Christian "Love" - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Christian "Love"

Date: Jun 22, 2006

RE: Christian "Love"

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Human behavior trumps all, that is why religious people act just like Atheists.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Relevant Observable wrote:

"Fundamentalism --whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim-- rarely arises as a battle with an external enemy; it usually begins, instead, as an internal struggle in which traditionalists fight their coreligionists who, they believe, are making too many concessions to the secular world."
~Karen Armstrong

Sounds like the Democrats to me.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

This little fringe group travels around the country committing this atrocity. I would not call them "Christians" no matter what they call themselves. As far as I know, they are not part of any Baptist conference or affiliated with any other groups. Just a bunch of nuts.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Human behavior trumps all, that is why religious people act just like Atheists.

Now, Cossack, don't be insulting to atheists.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Sounds like republicans to me!

Date: Jun 22, 2006

LVN wrote:

This little fringe group travels around the country committing this atrocity. I would not call them "Christians" no matter what they call themselves. As far as I know, they are not part of any Baptist conference or affiliated with any other groups. Just a bunch of nuts.

You know I love you, LVN, but with all due respect I must remind you and theist about belief/faith. What you said is just what you believe, not what you know. (Remember Christ was a rebel too.) How do you know god is not speaking to this group instructing them to enlighten members of the Baptist Convention? That is the problem with "choosing" what to believe, there is no way to prove it is true. (Just like the Muslim martyrs in Iraq.) Does the good provided by all the belief systems out weigh all of the bad caused by them? I say not.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Sorry Atheist, I don't have the energy to go around this mulberry bush with you again. I'm too heartsick watching my own church break apart.

FWIW, I wonder if these yahoos haven't made a big mistake coming to Jones County. I hope so.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

LVN wrote:

Sorry Atheist, I don't have the energy to go around this mulberry bush with you again. I'm too heartsick watching my own church break apart. FWIW, I wonder if these yahoos haven't made a big mistake coming to Jones County. I hope so.

I understand, LVN. Sorry to hear about your church. Which church is it?

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Atheist wrote:

LVN wrote: This little fringe group travels around the country committing this atrocity. I would not call them "Christians" no matter what they call themselves. As far as I know, they are not part of any Baptist conference or affiliated with any other groups. Just a bunch of nuts. You know I love you, LVN, but with all due respect I must remind you and theist about belief/faith. What you said is just what you believe, not what you know. (Remember Christ was a rebel too.) How do you know god is not speaking to this group instructing them to enlighten members of the Baptist Convention? That is the problem with "choosing" what to believe, there is no way to prove it is true. (Just like the Muslim martyrs in Iraq.) Does the good provided by all the belief systems out weigh all of the bad caused by them? I say not.

I think LVN's point is that we should be careful not to misidentify the larger group of Christians from one extremely radical example from the fringes . . . the header to this seems to imply that, although that may have not been the intent: i.e "Christian love." Perhaps a better title might have been "One version of Christian love" or something similar.

And, incidently, as an artist, there are forms of "knowing" that may not be communicated or verifiable. There is such a thing as personal knowlege -- which may not be empirically verifiable but may be subjectively true none the less. People who don;t share in that knowlege often only can glimpse it from the artifacts that it produces. The existence of love, for instance --

Although I count myself generally a rationalist, I'm also not comfortable believing that all of existence is only meaningful if it can be ascribed to fact, either. There is a kind of "truth" that we often come to understand only after the event -- whether it is historical, or the event of a life and how that life itself creates a pattern that cannot be used to prove the motivations behind the life, but can be used circumstantially to summarize an individual's meaning and effect on others.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Thanks, Stephen. Well put.

Atheist, I'm Episcopalian. For now. This board isn't the place for a big discussion of our troubles, but I will say two things:

1. What's being reported in the media does not adequately or accurately describe the issues at stake. Much more complicated, long-standing problems are involved.

2. The political divisions of left vs. right are meaningless in this. Some of my most politically liberal friends are quite theologically "conservative" -- in fact, some of us feel it's more accurate to say "orthodox" vs. "revisionist" or something to that effect.

I doubt this is of much interest to the rest of the board.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

LVN wrote:

I doubt this is of much interest to the rest of the board.

Au contraire. I, too, am heartbroken.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

RE: Christian "Love"

Date: Jun 22, 2006

RE: Christian "Love"

Date: Jun 22, 2006

stephen judd wrote:

...And, incidently, as an artist, there are forms of "knowing" that may not be communicated or verifiable. There is such a thing as personal knowlege -- which may not be empirically verifiable but may be subjectively true none the less. People who don;t share in that knowlege often only can glimpse it from the artifacts that it produces. The existence of love, for instance -- Although I count myself generally a rationalist, I'm also not comfortable believing that all of existence is only meaningful if it can be ascribed to fact, either. There is a kind of "truth" that we often come to understand only after the event -- whether it is historical, or the event of a life and how that life itself creates a pattern that cannot be used to prove the motivations behind the life, but can be used circumstantially to summarize an individual's meaning and effect on others.

Stephen, thanks for responding. I see why we don’t agree. I use the words knowledge and truth much more precisely than you. I agree people say words like subjective “knowledge” and subjective “truth”, but this is not knowledge or truth. The reason is knowledge and truth must be objective. (For example, you may be mentally ill.) Human experience must be interpreted. That interpretation will be strongly influenced by the culture/environment. Many people could have identical experiences, but each could produce a different “subjective truth/knowledge”. Of course, theist engage in this metaphorical speech so that they can be secure in the belief that their faith = truth. They even refer to “religious truths” that they say are absolutely true, but these “truths” differ for different religions. With this destruction of language, there is no hope of logical resolution of differences. So churches divide (sorry about that LVN) and some Muslims (and Christians) employ violence. All us atheist ask, “Is all of this really necessary or worth it?”

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Far Away Alum wrote:

Sorry, Father Peace, but you are wrong about this one. My Episcopal church is very diverse: Africans, African-Americans, Asians, college students, college professors, business people, doctors, tradespeople, retirees, military folks--as well as political liberals and conservatives--and those that are orthodox and revisionist. I, like LVN, fear for the future of the church I love. There is a lot at stake.

Father Peace's observation shows how important it was for the GC to address important issues like mission, and how deeply they failed. However, I'm not country club material and neither are many of my church members. Also, I'm sure he's not aware that a number of traditionalist congregations in the US have put themselves under the "oversight" of African churches which are faithful to the Anglican Communion.

Far Away, do you have any sense yet of what your church and/or diocese will do? Can you say what area of the country you are in?

Date: Jun 22, 2006

LVN wrote:

.... Father Peace's observation shows how important it was for the GC to address important issues like mission, and how deeply they failed. ...

Pardon my ignorance, LVN, but what is "GC"?

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Sorry, the GC is the General Convention which just ended yesterday and at which apparently our church in its present form died. There will be a split which will probably result in a remnant Episcopal Church and then some sort of Anglican Church which will either be directly under the Archbishop of Canterbury or under one of the Asian or African Churches. There are several of these groups already and it remains to be seen how that will shake out. Some number of people will either join the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, and others will become Methodist, Lutheran, etc. It's early days. Whatever happens, it will be very painful for everyone.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

RE: Christian "Love"

Date: Jun 22, 2006

RE: Christian "Love"

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Here's something I've always wondered about (really): why are folks in many churches so upset about homosexuality (concerning which Jesus says nothing) and yet willing to tolerate divorce (which he specifically prohibited)?

I have some guesses as to why this is so (e.g., most people are not gay, but most people CAN imagine the possibility of someday wanting or needing a divorce), but I'd be interested in others' explanations.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Godless Liberal wrote:

I saw Armstrong's book on fundamentalism in B&N today and was tempted to buy it.

Thank you for noticing. I often think that my comments are relevant to no one but me!

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Unsure, you raise valid points, which I am unable to answer (at least here.) However, as I stated earlier, the issues dividing the ECUSA are very complex and only partly to do with homosexuality, or even with having a woman Presiding Bishop. It's as much about the way the issues were handled as about the issues themselves.

G.Lib., I like the quotation very much.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

LVN--I agree with you. Much of the problem is the way the issues were handled. My church has had conflicts in the past, but I believe it is behind us. I expect us to stay in the American church, though one can always be surprised. Our diocese now, however, recently elected Bishop-Suffragan Dena Harrison.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Godless Liberal wrote:

...For my theist friends experiencing these heated battles, there is a saying I like: There are only two things you need to know about God. First, there is one. Second, you ain't it.

From my count, Godless Liberal, there are many more than ONE. Just recently it appears LVN's church just discovered another one.

( A little humor, no offense intended LVN.)

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Unsure wrote:

Here's something I've always wondered about (really): why are folks in many churches so upset about homosexuality (concerning which Jesus says nothing) and yet willing to tolerate divorce (which he specifically prohibited)?
I have some guesses as to why this is so (e.g., most people are not gay, but most people CAN imagine the possibility of someday wanting or needing a divorce), but I'd be interested in others' explanations.

Divorce is not prohibited. There is, however, only one stated instance in which divorce is acceptable: when one spouse commits adultery. Additionally, there is no clear provision for remarriage for divorced persons. You can read this link for a better-annotated version:

Bible Q&A

Date: Jun 22, 2006

Far Away Alum wrote:

LVN--I agree with you. Much of the problem is the way the issues were handled. My church has had conflicts in the past, but I believe it is behind us. I expect us to stay in the American church, though one can always be surprised. Our diocese now, however, recently elected Bishop-Suffragan Dena Harrison.

FAA, did you know (I just learned this week) that the name of the church has been LEGALLY changed from "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" to "The Episcopal Church" -- the more paranoid among us see it as a move to "own" the name in such a way that a dissenting church cannot call itself "Episcopal"

With your present Bishop, you guys aren't pulling out. Dallas & Ft. Worth will probably go, however. Ft. Worth is very Anglo-Catholic. (FWIW, +Harrison is probably more qualified to be PB than the one we got, who's never even been a rector.)

Sorry, everybody else, this is just a little "church chat" between two of us. I'd take it off line if I knew who FAA was.

Date: Jun 22, 2006

H. A.--Patriot Guard Riders to attend soldier’s funeral

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060622/NEWS01/60622005

Date: Jun 22, 2006

CoBster in Residence wrote:

Unsure wrote: Here's something I've always wondered about (really): why are folks in many churches so upset about homosexuality (concerning which Jesus says nothing) and yet willing to tolerate divorce (which he specifically prohibited)? I have some guesses as to why this is so (e.g., most people are not gay, but most people CAN imagine the possibility of someday wanting or needing a divorce), but I'd be interested in others' explanations. Divorce is not prohibited. There is, however, only one stated instance in which divorce is acceptable: when one spouse commits adultery. Additionally, there is no clear provision for remarriage for divorced persons. You can read this link for a better-annotated version: Bible Q&A

Thanks for the clarification; I had forgotten about the exception concerning adultery. My main question still stands: why among all the things condemned in the Bible (although nowhere by Jesus) is it homosexuality that gets so many believers so riled up? After all, Phelps and his crew are not out at funerals to protest divorce or fornication or scores of other things prohibited in the Bible.