An exchange on the Sojourners site has been moved here due to technical concerns. Topics: Obama's health plan, sexual mores, Muslims, idolatry, yeah it's kinda wide ranging. Talk to me, please ;-)
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/10/obamas-health-care-speech-hope-over-fear/#comment-16507986
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Better than God. Really?
God created both women and men in his image. The fact that God is relational, encompassing both the masculine and the feminine, is an unchanging fact that the Church keeps needing to rediscover. When a patriarchal culture reads Genesis 1:27, it notices the “male” and ignores “and female” or somehow discounts it. Every culture, even one as “advanced” and especially one as sophisticated as ours, has this tendency. Our worship of Progress is our projection of human qualities onto God. How could God, already perfect and eternally outside human history and time, get better?
Indulgences and church government.
The “reformation” to which the church is committed is literally that: re-forming, i.e. rediscovering the intent of the structures at the time the Church adopted them. A church hierarchy, developed to serve those inside and outside of the church, instead became a much coveted source of power and prestige, purchasable by the Borgias and their sort, and highly dependent on revenue from the marketplace of guilty souls. While there are doubtless church structures more suited to the Information Age than house churches and itinerant apostles, they are not in any way “better” or an “improvement” over Acts. “Change” is a fact, but Progress is often an illusion.
Science and astronomy.
Some Christians still persist in a belief in a Creation week comprising a sequence of 7 days of 24 hours duration—forgetting that there was no sun until the fourth day, and thus no way that a “24 hour day” had any meaning on days one, two and three. But this error, as obvious as it is trivial, shouldn’t obscure the grander fact the God is the Creator, whatever exact means he chose to use. I just read that Stephen Hawking is still refining the “Big Bang” theory, so who knows when we will find out exactly how God did it? (I can wait ‘til Heaven, but that’s just me.)
Women in the church and elsewhere.
I will grant that, in many obvious ways, the status of women has improved, particularly in cultures influenced by Judaism and Christianity. But this is not a continuous line: even many conservative scholars believe the early church had women leaders. During the era of persecution, the bishop was often the first to be martyred, so moving away from women as bishops saved women’s lives—until the exclusion became dogma, and the many women leaders in the Bible (Deborah, Miriam, Phoebe) and the early church were forgotten. It was NOT the selfstyled “liberal” and “progressive” mainline Protestants who first re-discovered this—it was the lower class, much despised Pentecostals and Salvationists. For example, the Church of the Foursquare Gospel was founded by a woman, and led by her for many years. But in the larger culture, are women really that safe? A female living inside another female has no protection at all. Sexual assault is widespread and devastating. There are few places where you can leave your doors
unlocked any more. Is that progress for women? Some of what we name “progress” has been based on devaluing the precious task of childrearing, and both men and women suffer for our arrogance in valuing tasks based on the market value of the service when performed outside the home. And we still haven’t figured out a way to allow fathers to breastfeed!!
Part of this thread:
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/02/science-salvation-slavery-and-equality-the-bible-and-historic-reforms/
Indulgences and church government.
The “reformation” to which the church is committed is literally that: re-forming, i.e. rediscovering the intent of the structures at the time the Church adopted them. A church hierarchy, developed to serve those inside and outside of the church, instead became a much coveted source of power and prestige, purchasable by the Borgias and their sort, and highly dependent on revenue from the marketplace of guilty souls. While there are doubtless church structures more suited to the Information Age than house churches and itinerant apostles, they are not in any way “better” or an “improvement” over Acts. “Change” is a fact, but Progress is often an illusion.
Science and astronomy.
Some Christians still persist in a belief in a Creation week comprising a sequence of 7 days of 24 hours duration—forgetting that there was no sun until the fourth day, and thus no way that a “24 hour day” had any meaning on days one, two and three. But this error, as obvious as it is trivial, shouldn’t obscure the grander fact the God is the Creator, whatever exact means he chose to use. I just read that Stephen Hawking is still refining the “Big Bang” theory, so who knows when we will find out exactly how God did it? (I can wait ‘til Heaven, but that’s just me.)
Women in the church and elsewhere.
I will grant that, in many obvious ways, the status of women has improved, particularly in cultures influenced by Judaism and Christianity. But this is not a continuous line: even many conservative scholars believe the early church had women leaders. During the era of persecution, the bishop was often the first to be martyred, so moving away from women as bishops saved women’s lives—until the exclusion became dogma, and the many women leaders in the Bible (Deborah, Miriam, Phoebe) and the early church were forgotten. It was NOT the selfstyled “liberal” and “progressive” mainline Protestants who first re-discovered this—it was the lower class, much despised Pentecostals and Salvationists. For example, the Church of the Foursquare Gospel was founded by a woman, and led by her for many years. But in the larger culture, are women really that safe? A female living inside another female has no protection at all. Sexual assault is widespread and devastating. There are few places where you can leave your doors
unlocked any more. Is that progress for women? Some of what we name “progress” has been based on devaluing the precious task of childrearing, and both men and women suffer for our arrogance in valuing tasks based on the market value of the service when performed outside the home. And we still haven’t figured out a way to allow fathers to breastfeed!!
Part of this thread:
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/02/science-salvation-slavery-and-equality-the-bible-and-historic-reforms/
Monday, August 24, 2009
Jim Wallis circa 1980 where have you gone?
I just read Rev. Wallis again,
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/08/20/the-moral-core-of-the-health-care-debate/?dsq=15318107#
and found no hint that he is open to anything but THIS plan, RIGHT NOW. He provides no religious or theological justification for the government doing this, aside from anecdotes that the faith community, as he defines it, is attending lots of meetings and "doing things"--except I heard nothing about prayer meetings, fasting and praying, confession for our personal part in this, just damning of unnamed, sinister special interests. But how is "reform" supporter Planned Parenthood not a special interest? For that matter, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party might just be a special interest:
one that is deeply distrustful of people of faith like Joe Lieberman, and one that is in deep denial about the meaning of the shift in power of 2006-when LIBERAL Republicans lost election after election to CONSERVATIVE Democrats. For all the hope people, including myself, used to place in him as a "third way" it must be blisteringly obvious by now that Jim has moved to uncritical support of liberal Democrats. Why is the “government option” more important than Darfur?
I believe Jim and many of his supporters are pacifists--why are they quietly allowing the President to greatly expand a war in Afghanistan? Afghanistan?? The country that hasn't been conquered by an outside power since Genghis Khan in 1219??? Jim is falling in step with the President's priorities on these things, and it's a sad spectacle.
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/08/20/the-moral-core-of-the-health-care-debate/?dsq=15318107#
and found no hint that he is open to anything but THIS plan, RIGHT NOW. He provides no religious or theological justification for the government doing this, aside from anecdotes that the faith community, as he defines it, is attending lots of meetings and "doing things"--except I heard nothing about prayer meetings, fasting and praying, confession for our personal part in this, just damning of unnamed, sinister special interests. But how is "reform" supporter Planned Parenthood not a special interest? For that matter, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party might just be a special interest:
one that is deeply distrustful of people of faith like Joe Lieberman, and one that is in deep denial about the meaning of the shift in power of 2006-when LIBERAL Republicans lost election after election to CONSERVATIVE Democrats. For all the hope people, including myself, used to place in him as a "third way" it must be blisteringly obvious by now that Jim has moved to uncritical support of liberal Democrats. Why is the “government option” more important than Darfur?
I believe Jim and many of his supporters are pacifists--why are they quietly allowing the President to greatly expand a war in Afghanistan? Afghanistan?? The country that hasn't been conquered by an outside power since Genghis Khan in 1219??? Jim is falling in step with the President's priorities on these things, and it's a sad spectacle.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
You heard it first here
Massachusetts--the state where people want to make lots of laws but no one wants to obey them.
Well, my daughter says she's never heard that from anyone but me. I have a feeling it's a rather common and obvious observation. Defiance of traffic laws is only the tip of the iceberg: I suspect--just a guess here--that Governor Patrick's driving skills are average or even worse than average. Let's hope his chauffeur is better.
Well, my daughter says she's never heard that from anyone but me. I have a feeling it's a rather common and obvious observation. Defiance of traffic laws is only the tip of the iceberg: I suspect--just a guess here--that Governor Patrick's driving skills are average or even worse than average. Let's hope his chauffeur is better.
Bad news from the moderates
If you think the only critics of the president's plan are die hard Republicans and extremist talk show hosts, read this from what sure sounds like aneutral source to me:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Am I a right winger?
Skimming the articles, you might think I am. Please, friends, read more thoroughly, or at least leave questions, comments and criticisms. (Anything up to and perhaps including ”Go back to Nazi Germany” is welcome, really!) I believe in progressive taxation, not the flat tax. And, in spite of his scr*wing around, I think Bill Clinton was a pretty good President. I oppose overseas wars. I was a vehement critic of the Contra War in the 1980's, and still see that as the biggest blot on the Reagan Era. Wait, you say, wasn't the Reagan Era a huge, undifferentiated blot of right wing-ism, thus PROVING that joyfulreality should be RightWingTotality instead?! Gotcha, you say. I ask: have you noticed that Reagan has been kindly or at least respectfully spoken of by every Democratic Presidential candidate for decades? Are they sincere? If not, then you think Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Barack Obama are liars.*(see note) That hardly makes you a loyal Democrat. If you are an extreme left winger, of course, you will have no problem criticizing any of these as “not liberal enough” But if you think 49 states were wrong in re-electing Reagan in 1984, then might I suggest that you think Americans are fools? Or perhaps you think as this Mondale voter thought way back then, that America was just fooled. Either way, it is dangerous ground on which you stand.
I agree with Susan B. Anthony that abortion is merely another tool by which men abuse women! Check it out—she was an abortion opponent. Does my agreement with her make me a right winger? Think about it! That's what this blog is about, I think ;-)
Blessings,
Witness For Peace (another blogging name of mine)
PS I didn't follow Obama closely enough to recall what he said about Reagan. But he clearly stated that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. He was just more tentative and apologetic about it. So, you think he was lying and is in fact is in favor of creating an entirely new, inalienable right to CHOOSE THE SEX of your marriage partners? You're calling a popular President a liar? You gotta choose, which is he? I believe in gay rights, very strongly. They should have, and already have, the same rights as everyone else. I think they, and polygamists, and all of us, should recognize the right of LEGISLATURES to determine the number of spouses we can have, their minimum age, degree of consanguinity, and yes, their sex. Which one of these limitations violates an inalienable right to marriage? They ALL do; it is not inalienable; it is regulated. Regulated not by unaccountable “justices” (many of whom are merely robed activists) but by elected officials in a democracy. Those who are accountable to voters are the ones who should decide.
When GLBT lobbyists (also unelected and unaccountable) chose to make the redefinition of marriage a “rights” issue, the ground for compromise was fatally undermined. I either agree with you completely, or I'm a despicable bigot. Go ahead, post my name on the Internet so people can spit on me!
I agree with Susan B. Anthony that abortion is merely another tool by which men abuse women! Check it out—she was an abortion opponent. Does my agreement with her make me a right winger? Think about it! That's what this blog is about, I think ;-)
Blessings,
Witness For Peace (another blogging name of mine)
PS I didn't follow Obama closely enough to recall what he said about Reagan. But he clearly stated that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. He was just more tentative and apologetic about it. So, you think he was lying and is in fact is in favor of creating an entirely new, inalienable right to CHOOSE THE SEX of your marriage partners? You're calling a popular President a liar? You gotta choose, which is he? I believe in gay rights, very strongly. They should have, and already have, the same rights as everyone else. I think they, and polygamists, and all of us, should recognize the right of LEGISLATURES to determine the number of spouses we can have, their minimum age, degree of consanguinity, and yes, their sex. Which one of these limitations violates an inalienable right to marriage? They ALL do; it is not inalienable; it is regulated. Regulated not by unaccountable “justices” (many of whom are merely robed activists) but by elected officials in a democracy. Those who are accountable to voters are the ones who should decide.
When GLBT lobbyists (also unelected and unaccountable) chose to make the redefinition of marriage a “rights” issue, the ground for compromise was fatally undermined. I either agree with you completely, or I'm a despicable bigot. Go ahead, post my name on the Internet so people can spit on me!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Beware of what you wish for
Well, I'm back from Digestive Disease Week, and rather than transgastric drainage of pancreatic cysts, which I know nothing about, I'm thinking about the wisdom embedded in certain cliches and sayings, like: "What's the worst that could happen?"
Well, I missed my stop, so this train could drop me off in a bad neighborhood where I'll be robbed, mugged and murdered. My flesh will be devoured by rats and my bones gnawed by stray dogs. There will be nothing left except this name badge that says I was at http://www.ddw.org/ and took a wrong turn somewhere! I'll be digested!
And the best? Well, instead of simply riding the train to Indiana and then back to my stop, maybe someone will rescue me! I could beg a ride from my uncle, and both of us will spend all evening going nowhere, instead of just me. In other words, my rescue plan wasn't much better than just staying on the train, and I didn't trouble my uncle.
So, what happens when we get what we want? She falls in love with me, we carry on a long distance romance, and I have less time for my calling and my two adorable kids. "Uhh, that's your GOOD scenario?" Maybe what I already have is really good! This train is safe, God is taking me to just the right place, so don't whine about the detours! Hallelujah anyone?
Well, I missed my stop, so this train could drop me off in a bad neighborhood where I'll be robbed, mugged and murdered. My flesh will be devoured by rats and my bones gnawed by stray dogs. There will be nothing left except this name badge that says I was at http://www.ddw.org/ and took a wrong turn somewhere! I'll be digested!
And the best? Well, instead of simply riding the train to Indiana and then back to my stop, maybe someone will rescue me! I could beg a ride from my uncle, and both of us will spend all evening going nowhere, instead of just me. In other words, my rescue plan wasn't much better than just staying on the train, and I didn't trouble my uncle.
So, what happens when we get what we want? She falls in love with me, we carry on a long distance romance, and I have less time for my calling and my two adorable kids. "Uhh, that's your GOOD scenario?" Maybe what I already have is really good! This train is safe, God is taking me to just the right place, so don't whine about the detours! Hallelujah anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)