do you ever get tired of people bashing xtians all the time and never really giving zoroastrianism the once over?
PJ: Do you recommend any histories of Christianity/Jesus? One that's, say, analytical without being smarmy and overly critical.
Hey pastor does your church do anything for Passover along with Easter? I know some do and I'm always curious...
what do you think of mythologists like joseph campbell who suggest that the characters and heroes of religious texts are carried down ancient fairy tales wrought with moral significance due to sometimes uncanny similarities in other religious figures biographies (jesus/horus et al)
Ah I never thought anyone did it out of sheer curiosity. I thought they did it because Jesus celebrated it...
Yeah, that helps. I read a fair amount of stuff at university that was straight-up critical of Christianity, and Saint Paul in particular, and I'd kind of like to get the opposite perspective. So those are perfect recommendations.
what do you think of mythologists like joseph campbell who suggest that the characters and heroes of religious texts are carried down ancient fairy tales wrought with moral significance due to sometimes uncanny similarities in other religious figures biographies (jesus/horus et al)
I haven't read Campbell, but I think there's some truth to that. Most ancient mythologies were trying to answer the same questions, so they invovle similar stories. I don't think that the historical truth behind the stories are as important as the stories themselves and what they have to say to us, though. Man, this is great. It's like practicing for my ordination interview.
Ah I never thought anyone did it out of sheer curiosity. I thought they did it because Jesus celebrated it...
Maybe I didn't explain myself well. The point is that while Jesus was a Jew, we are not,
Ah I never thought anyone did it out of sheer curiosity. I thought they did it because Jesus celebrated it...
Maybe I didn't explain myself well. The point is that while Jesus was a Jew, we are not,
But if Jesus was a jew, and you honor him as the messiah, then why not take on some of his customs as well? I guess I just never understood that.
Ah I never thought anyone did it out of sheer curiosity. I thought they did it because Jesus celebrated it...
Maybe I didn't explain myself well. The point is that while Jesus was a Jew, we are not,
But if Jesus was a jew, and you honor him as the messiah, then why not take on some of his customs as well? I guess I just never understood that.
if Jesus is the messiah he completed all the Jewish prophecies and none of that stuff counts for Christians, dietary laws etc.
The Jewish people should be proud their faith inspired a couple of spinoffs: Christianity and Islam and those two spunoff a few of their own. So basically everywhere u go on planet earth is influenced either directly or indirectly from Jewish thought.congrats.Mazel tov.
Ah I never thought anyone did it out of sheer curiosity. I thought they did it because Jesus celebrated it...
Maybe I didn't explain myself well. The point is that while Jesus was a Jew, we are not,
But if Jesus was a jew, and you honor him as the messiah, then why not take on some of his customs as well? I guess I just never understood that.
if Jesus is the messiah he completed all the Jewish prophecies and none of that stuff counts for Christians, dietary laws etc.
The Jewish people should be proud their faith inspired a couple of spinoffs: Christianity and Islam and those two spunoff a few of their own. So basically everywhere u go on planet earth is influenced either directly or indirectly from Jewish thought.
congrats.
pastor josh did you see this nightline thing on satanism? they didnt interview a single satanist!
well in case you werent interviewed for this nightline episode, pastor josh, DOES SATAN EXIST?
that was the name of the segment.
Pastor Josh, which do you prefer, the Old Testament or the New Testament?
Can you recommend a good history of the Bible as a text? I've found it surprisingly hard to find a good history of the book itself and not one that follows world history as told by the Bible (such as the Oxford History of the Bible). Am I making any sense? I want something that explains how the Bible itself evolved and changed through translations, how certain books were added/removed, etc.
thank you!
ok, you go back in time and take a swab out of historical jesus' inner cheek. you travel back to our time and perform a paternity test on the dna. the dad is totally Joseph, right?
Thank you for answering my question Pastor Josh.
Pastor Josh: What is your concept of God?
What are your thoughts on proofs for and against the existence of the Western Concept of God? (Including the problem of evil and the ontological proofs pls)
Have you read any Kierkegaard?
Where did you study theology and such?
Thanks for taking the time to answer all the questions!
First question:
Are you part of a specific denomination? Because I seem to agree with most of your theology and I want to know where churches with your particular progressive/non-literal approach to biblical text exist.
Pastor Josh:
I'm going to ask several questions here, but you can reply through multiple posts if you'd like.
First question:
Are you part of a specific denomination? Because I seem to agree with most of your theology and I want to know where churches with your particular progressive/non-literal approach to biblical text exist.
Next question:
How much of an impact do you think narrative had on the spread of Christianity? The four gospels are written as narratives. Jesus was pretty into allegory. And the writers of the Bible were clearly great storytellers. So do you think the strength of Jesus' narrative had a lot to do with the success of the religion? I've always thought that a religion needs a great story to base itself on in order to be successful.
Final question:
Do you like the Danielson Famile? How about Page France?
Thanks!
Thomas.
Old testament, but I would still appreciate your insights:
I have always been uncomfortable with the tale of Abraham and Isaac. When God told Abraham to slaughter his son, I have always felt that it should have gone a different way. Abraham should have said "No. I love you, Lord, but this is my child and I will not do that" and God responds "That's the right answer. You are a good man."
But in the bible, Abraham agrees to slaughter his son, and then good tells him at the last minute (via an angel) to put the knife down. Like "Close enough. You pass."
Am I to take a lesson from such a story? That I should be willing to kill those I love in the name of God? Yeesh.
Not to mention, can you imagine how awkward Abraham and Isaac's relationship was after that little event? Abraham must have been like, "Soooooo....Isaac....um....How about them Mets?"
Pastor Josh,
To what extent do you believe that politics should commingle with religion? There are some religious leaders who actively support certain political candidates and encourage their followers to vote for those particular candidates. Do you think this is an appropriate practice? I'm interested to hear your opinion on this matter.
By the way, this is an excellent thread and you've done a great job answering all of our questions.
Hi Pastor,
I'm really enjoying this thread. Do you believe in hell? Why or why not? Normally I would just assume the answer to be yes, but you seem pretty open to a lot of ideas that many Christians would have big problems with.
Do the majority of liberal Christians believe in hell/damnation as a real place/state of being?
Thanks!
Old testament, but I would still appreciate your insights:
I have always been uncomfortable with the tale of Abraham and Isaac. When God told Abraham to slaughter his son, I have always felt that it should have gone a different way. Abraham should have said "No. I love you, Lord, but this is my child and I will not do that" and God responds "That's the right answer. You are a good man."
But in the bible, Abraham agrees to slaughter his son, and then good tells him at the last minute (via an angel) to put the knife down. Like "Close enough. You pass."
Am I to take a lesson from such a story? That I should be willing to kill those I love in the name of God? Yeesh.
Not to mention, can you imagine how awkward Abraham and Isaac's relationship was after that little event? Abraham must have been like, "Soooooo....Isaac....um....How about them Mets?"
No doubt. I'm not really sure what to make of that story, myself. Kierkegaard has an interesting answer in _Fear and Trembling_. Here's a link to a blog post by a friend of mine who has a better answer, I think. http://metholectionary.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/abe-and-ike-learning-not-to-hate-the-story/ (http://metholectionary.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/abe-and-ike-learning-not-to-hate-the-story/) I think your version of events is better. However, learning about how these stories came about in the tradition of Israelite folk tales has helped me understand how our stuff differs from their stuff, if that makes sense. I think, ultimately, that this is not a story that connects with our understandings of story, which means it might be hard for us to understand as a theological guide. I like Will's problems with the story, and I think those problems have more to say to us than any straight preaching of the story.
Old testament, but I would still appreciate your insights:
I have always been uncomfortable with the tale of Abraham and Isaac. When God told Abraham to slaughter his son, I have always felt that it should have gone a different way. Abraham should have said "No. I love you, Lord, but this is my child and I will not do that" and God responds "That's the right answer. You are a good man."
But in the bible, Abraham agrees to slaughter his son, and then good tells him at the last minute (via an angel) to put the knife down. Like "Close enough. You pass."
Am I to take a lesson from such a story? That I should be willing to kill those I love in the name of God? Yeesh.
Not to mention, can you imagine how awkward Abraham and Isaac's relationship was after that little event? Abraham must have been like, "Soooooo....Isaac....um....How about them Mets?"
Dear Pastor Josh,
I want to thank you for providing this service.
Here's my question. How large was the ark?
If I am allowed a follow-up, where did those hard-working friends and sons of Noah find polar bears and penguins?
A dingo ate my version of the biblical flood,
dfk
Dear Pastor Josh,
I want to thank you for providing this service.
Here's my question. How large was the ark?
If I am allowed a follow-up, where did those hard-working friends and sons of Noah find polar bears and penguins?
A dingo ate my version of the biblical flood,
dfk
This might be better suited for the unfunny/snark page. Come on, Dave. I hope you're better than that. You're probably not though.
Please stop this thread.
Thanks in advance.
Dear Pastor Josh,
I want to thank you for providing this service.
Here's my question. How large was the ark?
If I am allowed a follow-up, where did those hard-working friends and sons of Noah find polar bears and penguins?
A dingo ate my version of the biblical flood,
dfk
This might be better suited for the unfunny/snark page. Come on, Dave. I hope you're better than that. You're probably not though.
That sounded rude, I apologize - I just enjoyed the friendly exchange of ideas that had occured before. Shame on me.
Dear Pastor Josh,
I want to thank you for providing this service.
Here's my question. How large was the ark?
If I am allowed a follow-up, where did those hard-working friends and sons of Noah find polar bears and penguins?
A dingo ate my version of the biblical flood,
dfk
This might be better suited for the unfunny/snark page. Come on, Dave. I hope you're better than that. You're probably not though.
That sounded rude, I apologize - I just enjoyed the friendly exchange of ideas that had occured before. Shame on me.
Pastor Josh,
I am curious if you have ever read any of the gnostic gospels. Any thoughts as to whether they have any messages of value for Christian congregations today, and if you think the decisions in including and excluding various books of the New Testament still make sense in the present day? I suppose in a sense by focusing on certain aspects of the Bible and not others each minister/pastor/priest does their own unofficial editing. Is their ever room for adding/removing texts to the bible, or editing? In a somewhat related note do you personally see the Bible as a template/guide, or as infallible law? (fyi I am was raised very Catholic, so a lot of my questions have some basis in that - Catholicism is pretty hierarchical so wondering how some other Christians work)
Thanks for setting up this section - you answer each question with humility and humor and it was fun to find it and read it straight through.
Old testament, but I would still appreciate your insights:
I have always been uncomfortable with the tale of Abraham and Isaac. When God told Abraham to slaughter his son, I have always felt that it should have gone a different way. Abraham should have said "No. I love you, Lord, but this is my child and I will not do that" and God responds "That's the right answer. You are a good man."
But in the bible, Abraham agrees to slaughter his son, and then good tells him at the last minute (via an angel) to put the knife down. Like "Close enough. You pass."
Am I to take a lesson from such a story? That I should be willing to kill those I love in the name of God? Yeesh.
Not to mention, can you imagine how awkward Abraham and Isaac's relationship was after that little event? Abraham must have been like, "Soooooo....Isaac....um....How about them Mets?"
No doubt. I'm not really sure what to make of that story, myself. Kierkegaard has an interesting answer in _Fear and Trembling_. Here's a link to a blog post by a friend of mine who has a better answer, I think. http://metholectionary.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/abe-and-ike-learning-not-to-hate-the-story/ (http://metholectionary.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/abe-and-ike-learning-not-to-hate-the-story/) I think your version of events is better. However, learning about how these stories came about in the tradition of Israelite folk tales has helped me understand how our stuff differs from their stuff, if that makes sense. I think, ultimately, that this is not a story that connects with our understandings of story, which means it might be hard for us to understand as a theological guide. I like Will's problems with the story, and I think those problems have more to say to us than any straight preaching of the story.
Related to this - can you explain or point me to a proper explanation of the Book of Job? I think you can understand why it's difficult to embrace.
Thanks Pastor Josh!
Dear Pastor Josh,
I want to thank you for providing this service.
Here's my question. How large was the ark?
If I am allowed a follow-up, where did those hard-working friends and sons of Noah find polar bears and penguins?
A dingo ate my version of the biblical flood,
dfk
Please stop this thread.
Thanks in advance.
Dear Pastor Josh,
I have been enjoying this thread. You remind me of the 'cool' priests at my Jesuit high school. Hope comparing you to Jesuits doesn't offend.
Which leads to my question. Do you often find yourself in situations where you are talking to/ arguing with Christians who disagree with you? Does it get all 'Real World' or do people keep their cool? I don't run in theological circles so I can only speculate as to how these things go. I have a sense if there were more Pastors like you running around, or you got more air time, it'd be a good thing.
Steve
So, since I don't have anything productive to add to the discussion, I thought I might open this topic to such questions. Anything, no matter how ridiculous, will recieve a thoroughly researched and mostly made up answer.
Completely the wrong questions. I believe you aren't being snarky, but if someone asked me this in bible study, that's exactly what I'd tell them.
QuoteSo, since I don't have anything productive to add to the discussion, I thought I might open this topic to such questions. Anything, no matter how ridiculous, will recieve a thoroughly researched and mostly made up answer.
vs.QuoteCompletely the wrong questions. I believe you aren't being snarky, but if someone asked me this in bible study, that's exactly what I'd tell them.
personally, I find this thread and you pretty odd, and I don't mean to be disrespectful
you sound like someone who's on the verge of becoming an atheist, or maybe already is, and whose beliefs don't even need god or the bible
I feel bad for the people you preach to, and I don't even believe in god
you might want to look into humanism or something
personally, I find this thread and you pretty odd, and I don't mean to be disrespectful
you sound like someone who's on the verge of becoming an atheist, or maybe already is, and whose beliefs don't even need god or the bible
I feel bad for the people you preach to, and I don't even believe in god
personally, I find this thread and you pretty odd, and I don't mean to be disrespectful
you sound like someone who's on the verge of becoming an atheist, or maybe already is, and whose beliefs don't even need god or the bible
I disagree.I feel bad for the people you preach to, and I don't even believe in god
This is pretty offensive.
I think we really need a new definition and understanding of religiosity, or at least what it has the potential to be. Avoiding a literal interpretation of the Bible, having a progressive ideology, and thinking of the concept of God abstractly does not make someone "on the verge of becoming an atheist." Nor does it exempt someone from experiencing religion.
One thing I can't stand about contemporary atheist thought is the belief that atheists don't have to respect or acknowledge the potential for positivity in religion. Many Dawkins-esque atheists reason that because a belief cannot be proved/disproved by science, it is a false belief. This bothers me. I guess I just want perceptions of religiosity to change. And I do think they are beginning to change.
Dear Pastor Josh,
I want to thank you for providing this service.
Here's my question. How large was the ark?
If I am allowed a follow-up, where did those hard-working friends and sons of Noah find polar bears and penguins?
A dingo ate my version of the biblical flood,
dfk
This might be better suited for the unfunny/snark page. Come on, Dave. I hope you're better than that. You're probably not though.
That sounded rude, I apologize - I just enjoyed the friendly exchange of ideas that had occured before. Shame on me.
You do realize you're fighting the powers of snark with more snark, don't you?
Eye for an eye, you say? That is so fucking old testament. Get with the times.
Numma wun: I am a United Methodist. One of our strengths is that there is a wide range of theologies in our denomintaion. One of our weaknesses is that there is a wide range of theologies in our denomintaion. Many UM Churches are progressive, but many aren't. If you're really interested in finding a modern church, you might just have to check a few out. Where are you from? Your region might help. For instance, if you're in Rhode Island, you might actually want to check out Baptist churches. If you're in Arkansas, avoid even Methodists, for the most part. We can talk more about what might suit your needs in your area. Liberal Chirstianity can be found in any denomination, from Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist, depending on what's nearby.
Numba do: Awesome question, which I'm not sure I completely understand. However, I think story is the core of our theology. I might quibble with your suggestion that Jesus was into allegory (parable is hugely different), but I think our faith is found in story, mainly because the stories we create with our lives are how we incorporate ourselves into the biblical story of God's work with humanity.
Numero tres: Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I hate to say it, but I don't know who those are. Help me out, bro. I could google them, but since I don't them, even Google couldn't help me answer.
Please, as always, ask me any follow up questions you want, especailly with #2, which I don't feel like I aswered well. And, of course, thaks for the questions.
Yep. So?
Eye for an eye? I never said that, you did. Why are you so angry over a harmless post?
You people won't let this thread ruin Danielson for me, I'm serious.
Yep. So?
Eye for an eye? I never said that, you did. Why are you so angry over a harmless post?
Oh I'm not angry just giving you a hard time.
you might want to look into humanism or something
you might want to look into humanism or something
Isn't that what's printed on Madison, Wisconsin's official letterhead?
Numma wun: I am a United Methodist. One of our strengths is that there is a wide range of theologies in our denomintaion. One of our weaknesses is that there is a wide range of theologies in our denomintaion. Many UM Churches are progressive, but many aren't. If you're really interested in finding a modern church, you might just have to check a few out. Where are you from? Your region might help. For instance, if you're in Rhode Island, you might actually want to check out Baptist churches. If you're in Arkansas, avoid even Methodists, for the most part. We can talk more about what might suit your needs in your area. Liberal Chirstianity can be found in any denomination, from Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist, depending on what's nearby.
Numba do: Awesome question, which I'm not sure I completely understand. However, I think story is the core of our theology. I might quibble with your suggestion that Jesus was into allegory (parable is hugely different), but I think our faith is found in story, mainly because the stories we create with our lives are how we incorporate ourselves into the biblical story of God's work with humanity.
Numero tres: Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I hate to say it, but I don't know who those are. Help me out, bro. I could google them, but since I don't them, even Google couldn't help me answer.
Please, as always, ask me any follow up questions you want, especailly with #2, which I don't feel like I aswered well. And, of course, thaks for the questions.
To get this thread back on track...
In response to your response to my second question:
I agree with and appreciate your response. I think you understand what I'm saying. I guess my point is that I don't think "narrative" gets enough credit in religious thought. And I think that the reason Christianity has such an impact on people is because it's based on a great narrative (this, of course, applies to many religions). Oh, and I meant parable, not allegory. I still get those two confused.
Danielson is an indie-rock band heavily influenced by Christianity. Their entire aesthetic, in fact, is based on Christian imagery and belief. They are also fans of the Best Show and have appeared on the show several times. It may be presumptuous to think you would be into this sort of thing, but even if you don't like the music, I think their story is relevant to your type of faith. If you're interested, a great place to start is the documentary Danielson: A Family Movie (or, Make a Joyful Noise Here). It's really great. Here is the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5r8-qk30DM
And here is the music video for "Did I Step On Your Trumpet?":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmkosOzQH8
Page France are another indie rock band with lyrics influenced by Christian imagery, although not as intensely as Danielson.
I think why I brought up these bands though, is because they've been utterly rejected by the mainstream Christian rock audience (which, to me, says a lot about mainstream American Christianity). In a lot of ways, their faith seems so much more in line with the type of Christianity you seem to adhere to. And that is probably why they've found success with a presumably secular audience.
Anyway, Pastor Josh, you're a great addition to the FOT board and I've enjoyed your few calls to the show so far.
you might want to look into humanism or something
Isn't that what's printed on Madison, Wisconsin's official letterhead?
Yep. So?
Eye for an eye? I never said that, you did. Why are you so angry over a harmless post?
Oh I'm not angry just giving you a hard time.
I'm really sorry too. Sorry to everyone. REALLY. And sorry most to you and Dave. Sorry Dave. I was just being a jerk.
Josh you might want to steer away from the "This week in God" segment at least on the radio... just my opinion... it might become tiresome and have the opposite effect you're going for.
Yep. So?
Eye for an eye? I never said that, you did. Why are you so angry over a harmless post?
Oh I'm not angry just giving you a hard time.
I'm really sorry too. Sorry to everyone. REALLY. And sorry most to you and Dave. Sorry Dave. I was just being a jerk.
And I am sorry if my response was too snippy. It's been a tough month (and I am almost at the end of being able to use that as an excuse any more, so something tragic's probably about to happen to me.)
I will say that I find Pastor Josh's response to me to err slightly on the side of dismissiveness; I am faced with a youth leader who wants to take MY CHILDREN to the creation museum in Kentucky, because he believes the Adam and Eve stories, and the flood story to be LITERALLY TRUE. It probably drives me as crazy as random capitalization probably drives OTHER people crazy.
In other words, people in positions of authority in my church use crazy backwards approaches to biblical inerrancy to defend their actions. I need help in addressing these folks without seeming all condescending about it, so even though Pastor Josh told me these are the "wrong questions", they are answers I could sincerely use help with.
Anyways, Ben, you're great, you keep doing what you're doing. Pastor Josh, I am thrilled that you are here and that you engage openly with people from backgrounds different from your own. I got my first kiss, at age 4, in a performance of the Night Before Christmas in the basement of a United Methodist Church, one of my many fond memories.
Josh you might want to steer away from the "This week in God" segment at least on the radio... just my opinion... it might become tiresome and have the opposite effect you're going for.
Josh, I know this question has been asked since the dawn of time but I'd like your take. Why does God let bad things happen to good people and vice versa?
Also, what is it that makes you believe in God? Is it nature, acts of kindness or what.
What do you think of those crazy catholics? Specifically:
Vatican II: Catholics frontin' on the Protestant tip? Is it truly bad that the Bendedict seems to be backpedaling on it or do you think the backpedaling is necessary since if Catholicism is not blinkered and superstitious then it has no reason to exist?
Also, admit how much you hate Catholics.
It's been a long time since I looked at it, but I remember something that bothered me about that book was the fact that he goes to a lot of trouble to set up rational arguments dismissing the Bible, and then fails to take his argument any further by questioning the logic of belief itself. He just sort of stops short and says (more or less), 'anyway, we can all agree that God exists. Just look at the world around us.' Seems kind of lazy to me.
Dear Pastor Josh,
Have you read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason? I'd like to know what you thought.
It's been a long time since I looked at it, but I remember something that bothered me about that book was the fact that he goes to a lot of trouble to set up rational arguments dismissing the Bible, and then fails to take his argument any further by questioning the logic of belief itself. He just sort of stops short and says (more or less), 'anyway, we can all agree that God exists. Just look at the world around us.' Seems kind of lazy to me. Though again, I may have forgotten some important stuff.
I certainly don't begrudge anyone the right to believe because, as you put it, he or she 'want(s) a being of supreme love and compassion to be behind everything' or feels a connection to something beyond reason and nature. It's just that, having called the book The Age of Reason, Paine seems to want desperately to find a purely rational reason in nature for his Deist beliefs. To me that seems like a fools errand.
(also he seems a little anti-semitic, though I'm going to guess he didn't really know any Jews.)
Thoughts? Thanks!
Pastor Josh,
I like you, and this thread.
Have you ever heard the theory that the Book of Job was a holdover from Paganism, possibly of the Greek variety? I forget where I heard this (probably some grad school theater history class), but the theory points out the obvious resemblance to a classic Greek tragedy wherein the gods just get mad at somebody and proceed to utterly destroy them for no good reason.
I have no idea whether or not there's any truth to this, but it does sound more believable to me than the interpretation you gave earlier in the thread. No offense -- your interpretation is about as civilized and modern as possible.
Also, have you read either Terry Eagleton or Slavoj Žižek? Both mount very interesting (Marxist/post-Marxist) defenses of Christianity. You can find free lectures from both of them on this topic at iTunes.
Also, if you want to call in every week, I think it should be to review movies that Spike's friends (or "friends") have seen.
I enjoy reading Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne because they're so interestingly wrong.
If Atheism is lack of belief, what differentiates it from agnosticism?
If Atheism is lack of belief, what differentiates it from agnosticism?
I might be wrong here, but my understanding is that an agnostic, meaning "without knowledge" in Greek, claims that knowledge of God is impossible, and then usually conclude that it is an irrelevant question. Alternatively, an atheist, meaning "godless" in Greek, claims that there is no God.
I enjoy reading Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne because they're so interestingly wrong.
I haven't read either. What are they wrong about?
I believe atheism can also mean just non-religious. However since the word is 'loaded' a lot of people opt for agnostic instead.
atheism can mean 'without a theism' or 'an ism without a the'. Or something.
Which FOT thread would a just god prefer, this one or this one? (http://www.friendsoftom.com/forum/index.php/topic,1534.0.html)This is the first time I've read that other thread- and
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2058/2039010836_17369ab610.jpg?v=0)
(http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/19/churchsignrl4.jpg)
Sorry, Bonnie. I couldn't resistI can't see what the sign was! Poo. Too late.
This is the first time I've read that other thread- and
Sorry, Bonnie. I couldn't resistI can't see what the sign was! Poo. Too late.
Ah, makes sense! Thanks!QuoteThis is the first time I've read that other thread- andIf I recall, I think it had something to do with your band.
Sorry, Bonnie. I couldn't resistI can't see what the sign was! Poo. Too late.
This is the first time I've read that other thread- and
Sorry, Bonnie. I couldn't resistI can't see what the sign was! Poo. Too late.
Yep. So?
Eye for an eye? I never said that, you did. Why are you so angry over a harmless post?
Oh I'm not angry just giving you a hard time.
I'm really sorry too. Sorry to everyone. REALLY. And sorry most to you and Dave. Sorry Dave. I was just being a jerk.
And I am sorry if my response was too snippy. It's been a tough month (and I am almost at the end of being able to use that as an excuse any more, so something tragic's probably about to happen to me.)
I will say that I find Pastor Josh's response to me to err slightly on the side of dismissiveness; I am faced with a youth leader who wants to take MY CHILDREN to the creation museum in Kentucky, because he believes the Adam and Eve stories, and the flood story to be LITERALLY TRUE. It probably drives me as crazy as random capitalization probably drives OTHER people crazy.
In other words, people in positions of authority in my church use crazy backwards approaches to biblical inerrancy to defend their actions. I need help in addressing these folks without seeming all condescending about it, so even though Pastor Josh told me these are the "wrong questions", they are answers I could sincerely use help with.
Anyways, Ben, you're great, you keep doing what you're doing. Pastor Josh, I am thrilled that you are here and that you engage openly with people from backgrounds different from your own. I got my first kiss, at age 4, in a performance of the Night Before Christmas in the basement of a United Methodist Church, one of my many fond memories.
That Creation Museum in Kentucky is insane.
I know 'cuz we went. It was a journalistic kind of thing.
Were I Dave From K-ville, I'd have similar reservations.
What do you think of those crazy catholics? Specifically:
Vatican II: Catholics frontin' on the Protestant tip? Is it truly bad that the Bendedict seems to be backpedaling on it or do you think the backpedaling is necessary since if Catholicism is not blinkered and superstitious then it has no reason to exist?
Also, admit how much you hate Catholics.
Why do you say it's more believable?
My wife is a big Zizek fan, but I haven't read any of his stuff. I'll check him out. Any particular books you'd recommend?
Pastor Josh,
I posted this video in the Glenn Beck thread. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNNtdgZafFM[/youtube]
That's cool Pastor Josh. I completely understand. I don't like the fearmongering either. But thanks for trying to answer my question anyway.
In other words, people in positions of authority in my church use crazy backwards approaches to biblical inerrancy to defend their actions. I need help in addressing these folks without seeming all condescending about it
Why do you say it's more believable?
Touche -- you've managed to out-postmodern me. Of course the Hebrew (or Christian) reinterpretation of Job is just as real as the "authentic" original version from Assyria or wherever. My initial impression was that the idea of a savage, feudal, desert-nomad God in Job was somehow more "realistic" to me than the idea of a loving God, as in Christianity (or more modern interpretations thereof). But of course, there's no such thing as "revisionism" in this context -- religious texts are always fluid and historically contingent, and always subject to whatever readings believers endow them with. There's no such thing as a "real" or "invalid" interpretation, just stronger and weaker cases.My wife is a big Zizek fan, but I haven't read any of his stuff. I'll check him out. Any particular books you'd recommend?
Welcome to the Desert of the Real and the Astra Taylor documentary Zizek! are probably good places to get a general idea of his schtick (and it is a schtick, but I love it). The Puppet and The Dwarf is explicitly about Christianity, and not too long or dense for a book of theory.
Great thread. I'm reminded of my friend's (Lutheran pastor, I think) dad who once compared religion to a pizzeria.In other words, people in positions of authority in my church use crazy backwards approaches to biblical inerrancy to defend their actions. I need help in addressing these folks without seeming all condescending about it
This is kind of what I'm wondering about. 1) Like, what's the most respectful way of dealing with situations in which certain types of religious folk insist I'm going to hell/purgatory because of my (apathetic Roman Catholic/lazy reform Jewish) upbringing/(agnostic-y Jewish) current beliefs? Usually I go with something like, "I appreciate your concern, but there's no hell in my religion." At least no one's made me a Rapture kit, as my mom's coworker did for her.
And 2) What's the most respectful way of dealing with people whose only argument against sexual minorities is that their interpretation of the Bible tells them it's wrong? Jesus seems like he'd probably be all, "Brothers and sisters, chill out" to folks on either side, but that's not a compelling argument. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but if you could point me in the direction of Bible passages or books that could make for a, like, more productive discussion, it'd be appreciated. All that comes to mind for me is "judge not, lest ye be judged", which is my jam but doesn't seem to translate to the anti-GLBT crowd.
Pastor Josh,
Please enlighten me!
First, what is standard treatment for churchaphobia? I feel like a freak. It even happens at church rummage sales. Have you come across many cases of this? I'm embarrassed to ask my doctor and I'm not joking.
Second, how could I find something to believe in? What sort of brain processes are involved when you take a leap of faith? Is there a secret way to trick yourself?
Third, I am terrified of ghosts but don't believe in them. Do you believe in ghosts?
Thank you,
Julie
Pastor Josh:
Is there a difference (theologically, socially, or other) between a Wesley United Methodist church and other UMCs? I attended one a couple of times and it seemed more conservative than other UMCs I've been to.
Interesting to hear about you going to Eden. I went to undergrad across the street at Webster and spent many work-study hours shifting books in the shared Eden-Webster liibrary. That was/is a unique example of ecumenicalism - a former Catholic women's college and a Protestant seminary sharing a library.
Hi, one or more things. Why did they replace the organs with folk singers? Also, what do you think of Christian musicians that try to sound and look like real musicians? What do you think of Christianity as a brand? Do you ever go to mass and feel like you are at the mall, or vice versa? Why is all of the beauty disappearing from the world? Should I join a cult, since I like to be a follower? Are cults really bad?
PJ: Do you recommend any histories of Christianity/Jesus? One that's, say, analytical without being smarmy and overly critical.
WHat are you looking for, exactly? I recently finished a book called _Meeting Jesus Agian for the First Time_ by Marcus Borg, and it was an interesting discussion of how the historical man Jesus became the being we confess as CHrist. I don't agree with the whole book, but it's an interesting read. The Jesus Seminar has some good books that look at the actual historical reality in which Jesus lived, although there isn't much about Jesus himself in most of them since there's almost no non-biblical evidence for his existence. Justo Gonzalez wrote a pretty good series called _The History of Christianity_, which is a good but non-proselytizing summary of our history written by a believer. Does this help?
PJ: Do you recommend any histories of Christianity/Jesus? One that's, say, analytical without being smarmy and overly critical.
WHat are you looking for, exactly? I recently finished a book called _Meeting Jesus Agian for the First Time_ by Marcus Borg, and it was an interesting discussion of how the historical man Jesus became the being we confess as CHrist. I don't agree with the whole book, but it's an interesting read. The Jesus Seminar has some good books that look at the actual historical reality in which Jesus lived, although there isn't much about Jesus himself in most of them since there's almost no non-biblical evidence for his existence. Justo Gonzalez wrote a pretty good series called _The History of Christianity_, which is a good but non-proselytizing summary of our history written by a believer. Does this help?
I'm more of an N.T. Wright fan. Ever since a Jesus Seminar guy told me he used to think of Jesus as a wise sage but now he thinks, and I quote, "Gangsta' rapper, like 50 cent" I lost interest.
PJ: Do you recommend any histories of Christianity/Jesus? One that's, say, analytical without being smarmy and overly critical.
WHat are you looking for, exactly? I recently finished a book called _Meeting Jesus Agian for the First Time_ by Marcus Borg, and it was an interesting discussion of how the historical man Jesus became the being we confess as CHrist. I don't agree with the whole book, but it's an interesting read. The Jesus Seminar has some good books that look at the actual historical reality in which Jesus lived, although there isn't much about Jesus himself in most of them since there's almost no non-biblical evidence for his existence. Justo Gonzalez wrote a pretty good series called _The History of Christianity_, which is a good but non-proselytizing summary of our history written by a believer. Does this help?
I'm more of an N.T. Wright fan. Ever since a Jesus Seminar guy told me he used to think of Jesus as a wise sage but now he thinks, and I quote, "Gangsta' rapper, like 50 cent" I lost interest.
pastor josh,
do you think that in '66 the Beatles were actually more popular than Jesus?
Are there any labels right now that are as cool as Tooth and Nail used to be? In the mid-late 90's that was a killer label with a ton of great bands on it that were original instead of trying to mimic what was cool 5 years ago. That's the problem with Christian music. It's a tool rather than an art form; a way to get kids interested in Christianity. I don't have a problem with that but it's hard to appreciate music without any originality that's aimed either at 15 year old kids or people who like adult contemporary.
Are there any labels right now that are as cool as Tooth and Nail used to be? In the mid-late 90's that was a killer label with a ton of great bands on it that were original instead of trying to mimic what was cool 5 years ago. That's the problem with Christian music. It's a tool rather than an art form; a way to get kids interested in Christianity. I don't have a problem with that but it's hard to appreciate music without any originality that's aimed either at 15 year old kids or people who like adult contemporary.
Other than some of the stuff already discussed on this board, I don't know of any Christian music that's at all interesting. Anyone else?
Other than some of the stuff already discussed on this board, I don't know of any Christian music that's at all interesting. Anyone else?
Not really what I'm talking about. I mean I know there is a discussion with what constitutes Christian music, but Tooth and Nail was a Christian label with artists who made music about Christianity and most of the time they bands didn't suck and were original. I don't think any other Christian label ever pulled off what they did in the 90's so I guess I was wondering if there was a label kind of like that today.
Other than some of the stuff already discussed on this board, I don't know of any Christian music that's at all interesting. Anyone else?
How about Larry Norman? Or was he mentioned already?
Other than some of the stuff already discussed on this board, I don't know of any Christian music that's at all interesting. Anyone else?
How about Larry Norman? Or was he mentioned already?
He's been dead so long. Beethoven was good, too.
do you ever get tired of people bashing xtians all the time and never really giving zoroastrianism the once over?
Other than some of the stuff already discussed on this board, I don't know of any Christian music that's at all interesting. Anyone else?
I too was going to mention Pedro the Lion/Dave Bazan (http://www.davidbazan.com/). Pedro split in '05 but Bazan still tours and plays. Supper mopey but great lyrics. I think he is a fine song writer. Recommended. Worth seeing live too. Seems like a nice fellow.Other than some of the stuff already discussed on this board, I don't know of any Christian music that's at all interesting. Anyone else?
I really like the Pedro the Lion EP I have. Slowcore at its finest. They are (were?) on Tooth and Nail.
I too was going to mention Pedro the Lion/Dave Bazan (http://www.davidbazan.com/). Pedro split in '05 but Bazan still tours and plays. Supper mopey but great lyrics. I think he is a fine song writer. Recommended. Worth seeing live too. Seems like a nice fellow.Other than some of the stuff already discussed on this board, I don't know of any Christian music that's at all interesting. Anyone else?
I really like the Pedro the Lion EP I have. Slowcore at its finest. They are (were?) on Tooth and Nail.
I think they were on Jade Tree though. I could be wrong. Often I am...
Can God make a sandwich so big even he can't finish it?
Regarding Christian rock groups, Starflyer 59 is pretty good in a shoegazey sort of way. I like whatshisface's side project with his wife better, Bon Voyage. Very pretty!
Although I think we can all admit that God can write good cool jazz; he just distributes it through his anointed vessel, Kenny G.
Other than some of the stuff already discussed on this board, I don't know of any Christian music that's at all interesting. Anyone else?
And on a related note: Pastor Josh, I'm interested to hear your perspective on your Church's view on homosexuality, especially after reading the various excerpts and quotes at ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc.htm). I understand your congregation is pretty progressive. I mean, I've walked behind Methodist congregations in Pride parades, and it's great to see both adults and young people dancing and having a good time. But how do you reconcile your views on homosexuality -- and I'm assuming you're in line with many of the Methodist pastors who wholeheartedly accept GLBT people -- with your denomination's official stance? Do you think it's likely they'll reverse their views soon? And would you say there are more progressive congregations than conservative across the UMC? I understand there have been multiple pastors who have conducted commitment ceremonies and have been reprimanded or worse by the Church. Would you say there are more pastors out there who would gladly perform commitment ceremonies but don't out of fear of facing a church trial?
And on a related note: Pastor Josh, I'm interested to hear your perspective on your Church's view on homosexuality, especially after reading the various excerpts and quotes at ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc.htm). I understand your congregation is pretty progressive. I mean, I've walked behind Methodist congregations in Pride parades, and it's great to see both adults and young people dancing and having a good time. But how do you reconcile your views on homosexuality -- and I'm assuming you're in line with many of the Methodist pastors who wholeheartedly accept GLBT people -- with your denomination's official stance? Do you think it's likely they'll reverse their views soon? And would you say there are more progressive congregations than conservative across the UMC? I understand there have been multiple pastors who have conducted commitment ceremonies and have been reprimanded or worse by the Church. Would you say there are more pastors out there who would gladly perform commitment ceremonies but don't out of fear of facing a church trial?
First off, my congregation is not progressive. In fact, they're very conservative, and many of them are biblical literalists. They are really good people, and almost all of them value love above law, but I have a friend in town who is gay, and he, his partner, and their daughter have been looking for a church. I"ve told them that I would love it if they came, and I would stand up with them against the congregation if need be, but that I could't promise them a good reception. I think they would be welcome, but the issue is so, well, weird I guess is the word. Otherwise rational people go apeshit over this. Many UM congregations are very progressive, though, and, as in most denominations that require pastors to get a certain level of education, on average the clergy are more progressive than the laity. Now, to be clear, our denomination's official stance is that all people, specifically including homosexuals, are beloved children of God and are of infinite divine worth and cannot be excluded from the life of the church except in the areas of marriage and ordination. However, the denomination holds that biblically speaking, homosexuality is a sin, so homosexuals cannot be admitted to the order or ordained persosn. (We have a lot of greedy, mean-spirited bastards in the order of ordained persons, which are by any standards far more condemned in the bible than homosexuality, which I would argue isn't condemned at all, but for some reaon thay can be ordained.) What is really holding us back is that we are a world-wide denomination and we have a large contingent from Africa who tend to be very, very conservative. (Never mind the fact that the bible mandates slavery, and that bit of human-rights violating scripture didn't work out so well for Africa that maybe we could reconsider this one.) We are taking steps to declare the United States a Central Conference, which would allow us to make rules for the UMC in the US that differ from the Book of Discipline. Every other nation I know of with a UM presence is a Central Conference, so to me it seems condescending for us not to be one. It's like claiming we're default United Methodism, and anyone who isn't like us is something different. Good, old fashioned, American hegemony. Not surprisingly, liberals are unquestioningly in favor of it and conservatives are unquestioningly opposed. I think this will have happened by 2016 at the latest. Anyway, I understand why someone would perform a committment ceremony at the risk of his or her job. However, I would not, but not because I fear reprisal from my superiors. (I could give you a little bit of biography to support that.) I wouldn't beacuse if I do not become and then remain an ordained United methodist pastor, then I cannot vote to reform our denomination. Every progressive voice lost to acts of civil disobedience is one more unopposed conservative voice, and we need all the help we can get. Sorry for the long answer, but it's a complicated question. There's still more I'd like to clarify, so feel free to pose any follow-up questions.
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
And on a related note: Pastor Josh, I'm interested to hear your perspective on your Church's view on homosexuality, especially after reading the various excerpts and quotes at ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc.htm). I understand your congregation is pretty progressive. I mean, I've walked behind Methodist congregations in Pride parades, and it's great to see both adults and young people dancing and having a good time. But how do you reconcile your views on homosexuality -- and I'm assuming you're in line with many of the Methodist pastors who wholeheartedly accept GLBT people -- with your denomination's official stance? Do you think it's likely they'll reverse their views soon? And would you say there are more progressive congregations than conservative across the UMC? I understand there have been multiple pastors who have conducted commitment ceremonies and have been reprimanded or worse by the Church. Would you say there are more pastors out there who would gladly perform commitment ceremonies but don't out of fear of facing a church trial?
First off, my congregation is not progressive. In fact, they're very conservative, and many of them are biblical literalists. They are really good people, and almost all of them value love above law, but I have a friend in town who is gay, and he, his partner, and their daughter have been looking for a church. I"ve told them that I would love it if they came, and I would stand up with them against the congregation if need be, but that I could't promise them a good reception. I think they would be welcome, but the issue is so, well, weird I guess is the word. Otherwise rational people go apeshit over this. Many UM congregations are very progressive, though, and, as in most denominations that require pastors to get a certain level of education, on average the clergy are more progressive than the laity. Now, to be clear, our denomination's official stance is that all people, specifically including homosexuals, are beloved children of God and are of infinite divine worth and cannot be excluded from the life of the church except in the areas of marriage and ordination. However, the denomination holds that biblically speaking, homosexuality is a sin, so homosexuals cannot be admitted to the order or ordained persosn. (We have a lot of greedy, mean-spirited bastards in the order of ordained persons, which are by any standards far more condemned in the bible than homosexuality, which I would argue isn't condemned at all, but for some reaon thay can be ordained.) What is really holding us back is that we are a world-wide denomination and we have a large contingent from Africa who tend to be very, very conservative. (Never mind the fact that the bible mandates slavery, and that bit of human-rights violating scripture didn't work out so well for Africa that maybe we could reconsider this one.) We are taking steps to declare the United States a Central Conference, which would allow us to make rules for the UMC in the US that differ from the Book of Discipline. Every other nation I know of with a UM presence is a Central Conference, so to me it seems condescending for us not to be one. It's like claiming we're default United Methodism, and anyone who isn't like us is something different. Good, old fashioned, American hegemony. Not surprisingly, liberals are unquestioningly in favor of it and conservatives are unquestioningly opposed. I think this will have happened by 2016 at the latest. Anyway, I understand why someone would perform a committment ceremony at the risk of his or her job. However, I would not, but not because I fear reprisal from my superiors. (I could give you a little bit of biography to support that.) I wouldn't beacuse if I do not become and then remain an ordained United methodist pastor, then I cannot vote to reform our denomination. Every progressive voice lost to acts of civil disobedience is one more unopposed conservative voice, and we need all the help we can get. Sorry for the long answer, but it's a complicated question. There's still more I'd like to clarify, so feel free to pose any follow-up questions.
yeah but I mean two dudes kissing? that's gross! am I right people?!
Pastor Josh,
I don't know many UMs. In fact, I met one for the first time yesterday. This guy was dropping all these names of books and programs I've never heard of and assuming that I knew what he was talking about (40 days of community, Dream Center, Christian Believers...). Do you guys do a lot of denominationally-initiated programs or is it just this UM church?
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.
Dear Gilly,
That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.
dfk
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.
Dear Gilly,
That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.
dfk
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.
Dear Gilly,
That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.
dfk
It's so important of an issue right now and it upsets me that almost everyone who has something to say about doesn't really know what they are talking about. If a person is going to be passionate about an issue at least know the details and I see both sides of this debate arguing with no real knowledge of the issue at hand.
Pastor Josh, I haven't read anywhere in the Bible that a woman teaching is a sin. There were many women leaders in the Bible and not one bad word was spoken about them. It wasn't until Paul wrote his letter to Timothy that the Bible mentions the role of a woman and not only does it come off as advice, he contradicts himself because in his various other letters throughout the New Testament he proclaims man and woman as one and the same, recognizes a woman as a deacon and leader and another woman as an apostle.
These are the King James Version translations. The original Hebrew and Greek texts are a little more vague and those are the passages that are really in question.
Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
I Corinthians 6:9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Timothy 1:9-10 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
Jude 1:7: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Pastor Josh, that first comment wasn't directed at you in any way. You obviously know what you are talking about! I should have separated my two thoughts a little better.
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.
Dear Gilly,
That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.
dfk
Can anyone post the particular verses that (ostensibly) condemn homosexuality? Thanks.
I agree with your interpretations on all of those. The NRSV is not the translation I'd use but I guess there are a ton of people out there who take the new translations as gospel truth and they aren't going to accept what previous translations have said. Translations have been a blessing and a curse- they've brought the message of Christ to people who wouldn't have heard it, but at the same time the book changes leading to theological debates. Even a person who can read Hebrew and Greek and somehow finds access to the original documents would still have to translate what they've read to the rest of the world and the author's intent still could be lost.
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.
Dear Gilly,
That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.
dfk
Can anyone post the particular verses that (ostensibly) condemn homosexuality? Thanks.
Actually, to me the most damning and interesting language about homosexual activity in the Scriptures comes from the opening chapters of Paul's letter to the Romans. It is more important than any of the other verses because it is not taken from the Jewish ritual purity codes which Gentile Christians have never felt obligated to follow and because in it Paul doesn't only denounce homosexual acts as wrong or sinful or whatever, but he uses it as an illustration of a really incredible theological argument. He basically says (forgive the lack of verse citations) the human race, whether you are a Jew or a Gentile, is screwed big time because refusing to worshiping the creator God, they/we choose to worship animals and ourselves (the images of God). And then he says that exchange of God for the image of God is illustrated perfectly when we commit homosexual acts because a similar kind of unnatural exchange takes place when a woman lies with a woman etc. (i.e. she worships herself rather than one like her but of a different order and vice versa).
Why are we talking about theology on the forum again?
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.
Dear Gilly,
That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.
dfk
It's so important of an issue right now and it upsets me that almost everyone who has something to say about doesn't really know what they are talking about. If a person is going to be passionate about an issue at least know the details and I see both sides of this debate arguing with no real knowledge of the issue at hand.
Pastor Josh, I haven't read anywhere in the Bible that a woman teaching is a sin. There were many women leaders in the Bible and not one bad word was spoken about them. It wasn't until Paul wrote his letter to Timothy that the Bible mentions the role of a woman and not only does it come off as advice, he contradicts himself because in his various other letters throughout the New Testament he proclaims man and woman as one and the same, recognizes a woman as a deacon and leader and another woman as an apostle.
Also, re: ordaining homosexuals, is the issue over celibacy or homosexuality? And don't you guys ordain women? So why not gay people? Didn't people have to make the EXACT same arguments about women being ordained that you would have to make to ordain practicing homosexuals?
Well, ordaining women really only goes against a letter Paul wrote to Timothy. They were Paul's restrictions and he was giving advice to a fellow pastor. Ordaining gay pastors is an entirely different story because if it's interpreted as such, homosexuality is a grave sin. The debate is if the verses in question are about rape, molestation and ritual sex or about homosexuality and the churches who have decided to welcome gay ministers have decided that the verses aren't condemning homosexuality.
Dear Gilly,
That's as succinct and accurate a summary of the crux of the matter as I have ever seen. Very few Christians with whom I am acquainted understand it, but you've nailed it. Can you speak at my church? Bring an egg-resistant pancho.
dfk
It's so important of an issue right now and it upsets me that almost everyone who has something to say about doesn't really know what they are talking about. If a person is going to be passionate about an issue at least know the details and I see both sides of this debate arguing with no real knowledge of the issue at hand.
Pastor Josh, I haven't read anywhere in the Bible that a woman teaching is a sin. There were many women leaders in the Bible and not one bad word was spoken about them. It wasn't until Paul wrote his letter to Timothy that the Bible mentions the role of a woman and not only does it come off as advice, he contradicts himself because in his various other letters throughout the New Testament he proclaims man and woman as one and the same, recognizes a woman as a deacon and leader and another woman as an apostle.
Around here, the belief among friends of mine is that Paul detested women.
Pastor Josh:
I heard Ann Holmes Redding give a sermon today. I don't know if you're familiar with her, but she is a recently defrocked Episcopal priest who is also a practicing Muslim. She didn't offer much explanation of how that worked, but I was just wondering what your take would be.
Also, I am a fellow Methodist, so I'll be glad to talk about the Book of Discipline or the Wesleyan Quadrilateral anytime.
I have heard of her, but only the bare outlines of her story. I can't see how you could be both a Christian and a Muslim. Christians hold Jesus to be the ultimate revelation of God's intentions for us, and Muslims hold the Qua'ran. The two aren't compatible, as far as I can see. You can't be a Muslim and sonfess Jesus as Lord, and you can't be an Episcopal priest and not proclaim Jesus as Lord. I'm not meaning to suggest that one statement is true and the other is false, although my opinion is probably obvious. However, they aren't compatible. I always get a little suspicious of people who make extreme gestures like her, though.
QuoteI have heard of her, but only the bare outlines of her story. I can't see how you could be both a Christian and a Muslim. Christians hold Jesus to be the ultimate revelation of God's intentions for us, and Muslims hold the Qua'ran. The two aren't compatible, as far as I can see. You can't be a Muslim and sonfess Jesus as Lord, and you can't be an Episcopal priest and not proclaim Jesus as Lord. I'm not meaning to suggest that one statement is true and the other is false, although my opinion is probably obvious. However, they aren't compatible. I always get a little suspicious of people who make extreme gestures like her, though.
That's just what I was thinking as well. She tried to explain that the Qur'an acknowledges the uniqueness of Jesus, but that doesn't do much to resolve the issue. And your instincts are right on the money. I would have been able to take her sermon a little more seriously if the service wasn't going to be followed by a book signing.
There are tons of people, I'm sure many who post on this board, who believe that all religious texts are basically telling the same story and that all gods are one in the same. So, a pastor who is a Christian and Muslim isn't that crazy to me and I'm actually kind of amazed that there isn't a church with a large following that combines all of the elements of the major religions.
I'm Mormon so I'm curious what you've taught, studied believe about them. It's ironic to me that a lot of "traditional" Christian churches would say mormonism is way off and yet my beliefs about God and Christ seem much more "orthodox" than yours.
I really don't know much about Mormonism, but orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. In what way are your beliefs more orthodox than mine?
Is there a sect of Christianity that believes that Mary was literally impregnated by an alien (angel) and Jesus is a hybrid?
I used to have conversations like that all the time in high school.
I really don't know much about Mormonism, but orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. In what way are your beliefs more orthodox than mine?
Mormons believe that Jesus rose again on the third day - with all of the implications that that comes with.
It's Orthodox-Off 2009! I simply can't wait to find out whose orthodoxy is bigger!I want a t-shirt.
It's Orthodox-Off 2009! I simply can't wait to find out whose orthodoxy is bigger!I want a t-shirt.
It's Orthodox-Off 2009! I simply can't wait to find out whose orthodoxy is bigger!I want a t-shirt.
"We'll sell you the whole pew...but you'll only need THE EDGE"
It's Orthodox-Off 2009! I simply can't wait to find out whose orthodoxy is bigger!I want a t-shirt.
"We'll sell you the whole pew...but you'll only need THE EDGE"
ok, you go back in time and take a swab out of historical jesus' inner cheek. you travel back to our time and perform a paternity test on the dna. the dad is totally Joseph, right?
Well, short answer=yes. An angel didn't diddle Mary. However, that question totally misses the point. I mean, it's entirely possible that Jesus didn't actually exist, but, as far as I'm concerned, that wouldn't change anything. Calling someone "son of God" is a confessional claim, not a factual, and it wasn't until Greek thinking got all mixed up in this that we started worrying about all this crap. "Jesus is the (or, according to Mark, a) Son of God" means that Jesus is like God, and God is like Jesus. Basically, they're in the same business. Of course, a lot of well-meaning Christians would consider me terribly heretical for saying that, or, for that matter, half the stuff I've already posted. I generally assume I'm wrong about these things unless proved otherwise.
ok, you go back in time and take a swab out of historical jesus' inner cheek. you travel back to our time and perform a paternity test on the dna. the dad is totally Joseph, right?
Well, short answer=yes. An angel didn't diddle Mary. However, that question totally misses the point. I mean, it's entirely possible that Jesus didn't actually exist, but, as far as I'm concerned, that wouldn't change anything. Calling someone "son of God" is a confessional claim, not a factual, and it wasn't until Greek thinking got all mixed up in this that we started worrying about all this crap. "Jesus is the (or, according to Mark, a) Son of God" means that Jesus is like God, and God is like Jesus. Basically, they're in the same business. Of course, a lot of well-meaning Christians would consider me terribly heretical for saying that, or, for that matter, half the stuff I've already posted. I generally assume I'm wrong about these things unless proved otherwise.
I am referring to this bit. Now without going into the angel / Mary bit, Mormons believe Jesus was/is a "supernatural" being (God) and being able to raise people from the dead and raise himself from the dead was/is a big part of that.
Obviously, orthodoxy is relative, and of course, orthodoxy doesn't mean "better."
Interesting. Is Jesus both fully human and fully divine in Mormon metaphysics, or is he only divine?
Interesting. Is Jesus both fully human and fully divine in Mormon metaphysics, or is he only divine?
The former.
From what I understand, Mormons believe that the trinity are three separate gods which differs from the evangelical view of the trinity being one and the same. So, both the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus are divine but Jesus in Christianity is another form of God. I don't know too much about the Mormon faith but I think they believe that everyone can become gods, so my question is, does that mean everybody who attains that status is on equal footing with Jesus?
Sorry. Got a little mixed up on my referees. I knew I was going to do that, so I checked myself a couple times. Guess it didn't work. And, sorry to pull this out, but I think that's the wrong question. As far as I'm concerned, the actual mechanics of all that are irrelevant. What matters is, what difference does it make in how you interact with creation that Jesus was divine. I can whip out all the orthodxy terms, like co-eternal with the father, and mean them when I say them. I just don't find them important. I'm pretty Methodist in my approach to theology.
This sounds like a joke but I'm actually serious: was there ever really a debate on how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and if so, why was it important to figure that out?
Sorry. Got a little mixed up on my referees. I knew I was going to do that, so I checked myself a couple times. Guess it didn't work. And, sorry to pull this out, but I think that's the wrong question. As far as I'm concerned, the actual mechanics of all that are irrelevant. What matters is, what difference does it make in how you interact with creation that Jesus was divine. I can whip out all the orthodxy terms, like co-eternal with the father, and mean them when I say them. I just don't find them important. I'm pretty Methodist in my approach to theology.
That's fair enough, mormon theology doesn't specify just how much jesus was just born with versus how much he may have attained through sheer brilliance, faith and love. Mormons believe that a person is comprised literally of body and spirit. Jesus spirit was already that of God as his spirit entered his body.
Mormons are very tables and chairs about religion stuff and like to answer what admittedly are not always important questions. Part of the reason for this has to do with the fact that we have additional scripture that we believe has as much weight as the bible, and so we believe we have answers to some questions that we believe are straight from God - but rather than being content with that, we like to try and fill in other pieces.
From what I understand, Mormons believe that the trinity are three separate gods which differs from the evangelical view of the trinity being one and the same. So, both the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus are divine but Jesus in Christianity is another form of God. I don't know too much about the Mormon faith but I think they believe that everyone can become gods, so my question is, does that mean everybody who attains that status is on equal footing with Jesus?
That is pretty much correct regarding the subtle distinction on the trinity, however, the more i've studied the protestant view the more similar to me it is to the mormon view in practical worship terms and also as far as doctrinal implication.
As far as "becoming gods" mormons believe in the eternal preeminence of Jesus and reliance on him for salvation and no mormon would believe they would ever attain anything near His glory. However, mormons believe there is no limit to man's potential. As to reconciling those two concepts, we will always be in debt to jesus and eternally behind (ie we don't believe we are going to "catch up" to Jesus!)
brilliance, faith, and love is just my description. I'm regular LDS.
Wow, I never thought I'd be reading a 15 page thread on theology on the Friends Of Tom board. This is fucking excellent.
I swore in a theology thread! The Internet is a wonderful thing.
Wow, I never thought I'd be reading a 15 page thread on theology on the Friends Of Tom board. This is fucking excellent.
I swore in a theology thread! The Internet is a wonderful thing.
Pastor Josh,
I sometimes hear my very religious mother-in-law use the expression "The fruit grows sweeter in the valley" when someone is acting all high and mighty. I cannot seem to find any evidence of it on the internet. Is this a variation on a bible quotation?
Pastor Josh,
I sometimes hear my very religious mother-in-law use the expression "The fruit grows sweeter in the valley" when someone is acting all high and mighty. I cannot seem to find any evidence of it on the internet. Is this a variation on a bible quotation?
Not that I can find. I just checked, and the word "valley" appears 140 times in the NRSV, and unless I scanned too quickly, it's not biblical. Sorry.
There are tons of people, I'm sure many who post on this board, who believe that all religious texts are basically telling the same story and that all gods are one in the same. So, a pastor who is a Christian and Muslim isn't that crazy to me and I'm actually kind of amazed that there isn't a church with a large following that combines all of the elements of the major religions.
Hi, one or more things. Why did they replace the organs with folk singers? Also, what do you think of Christian musicians that try to sound and look like real musicians? What do you think of Christianity as a brand? Do you ever go to mass and feel like you are at the mall, or vice versa? Why is all of the beauty disappearing from the world? Should I join a cult, since I like to be a follower? Are cults really bad?
I'm not a big fan of contemporary Christian music, mainly though because I don't like crappy music. As I've said earlier, the only Christian musician I like right now is Sufjan Stevens. I think any time a musician limits him- or herself to one topic, whether it's Jesus or love or rockin', the get pretty stale pretty quick. I prefer more traditional worship, myself, lots of liturgy and older hymns, but the sad thing is that there aren't many organists left. It's a really difficult instrument to learn, and there aren't many applications for it. Organs are also really, really expensive to maintain, so even big churches are starting to get rid of them. It's sad, but some of the newer electric organs don't sound terrible. Also, though, "contemporary Christian" music is one way that some churches think is a good way to reach out to the unchurched, but it's an idea on it's way out. Too many Jimmy Buffet wannabees driving off people who actually like music.
I have been to churches that felt more like malls, and I hate them. It bugs me when churches conform to the culture rather than oppose it. Don't get me started on flags.
Please, please stay away form Scientology. Jehovah's Witnesses are usually really great people, although personally I'd miss Christmas. A religion is just a cult plus time, but I guess it depends on what the cult is asking you to do. Anything that demands you sever ties with anyone not a member of th cult (and lots of Christian congregations do this, actually), is probably a bad idea. So is handing over everything you own. But if you're interested in being a follower, you can do that in an old-fashioned cult, like a church.
As to why all the beauty is disappearing from the world, I think it's just that beauty gets tired of being in the same places all the time. We just have to look for it in new places.