that means while the SBC site I linked says that the people who wrote those documents did not mean exactly by the word denomination what we mean today. So I was thinking, if anonymous wants to go back to the original documents on that issue then he needs to go back to the original documents on this issue of the virgin birth, since he introduced the topic here in the first place, and evaluate which ideas are consistent with the original documents. That won’t happen of course, but I had some fun with it.
@ okrapod:
Hi OKRAPOD,
thanks for the info … as far as ‘the virgin birth’ goes, I do know that the term speaks of the mystery of Our Lord’s Incarnation as described in sacred Scripture, wherein Mary conceived her Son miraculously, without a male partner. I am not aware of any specifics as to what we are taught other than in our tradition, we know she delivered her Son naturally, and also in our tradition we believe that she and St. Joseph had a celibate marriage, wherein St. Joseph served as foster father to Our Lord, and protector of the Holy Family.
I do not know of any traditions that speak of the details of Mary’s delivery in medical terms, no. Her title of ‘Virgin’ is because we believe that she did not have physical intercourse with any man throughout her life.
My understanding is that many Protestant people feel that Mary had other children with Joseph, but Catholics and Orthodox have no mention of this in our traditions.
Christiane wrote:
Wonderful story. Thank you.
And when we do these kindnesses for the least among us, we did it for Him.
@ Christiane:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.HTM
In this article they discuss this, mention that some have said basically let’s don’t put too much emphasis on the anatomical details but noting that emphasis on the anatomical details has been a topic. This summation is my words, but please read what this article says.
And what this EWTN article says is consistent with what the article on Catholic News Service said. And consistent with what they taught in RCIA.
It is this that they taught us in RCIA except they made sure we know what the traditions (not capital T) were, or perhaps I should say the myths, but they used the idea of stories handed down as well as speculations (my word) as to how to explain how somebody could give birth vaginally and still have an intact hymen. The conversation in class when they explained just what they were saying was a bit more, well, blunt, but it was all in keeping with what I have referenced here.
Now, RCIA was not just about what Catholics believe (like Mary having a painless labor and delivery) but also about how this differs from protestant beliefs. It is necessary to see the two concepts in contrast in matters like this, and they did a good job on some things-not so much on others.
I have looked up several sections in the CCC, but Marian dogma and Marian references are in so many different places I and sure that I have missed a lot of what is said. What I did read however was consistent with the teaching that the birth of Jesus, and not just the conception of Jesus, had a miraculous aspect to it.
Are you saying that you never heard this, or are you saying that my sources are incorrect about this, or what?
@ okrapod:
I’ve always been taught that ‘virginal’ meant untouched by man. And in that context, I was told that Mary remained a virgin all of her life. Also, in that context, the delivery of an infant would not ‘count’ as depriving Mary of the status of being untouched by man in the marital sense.
One bit of advice I can give you is to stay with the Vatican Catechism as to what the Church teaches formally, especially if you are encountering ‘strange stuff’ out there. We often think that there’s enough that’s the truth about Catholicism for other people to criticize, but we find a lot of comments from people of others faiths about our Church that make us smile ’cause we don’t know where this stuff comes from. 🙂
Hope this helps. You can count on the Vatican Catechism to be accurate concerning our Marian doctrines. Other sources? There are too many out there that are not reliable.
I’m sure any ‘speculation’ about the physical details are simply that: speculation
@ Christiane:
I am going to say this and then we probably have to leave this topic.
The CCC #499 says: “The deepening faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” * And so the liturgy of the church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “ever virgin.*
* L.G. 57
* Cf L.G. 52
L. G. : Lumen Gentium
Since the term ‘virginal integrity’ could presumably mean something spiritual, something moral, something physical, some combination of the above, some reference is required to answer how the term is being used.
Both of the references I furnished before include the physical, just as they taught us at St.L.’s. I furnish one more reference and then I quit.
“Morally, virginity signifies the reverence for bodily integrity which is suggested by a virtuous motive. Thus understood, it is common to both sexes, and may exist in a women even after bodily violation committed upon her against her will. Physically, it implies a bodily integrity, visible evidence of which exists only in women. The Catholic Faith teaches us that God miraculously preserved this bodily integrity, in the Blessed Virgin Mary , even during and after her childbirth (see Paul IV, “Cum quorundam”, 7 August, 1555).”
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12105
IMO, this is Catholic teaching. Those people at St.Ls did not lie to us or mislead us, and this is not people trying to make the Church look bad, much less protestants doing it. I have not referenced one protestant.
Sharing this piece of media today re: Exclusive/Plymouth Brethren – the backstory is of a guy whose family left when he was six years old, but then he returned later as an adult and did PR for the current leader, Bruce Hales. As of 2009 he has left and is repentant of his role in shutting down and suppressing victims of child sexual abuse. The author of this article, Michael Bachelard, has previously published a book on the Exclusive Brethren. Warning – this is not a pleasant topic to read.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/good-weekend/tony-mccorkell-reveals-secrets-of-the-wealthy-christian-sect-exclusive-brethren-20160429-goi6lc.html
One quote from this extensive article:
“If The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse tells us anything, it’s that rule-bound, male-dominated hierarchies, such as the Catholic Church, private schools and corrective institutions, create the environment for some men to commit crimes against the children over whom they hold sway. The power of the institution is then bent to covering it up.”
@ Christiane:
During the Middle Ages, there was a whole lot of debate about how Mary could have given birth while retaining an intact hymen. Some Western scholars concluded that (sit down for this!) she probably gave birth through one of her ears. I know, i know…. i think there is a more balanced view today. Otoh, all kinds of crazy stuff happened to be written down during that long period of time. One of the things that sticks in my mind is the account of a woman mystic who believed she heard Christ speaking to her from a dish of chopped meat. (Can’t recall her name – for sure it was neither Hildegarde von Bingen or Julian of Norwich,though.) It’s one of those odd factoids that shows up when you’ve got lots of books around and some time to read through them. (In this case, i found it @ work, back when i was a bookstore clerk.)
@ Christiane:
The brothers and sisters mentioned in the Godprls are understood to be Jesus’ half-siblings, by Mary and Joseph. Not cousins, or other relatives. (In Protestant thought, that is, though both Luther and Calvin believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.)
@ Haitch:
Thanks for posting the link. I will read it tomorrow.
numo wrote:
Unfortunately, the words used for brothers and sisters are not cut and dried. They could also mean cousins, for example. Many Christians believe Joseph had children from a previous marriage and Mary was their step-mother, and the Greek wording is consistent with that view. I grew up believing that the Jesus’ siblings were half-siblings, and the Greek wording is also consistent with that view. I wish it were more unambiguous, but it’s not. I don’t know how important it is whether or not Mary remained a perpetual virgin, but it’s an early Christian teaching/tradition that she remained a virgin. It seems like this has become a divisive rather than unifying topic.
@ okrapod:
Hi OKRAPOD,
the formal teaching of the Church is expressed in the Vatican Catechism …. I can still recommend it as the best resource. I can respect the diverse opinions of my fellow Catholics on the subject of Mary’s ‘physical virginal integrity’ vis-a-vis the effect of childbirth on her reproductive system, but I would still say that conjecture and opinion are not the same as formal doctrine. Conjecture and opinion are permitted in our Church on many subjects and questions are raised and opinions vary and it’s okay.
In the end, if you want to say ‘the Church teaches’, best to look at the Vatican Catechism for clarification, yes. In the core teachings of faith and morals (and ethics), the Church is unified. But we cherish our diversity dearly, maybe because being unified in the essentials, we ARE free to express our opinions on the non-essentials if we do it with respect for one another in the process. I hope this makes sense. I appreciate this dialogue very, very much.
@ Jack:
I felt like I should clarify, because I didn’t cover all of the nuances that I should have in my previous posts. For the record, I don’t think I chose to be who I am, and I have yet to meet anyone who has said that they did (even people who are attracted to all genders don’t chose which people of each they do or don’t find attractive). It was unwise of me to introduce alcoholism, given the history of church leaders saying that non-straight orientations are sinful [just like alcoholism], although my point wasn’t to make a comparison, but to bring in a contrasting type of “born this way” that is still generally considered to be sinful. I was just trying to say – unsuccessfully – that in and of itself, being “born that way” doesn’t make something morally acceptable; I argue that it’s the harm that comes from any given behavior that makes said behavior morally unacceptable. The usual suspects have been arguing for ages that same-gender relationships are harmful, but without evidence. Promiscuity leads to STIs? Sure. But a couple, regardless of genders, who remain faithful to each other for life, will not experience such harms. So, again, the relationships in question are not intrinsically harmful (and we could go into the research on raising kids in same-gender two parent households, but that’s for another day, maybe, if any of you want to consider that topic).
Here’s today’s update…
I have not gotten an interview on the county job. I applied yesterday for another one. I combed through approximately 200 job listings from the local Workforce Center. Not a lot that isn’t either manual labor or professional medical. 🙁 I am still looking.
I have enough for food through this coming week. Will need gas money and have some treatment supplies I need to get soon ($100). Rent is (of course) coming up the end of next week ($565) and there is the ongoing need for food and gas. Then there are July’s bills ($500) plus $150 in expenses that only come up once a year….I hope and pray that this will not go on as it is much longer. The mental part of it gets hard some days. The tumor is still not changing. It was hurting a little today, but it has not grown nor spread (yay!)
I am so grateful for the support I have received from you all, whether financial, spiritual or emotional. I am still amazed and humbled at your generosity. Thank you so much.
@ Jeannette Altes:
Here’s the link…
http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp
Dee, some temporary cheer for you:
https://www.instagram.com/jakethapug/
@ Josh:
I get what you’re saying & we’re pretty much on the same page. For me, honesty is a big part of morality. A former coworker liked to have multiple relationships with people but it was all above board. He didn’t lie to anyone. Eventually he settled into a monogamous relationship & has remained faithful so I won’t judge him.
As for raising kids in a same sex relationship, I only know a lesbian couple (not well, friends of friends). They have 2 kids & are doing great.
numo wrote:
Far too much time on their hands.
There’s little these days by way of news stories that upsets me.
But this one Has Me Fuming!
I have zero-tolerance for injustice perpetrated by those who should know better:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/06/19/teen-girl-bumped-from-national-masonry-competition.html
@ Muff Potter:
Talk to the union. I am not kidding. Voc/Tech schools are embracing female students but the union’s aren’t and it’s the dirty secret no one talks about. The union is everything in that world if you are in a mandated union state like KY. It is preposterous.
@ Lydia:
There’s right and there’s wrong. This is just plain wrong. There’s an old story about how King George III went to bat for Harrison and his marine chronometer when the perfumed princes of the royal science society refused to honor him and give him his due because of his lowly origins. There’s a King mightier than George III ever was and it is my fervent hope that he’ll go to bat for Shania.
On the topic of various expressions of what the gospel is, I thought I would share one that has meaning for me:
JESUS CHRIST, SON, SAVIOR, RISEN FROM THE DEAD
‘The gospel is Jesus Christ. It is not a doctrine or a theory. It is Jesus….
Jesus is not the key to truth. He is truth.
Jesus doesn’t show us the way. He is the way.
Jesus does not give us principles by which we can live a better life. He is the resurrection and the life.
The gospel only changes us because it brings us into contact with the life-changing, soul-transforming power of Jesus.
The gospel is the story. Jesus is the one whom the story is about.’
This definition of ‘the gospel’ has great meaning for me.
@ Beakerj:
And absolutely no understanding of human anatomy…
@ numo:
Hi NUMO,
I always thought that the term ‘Virgin’ in the Church had to do with ‘not knowing man’ (in the Biblical sense)
There are always those who find the time to dice and slice theological mysteries ad nauseum and you end up with ‘how many angels can stand on the head of a pin’,
but that ‘hymen’ discussion surprised me.
Hi Guys,
If you know anything about Linkedin, you may know that there are several groups which provide a forum for discussing various posted topics.
Under the Biblical Leadership group, I have launched a new topic on the place of women in church leadership in our churches. Please join us for some discussion.
It is curious that a number of people have clicked on the No-Likee button. Either they are not interested in this topic or worse, they are against women in church leadership and this is how they show it. Obviously, as per usual, this is a hot topic! We could use a number of people to drop by and hit the Like button. 🙂
“What is Your or Your Church’s Belief and Practice About Christian Women in Church Leadership?
1. What ministries can or can’t women do in your church and in your denomination, and why?
2. What Scriptures do you base your belief and practice on?”
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3056461
numo wrote:
Heh – the explanation of perpetual virginity I read was that the infant Jesus just appeared through Mary’s side.
While early writings can be useful, reading some in their entirety rather than via pre-selected snippet-quotes reveals that the authors went off the rails often, and in big ways.
Barb Orlowski wrote:
Good to know, Barbara.
Sounds like the trolls have gotten over there. Tweet to Julie Anne at Spiritual Sounding Board and also post over there.
@ BL:
Yeah, well, I quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then from other catholic sources which attempt to explain what exactly the Catechism means by the term ‘virginal integrity.’ I can’t help it if people do not like it. Neither the Catechism nor the sources I quoted speculated on exactly how that could be. Baptists do not believe that the physical ‘virginal integrity’ of Mary was preserved during the birth of the child. This is what I said. Check it out. And yes, what put me onto this was that this is what was taught in RCIA (rite of christian initiation for adults) at a large RCC church here and which I attended for some three years. We were told that the Catechism is the official teaching of the church, which also Christianne says. I am assuming that they are correct that the Catechism is the official teaching of the church. Thus I quoted it. How anybody could take exception to that is beyond me.
No amount of speculation however silly changes the underlying statement in the Catechism. Now can we put this to rest? For crying out loud, read it for yourself everybody. It is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Christianne keeps saying “Vatican Catechism”. If you want to read it on line go to that site. I have the Catechism in book form which we used in class. It is a rather long and somewhat extensive thing with extensive references and with a good bit of terminology which seems to mean one thing when catholics say it and has to be explained as to what the terms actually mean-the connotations and ramifications as well as the definitions. But it can be deciphered. Going to class and letting a catechist explain it was extremely helpful to me, but there are also dictionaries and a catholic encyclopedia on line which can help.
This is an area of disagreement between baptists and catholics as to what ‘born of the virgin Mary’ in the Nicene creed means. I kind of what to say everybody live with it. We do not agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this issue.
Anyhow, I was talking to a protestant on this site about a specific thing, and I was not the one who tried to get involved in some discussion with a catholic about this. I did not pick a fight. Christianne asked a question about what the difference in belief is and I explained it. This is a difference in belief.
okrapod wrote:
One of the cool things here at TWW is that we’re adult enough to understand the difference between toleration and affirmation. We respect each other’s beliefs without necessarily signing onto them in an affirmative sense.
Human sexuality is a delicate topic in most religions, one which I feel needs to be revisited with an eye for responsible pragmatism rather than the old dogmatism.
okrapod wrote:
My apologies for having entered mid-thread – I had started reading from the newest post and as a result didn’t know the origination or progress of the discussion. I just read numo’s post on the historical ear theory, and relayed that I had read of the sudden appearance of the Infant through Mary’s side.
Any reading of the historic writings will reveal just how preoccupied many of those writers were regarding the perpetual integrum hymen. Which is why we have their various theories attempting to explain how there was a perpetual integrum hymen.
I can confirm that what you have referenced and posted on this topic is accurate. And, as you pointed out, if referencing and quoting directly from the material isn’t acceptable, then nothing will suffice.
@ Muff Potter:
Hi OKRAPOD,
I’d love to refer people to the early Church fathers for references, but the problem is that among what is known to be genuine, there also exists some spurious writings attributed to the fathers;
and for someone who is not familiar with the problem, they may end up with something that was never a genuine source. In any case, those writings (which I often quote), have been co-opted and mis-translated by some individuals for their own agendas, which is something most people may not be aware of who are looking for accurate info. The Vatican site offers the formal teachings of the Church in the formal Catechism to help those who are wanting some solid information that is reliable. I applaud your interest in the larger Body of Christ, and please know that those important differences you hold to now are supposed to be respected by members of my Church as meaningful to you. The freedom of any non-Catholic person to believe in the faith of their choice in accordance with their conscience is a belief that is very dear to us and we respect that freedom without question. I’ve enjoyed our dialogues.
@ Christiane:
That was supposed to go to OKRAPOD. OOPS!!!
Muff Potter wrote:
It’s easy to get caught up in some of the discussions. I did like being challenged like my posts on homosexuality but I also felt I got it handed to me when I tried to comment on the Protestant vs Catholic debate on the last post. Comment at your own risk & be careful what you say. Religion can be very incendiary.
Jack wrote:
Jack, that is one of the most offensive comments I have ever seen.
😜 😜 😜 😜
Hmm… that would’ve worked better if the smiley’s had been slightly bigger.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I’ve also just re-read the site I copied the emoticons from and it says they’re only visible in Safari. So I should explain that I followed up my comment with four insane-looking faces with the intended implication that my comment was the sort of thing a lunatic would come out with.
Well, that joke’s certainly dead and buried now.
Jack wrote:
I doubt there’s a more tolerant place than TWW out here. Try giving a dissenting opinion at one of the so-called ‘progressive’ blogs on patheos, especially if it violates one of their Orwellian memes on say racial tension. They’ll descend on you like crusaders and templars to the walls of Jerusalem.
We won’t even mention your fate if you’re shot down over fundagelical territory.
Muff Potter wrote:
I think DEE and DEB are welcoming and gracious women, who are strong and whose work is extremely important. I have never seen either of those ladies be intolerant to any Catholic person who comes to comment at Wartburg Watch. I think it is impossible for people of my faith to ‘proselytize’ in the way of the ‘fundegelicals’ (using your term). That kind of disrespectful treatment of people of another denomination or relligious orientation goes against our basic teachings on the dignity of the human person and also the recognition that a person’s conscience is to be respected as their moral and ethical guide.
I don’t think any Catholic who comments here at WW is a person who proselytizes, no. At least I havent’ seen it while I have come here. I think the post comments on the reports of the DEEBS needs to stay focused on their topics. Any thing less is not worthy of their sacrifice of time and effort to do what is right for victims who NEED a forum where they can come and be heard with respect and accepted by a community of bloggers who understand and support them financially and with prayer. WW is a good work.
@ okrapod:
Christiane is Catholic…
@ Christiane:
There was someone who commented here at one time who did proselytize, but he was a bit off the rails.
Jack wrote:
Jack, my apologies if I caused offense on the other thread. It was not, and never was, a Protestant vs Catholic debate.
I hope that you saw my response to you explaining that I was not asserting that Catholicsm was non-Christian. I’m not sure that you did see it, because your statement above continues to place my issue into a Prot vs Cath debate.
I made no reference to any doctrine, belief or practice regarding Catholicism.
My purpose was to point out that someone, who just happens to be Catholic, was *proselytizing* for her denomination, while at the same time denigrating another.
I would have said the exact same thing, and would have attempted to make the exact same point, if a participant was a member of The Church of What’s Happening Now, and constantly inserted comments denigrating other faiths, while declaring “In MY church, the Church of What’s Happening Now, we have exact answers, not multiple answers, and no conflicting answers – unlike those *other* churches.
I find it unacceptable for anyone to continually offer such sugary bonbons as the above, evangelizing for their particular denomination, making assertions for their denom that can easily be refuted. Had it been my desire to make it a Prot/Cath debate, I would have addressed WHAT was said, instead I addressed WHY it was said.
‘Don’t proselytize for your denom.’
That such assertions were going unchallenged, is because anyone willing to speak up was concerned that the thread would rapidly derail.
And I don’t think anyone wanted to see that happen.
I do hope you will accept my apologies for any of my actions that came across as ‘handing it to you’. 😉
numo wrote:
Thank sor sharing that. My goodness, we saw something like that on WADE’s blog once, and I called the person out and told them I didn’t think they represented the Catholic attitude towards people of other denominations and other faiths. I wonder if it was the same man? He was ‘off the rail’s for sure.
@ Christiane:
I think they were Midwestern. Places like the diocese of Omaha might as well be pre-Vatican II, unfortunately. But there was more than that going on, per this commenter. A very troubled person, imo.
@ numo:
Err, apologies – Lincoln, not Omaha.
numo wrote:
Was that the same guy from about a year or more ago who said he used to be Protestant, was hurt by Protestant churches, so he joined a Roman Catholic church?
I don’t agree with a lot of Roman Catholic beliefs, but I am not the sort of person who wants to get into knock out, drag down fights with them.
That particular guy really pushed my buttons, though.
If he had just said he was hurt by Protestants and felt at home in the RC, I would’ve just scrolled right by his posts without saying anything, but he used almost every post to make extremely inflammatory pot shots at Protestants and Protestant beliefs.
That’s when I started getting into it with him.
I can’t remember what his name was.
Christiane wrote:
Christiane, although I enjoy many of your posts and learning about Catholicism (though I am not at all interested in joining) I think it’s comments like this that set people on edge.
There are plenty of irritating catholics. There are superior catholics. There are mean catholics. People are people, after all.
Christiane wrote:
History says otherwise.
@ Lea:
Thank you, LEA
looking at what I wrote, I would not have realized that. OKRAPOD pointed out to me the problem with referring to ‘fundamentalists’ in the negative, as it was something that was sensitive to people who identify as ‘fundamentalists’ who are not extremists or crazies. I need to hear what people think so I can be more sensitive to their feelings …. and you are so right: People are people, after all.
It’s a discovery process, and an exercise in humility for me. Thanks again for helping. I value your frankness and your honesty, and your willingness to let me know in a respectful way.
This site is beloved of the Imonk people, but it is not Imonk, where Headless and Numo and I hang out a lot, and I have been known to even upset people over there who are politically conservative because my views on social doctrine upsets them. I am a ‘people’. And a work in progress. 🙂
Christiane wrote:
I’ve mostly been trying to stay out of this, I’m not really pro or con any denom excepting my personal beliefs, so I’m glad you didn’t take it personally because that’s really not how it’s meant!
Had a lot of catholic friends. They’ve pretty much run the gamut 🙂
@ Lea:
Me, too. 🙂 People are people, after all.
@ Christiane:
iMonk is much more “liberal” than here. Your ideas are *so* much what I grew to know and love about the Vatican II era, in its best forms. Ecumenical, wide-ranging, very friendly.
@ Christiane:
Yep, we are that.
Christiane wrote:
I just want to say that I really appreciate your posts, your humility, and transparency.
I am a Protestant but it was a little old lady (97 years old)- a Catholic who loved the Lord – who brought me to God. She died at 102.
I look at the example of Mother Teresa and I just loved that woman. She brought more people to love God by simply loving and caring for them than all of the Bible verses and lectures. She lived The Gospel.
@ numo:
Thanks NUMO. We do roll differently over on Imonk. And many of the people there comment here also. I need to be more conscious that WW has a wider group of commenters, many of whom are very uncomfortable with some of the ways we freely communicate over at Imonk. People have feelings. And a lot people have been hurt and have stories that break your heart when you read them. I can assume a greater degree of responsibility for the feelings of these people, NUMO, but I am also what I am, with a history and experiences and YES, I am “Ecumenical, wide-ranging, very friendly” in a way that I hope expresses good-will.
PROBLEM: terminology …. I shared something with BURWELL when he wrote this: “They have just about done that with the word “Gospel” for me. They have taken a word that either referenced the first four books of the New Testament (Gospel according to …) or the good news of salvation (after all, ‘gospel’ means ‘good news’). Now it is used to make something more theologically correct than something else.
It is a sad day when a Christian cringes whenever he hears the word “gospel,” even if it is in the correct context. Yet that is what’s happening to me.” (BURWELL)
When I shared with him what happened to me, some other people I don’t know started a firestorm, and I am still sorting out who it was and trying to comprehend how my conversation with Burwell caused all that storm and thunder. I’m afraid some of the reaction also ended up being thrown at Frank and Okrapod and Catholic-Gate Crasher, who I believe were trying to calm the situation and got hit for it in the process, to my horror.
Yes, the problem as i see it is that ‘terminology’ can mean one thing to one tradition and have a VERY different meaning in another tradition. Our use of language DOES matter. AND some real sensitivity towards those whose rantings indicate more a history of pain and suffering than a spirit of hatred.
Language is a very powerful thing. It needs to be used with respect for what it can convey and what it sometimes fails to convey.
@ Velour:
Thank you, VELOUR
that was a kind thing to say. I remember a story about Mother Theresa. A man who was an evangelical was in India and saw her on her catapault when she had died. Her small body was covered with the flag of India, but her bare feet still were showing. They were all worn out: broken and disfigured. He remembered that.
Christiane wrote:
You are welcome.
What a sweet remembrance of Mother Teresa that man had.
@ Christiane:
Hey, i grew up Lutheran (in a synod that’s now part of the ELCA), and even though i ended up in a sort of Protestant evangelicsl/charismatic no-man’s land for many years, i spent my late teens and early 20s with Catholic charismatics – even lived in a small convent with 8 nuns (rented house) for a year or so, when i was in undergrad school. Those women have had such a good influence on my life, though it’s only now (at 60) that I can look back and see that. They wete delightful, eccentric, and as human as the next person. Their beliefs largely jived with mine, and they encouraged me to stay Lutheran. Wish I’d taken their advice! (Am now a revert, having gotten burned out by the spiritual abuse and general lack of depth that i encountered in the Protestant chsrismatic/evangelical world, along with some truly wacko beliefs.)
At any rate, iMonk has been a *huge* help to me in traversing the “wilderness,” and I’m deeply grateful for it, as well as for so many of the long-time commenters.
@ Christiane:
And i truly KWYM about language! It is very tricky, especially when speaking about religious beliefs, and text-only communication makes it even harder, imo.
Interlude: Fitba’.
Iceland, with a population of around 330,000, are through to the knockout stages of Euro 2016 where they will play:
England.
On the performances thus far (both teams finished runners-up in their group on 5 points with a goal difference of +1) Iceland have got to fancy their chances. As Alan Shearer (former England captain) observed on the BBC yesterday: nobody will fear England in this tournament. The manager doesn’t know what his best team is, nor where to play his top players, and we’re struggling to score. A real chance of an upset here…
IHTIH
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
America has a long history of lurid anti-Catholic bigotry, much of which has focused on the myth that Catholics are worse sinners than all other Christians. (E.
What a strange thing to say. Just for clarification, the city I grew up in has a huge Catholic population. That means I played with them in the neighborhood and went to school with them everyday. It just wasn’t a big deal. As a teen I used to go to Catholic picnics with my friends.
I can hardly believe you played the bigotry card.”
Darlene wrote:
Lydia, I’m glad to hear of your good experiences with Catholics. Notwithstanding, there is enough in our recorded history that in fact shows anti-Catholic bigotry was quite prevalent when immigrants from Ireland and Italy began settling this nation. My personal experience in growing up was quite different from yours. I was warned not to trust Catholics from my atheist grandmother because “they are liars.” Also, my mother, who was also an atheist, raked me over the coals for sneaking off to church with my Catholic friend. She said it wouldn’t have been as bad if it had been the Lutheran church. When it comes down to it, I think many of our views our formed by our experiences.”
I am sorry to hear of your experiences. The same could be said for Jewish people, etc. But I am not sure what it has to do with the discussion on the other thread.
Playing the bigotry card sets up a false dilemma. Going along with It means any response a Catholic does not like is automatically bigotry. Otherwise why use it? Why ignore the thousands molested as if all is unicorns and rainbows now? Can you imagine if someone from CLC came here and did the same? The priests got caught. The Catholic Church got caught protecting predators. They did not turn themselves in. It is so easy to forget the victims.
The SBC guys use a similar card to control the convo. I am sure many other groups have their trump card.
If that makes me a meanie here. So be it.
@ numo:
Hey, NUMO
well, I was raised Catholic and married a Lutheran. I remember something really insightful that Garrison Keillor (Prairie Home Companion) about Midwestern people: “Sunlight makes us gloomy. We are not Mediterranean people. We’re Lutheran people. Even the Catholics up here are Lutheran. And I don’t like to generalize about Lutherans, but one thing that’s true of every single last one of them without a single exception is that the low point of their year is their summer vacation.”
So basically, my Lutheran education has been from being married to one for almost fifty years, and from reading and listening to Garrison Keillor. Lately, being at Imonk has really helped. I love Chaplain MIKE, who is Lutheran, and God Bless whoever at Imonk told us about Nadia Boltz-Weber, whom I love! She is awesome. I may be Catholic to the backbone but I’m a Lutheran fan-girl. 🙂
@ Christiane:
Well noe, Keillor’s Lutherans ard Scandinavians from the Upper Midwest. They are a lot different than the PA Dutch (which i sm) in mamy ways. In others, not do much. My favorite Luthrran joke by him is:
Q: What happens when you cross a Lutheran with a Zen Buddhist?
A: You get someone who stays awake every night, worrying about nothing. [or Nothing, maybe]
IIRC, your husband is from Lancaster Co., yes?
@ Christiane:
I used to like Nadia a lot, but her support for Tony Jones really does not make me want to read her stuff anymore. It’s an awful situation, and i do not know why she’s taken that stance.
@ numo:
Hey NUMO, no, my husband is from Butler PA, 30m. north of Pittsburgh, a dying old steel-mill town … his German grandparents settled there and the men in the family were steel workers … seven sons in that family, all tough as nails … big-time sports fans, too (sigh), most of the sons escaped the steel mills and went into the military
numo wrote:
I hadn’t heard about that. I’ll look into it.
@ Christiane:
There’s a ton of material on this site, actually.
Buyler: yes, i know it, though I’ve only been through. As for sports, say no more – i went to undergrad with tons of die-hard Steelers fans.
numo wrote:
LOL, you should see my husband’s man-cave: black and yellow decor through-out, Steelers, Pirates, and Penguins memorabilia ad nauseum, big screen, sound systems … my husband and my son are SUCH devoted fans (sigh)
numo wrote:
Thanks, I’m looking into it. I’m sure Deb and Dee did their homework well.
@ Christiane:
Oh, i get the picture, believe me! Some of the most intense Steelers fans i knew were women, though.
@ Christiane:
Do you get to watch stuff you like on this TV?
numo wrote:
NUMO, I never go into the man-cave unless it’s to take up food for ‘the boyz’ or come up and retrieve my dishes … the guyz are in charge of vacuuming and taking the trash as I can only bear to be up in the man-cave a short time 🙂
I have my own television in another, much QUIETER part of the house. The dog likes to hang out with me where it’s peaceful. Our dog is very smart. 🙂
Lydia wrote:
An equal opportunity meanie?
I figure the bigotry response is an automatic reflex developed from bigoted comments received in the past from someone(s) entirely different. So much of what we say and do is programmed by our past.
Maybe not the same situation, when someone says something debatable and off topic but frames it such that it assumes agreement by all present, I groan but figure answering it with a contrary view will invite a tangent and I get the blame. Not to be taken as a commentary on today’s exchange, I get irritated when someone violates a forum or assembly by tossing in digressions that require debate when you aren’t there to debate it. When I happen to agree with the aside I am not so irritated as I am embarrassed, sensing the discomfort of others.
In a university town with a ruling ideology, an insular world view, and coupled with much arrogance, believe me I’ve had a lot of practice. The best I’ve come up with is to try and point out the principle, it is not the time or the place for their diversion, and not invite defensiveness by being critical of their belief. So an unsolicited point of view for what it is worth, but there are times I’ve come out of my seat to take a contrary view when they do it too many times.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I would agree that there has in the past been greater anti-Catholic sentiment in the US.
I would, however, absolutely disagree that it was the result of a focus or belief of them being worse sinners.
The fact that the Roman Catholic Church partnered with state governments for more than a millennia to coerce and control the religious conscience of people wherever they could attain dominance, fueled the bigotry and fear much more than any focus on supposed greater sinfulness.
Bill M wrote:
You made a good point about backgrounds and how that effects the response. My background, when it comes to group dynamics, is that ‘silence implies agreement’. It was an axiom of all planning and decision making processes.
I think things have changed a lot. So much of society looks for offense instead of truth. And people have a right not to ever be offended now which is impossible to police because it is so subjective. We can’t solve real problems that way. I was never very clever, either.
numo wrote:
I think it’s had an impact on others too. She doesn’t sell as much copy as she used to.
Lydia wrote:
In conversation whenever I am “clever” it is about 48 hours later.
@ Christiane:
Indeed. 😉
@ Muff Potter:
Why the ELCA ever let her assume pseudo-rock star status is another thing, too… Her bishop, et. al. were foolish to do so. I hope they read the riot act to her re. TJ, but I don’t know…
Bill M wrote:
That’s the beauty of electronic relationships, don’t you think!
🙂
numo wrote:
In my opinion? Political blow-back. Bolz-Weber is the darling of many, and by extension beyond reproach. The last thing her bishop wants is to be labeled a narrow-minded and out-of-touch-old-white-man.
I have question. Small church– we prefer not to make Calvinism a point of contention, but are non-calvinist– in terms of election. Young man with good heart, who is graciously teaching while pastor on sabbatical, was convinced of election by “irresistible grace” when taking online seminary courses. Despite this, he has agreed to submit to leadership and avoid teaching this (sometimes underpinnings come out in teaching, but no “Calvinist” conclusions– has been willing to listen to wiser ways of approaching). Anyway, we have one member who does not think that anyone who believes this should be allowed to teach from pulpit because he thinks will unavoidably be infected with calvinistic theology. (He has seen very bad fruit of calvinist radicalization– close friend walked away from faith because nothing matters anyway– God has it all decided, so she is going her own way since she can’t effect the outcome– of course then some would say she never was a believer anyway– even though her faith was vibrant at one time and led many to the LOrd). Wondering if anyone can offer sound guidance on this concern.
Just to clarify– the concern is whether someone who is convinced of “irresistible grace” should be allowed to teach from pulpit, if he agrees to avoid teaching this doctrine. (Oddly, despite holding to this doctrine, he just gave excellent teaching, emphasizing the if we are eternally condemned, it is by our choice, not God’s).
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Give me a couple of days and I’ll get back to you.
@ Lydia:
It has been around for some time but if you want a funny debate, catholic vs presbyterian check the following link.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/dogheaven.asp
I’m with the Catholics on this one.
@ Bill M:
Touché…
Bill M wrote:
My priest agreed with me when I said ‘Dogs have souls.’
Bill M wrote:
Me too Bill. Here’s what Mark Twain (originator of the character Muff Potter) had to say on the matter:
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man’s.
– Letter to William D. Howells, 2 April 1899
@ Muff Potter:
Very true. I don’t visit those blogs. The only religion blog that I current visit is this one. Other than that, I’ve been living a very secular life. If not for this blog, I would think a neo-Calvinist would be someone who recently discovered Bill Watterson’s cartoon. Much of what’s reported here flies under the radar so I value the education in both the posts & comments. I think though that there has been a catholic vs protestant flare up that was becoming a little much. Both sides just kept upping the ante to the point one commenter has accused the blog of being protective of the catholic world view (or something like that). The take away lesson for me is to stay out of those circular debates. Eventually both sides will either wear themselves out or be censured by the moderator.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
And yet it still made me laugh.
@ BL:
No worries. As a non-Catholic, non-Baptist, leaping into a thread with 600 plus comments where there had been some intense back and forth was probably not a bright idea on my part. It’s up to the moderator, not I to dictate how a thread should or shouldn’t be managed. You explained your position so it’s cool.
The only time I would feel compelled to comment against a comment is when the commenter would be really offensive – like the commenter who advocated a form of slavery based on the bible. That was really whacked. Anyone going that route would deserve a pile on.
Ishy said:”I wonder how many of their moms led them to Christ….”
Or their female SS/VBS teachers?
Elastigirl said: ” what will they do? what does disfellowship look like?”
The churches can be kicked out of the local associations, state or SB convention. No more collaboration, support, or representation. However, the SBC will still be more than happy to take money for Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, or CP!
Got a sexual predator, or a pastor who protests and covers for predators? Hey, no prob! But, appoint a dedicated, upstanding Christian woman as pastor (sometimes even as a deacon) and you’re outta here!
numo wrote:
I am a Southern Kentuckian – devoted to the Wildcats ….
But pro football. ……. Hey! I learned to love football in the Mean Joe Green, Terry Bradshaw, Lynn Swann, Franco Harris era! Die hard Steelers fan here!
Jack wrote:
Pretty much my take too. In my opinion all religions have their plus and minus values, I simply choose to focus on the plus sides and let the rest slide.
Jack wrote:
All’s well that ends well!
Jack wrote:
Thanks!
I am also a non-Catholic, non-Baptist…and I’m sure both could find me irritating. 😉
@ Muff Potter:
It is so very contrary to the eastern part of the ELCA to have “stars.” (Or maybe I’m showing my age?) I wish she had never gotten the kind of promotion within the synod that put her on the bill as one of the keynote speakers at conferences, etc. We don’t need to be “relevant,” I’m thinking.
@ Christiane:
Absolutely yes! My take is that all animals do.
@ numo:
Whether we truly understand what it means to have a soul is another thing altogether… Just because we seem to be Top Species does not equal the ability to understand the thought process, communication and intelligence of other species. We can barely understand our own!
@ Nancy2:
I’m not a football fan. At all. Sorry! 😉
@ numo:
I look at ‘therapy’ dogs and I look the animals trained to help the disabled, and I am very moved by the beauty in the lives of these creatures. Whatever ‘soul’ means, I think it must be something that has the capacity to love and to appreciate love in return. And that it also has the capacity to live out this love with caring and kindness towards those less fortunate.
Oh yeah! Animals have feelings and emotions and they respond to love and to lack of love, and they show the ability to care for others …. we could learn a lot from the fur people, just by observing this in them. They even witness to their Creator.
What is that verse from Job?
“7”But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. 8″Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. 9″Who among all these does not know That the Hand of the LORD has done this,”
I rest my case. 🙂
__
“Discovering The Foundations For Faith in Jesus Christ, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
@ Lydia,
You are well aware that the ‘foundations’ of both Catholicism, and the Reformed Faith (Cavinism) have originated from the same place : 4th century Augustinian writings not necessarily from the holy scriptures.
(Any Jesuit priest worth his weight in salt will tell you that Catholicism is based upon several factors, not just the Bible alone.
The dovoted Calvinist will tell you that the reformed faith stems from the writings of John Calvin, expressly defined in “The Institutes Of The Christian Religion” (ICR) The devoted Calvinist will also tell you that John Calvin quoted Augustine in some six hundred plus instances in his ‘Institutes’.
(Martin Luther gave the nod to the Augustinan writings as well, and even approved John Calvin’s ICR too.)
***
hum, hum, hum…on Christ, the solid Rock I stand, all else is sinking sand…
sinking sand.
ATB 🙂
Sopy
—
numo wrote:
Agreed. Lutheranism is a very old tradition, flavor is irrelevant, ELCA or LCMS. In my opinion, it’s precisely because of their polity, that they’ll survive long after independent evangelical protestantism withers and dies off by natural selection.
Stars are a dime a dozen, here today, gone tomorrow, your age has nothing to do with it. It’s simply a fact of life in the American experience. Bolz-Weber is a product of it.
@ jcv:
We had someone similar o my former church on staff. 4 pts, very respectful it was a non Cal church. Until the non Cal pastor retired. Then it came out full force. When a YRR pastor was hired, this guy is now one of the enforcers..
I think there are two things going on with this. 1. He needed a job and packaged himself to get it. 2. The Neo Cals are very top down authoritarian. He might have seen his repression of his Calvinism as obeying the leader. Not sure.
But it really has shocked some people what he is not just going along with but actively working to dismantle.