Danny Haszard|W|P|Christian greetings,you have a dynamic and spirited site.I am Danny Haszard Bangor Maine former member of the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Rockland Massachusetts.I am NOW a Christian and a counter-cult educator.God bless all your endeavors."Happy are the pure in heart".[Matthew 5:8]
|W|P|i think someone(s) owe Mr. Dobson an apology |W|P|Jon and all Cross bloggers,I found this on a good friend's blog - hers is to be found at egaso.blogspot.com. I thought it was really interesting and speaks to similar themes sounded in the column Jon posted in the Mercury News - that many people are longing for morality, a sense of something larger than themselves to dream for and look to and yes, I think, fight for. But what will they get? Will they get the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons? Will they look to Christianity and end up in the killing embrace of James Dobson, who thinks that gay people should be sent to indoctrination camps?
Anyway, here's another long post that I would very much like to see what people think.
thanks,
Linda Flores
rwor.org
The Dangers of "good and evil"
by Osage Bell
"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead. --Mark Twain
I grew up with two different religions in my family -- actually three if you include "i believe in god but don't go to church" as a religion. Most of my family is Roman Catholic -- within that, some are "born-again" catholic-style christians and then 1/3 of my family is Orthodox Jewish. I'm an atheist, but I wasn't always.
First - even though those two biggie religions were both there, the Catholics dominated in numbers, but also in their influence. (When my maternal grandparents got married back in the 1940s, my Orthodox Jewish grandfather had to sign a document that said he'd raise any kids he had with my grandmother Catholic. Not only were his kids not going to be considered jewish by jewish law b/c their mother is not jewish, he would not be allowed to raise them in the religion -- or else they wouldn't be allowed to get married in the church! It's romantic to think my grandfather gave up all that - his heritage and identity - and even his family, who ended up disowning him for years after -- to be with my grandmother, but it is one of the first things that turned me away from the church as a child).
I can remember being 4 or 5 years old and my grandparents would come to visit, and every Sunday, my grandfather would drive my grandmother and me to church (I don't remember any other relatives or my mom going - and dad wasn't a church-goer). And he'd sit in the car and wait for us. I wasn't conscious of why that was or what it meant back then - I just knew it was the hour I got to play with Strawberry Shortcake dolls in odd-smelling pews. But there was a subtle and definitely unintentioned message that Christianity was right. No one ever bothered to really teach me about my grandfather's religion until I sought it out. I resented that for years after he died because I was so close to him, and it is still upsetting, even though I no longer believe in god.
But I digress. I was being conditioned/trained that God and religion were where you went not just for moral support, but whenever you wanted to feel connected to a community and feel loved (because I was taught God is love), and have your spirits lifted (even as a revolutionary communist, gospel music and such hits a cord in me - even though the words may be empty to me or piss me off).
And in thinking on all this growing evangelicalism and fundamentalist, traditional christian morality stuff, I've been wanting to write. Because these things that people feel - the things they go to church for that are like the things I describe above -- that can't be simply or narrowly struggled with through "politics". You can't just tell people "god doesn't exist. period. get with the program." You're not going to move most people with simplistic shit. And because, for a lot of people, that spirit-soaring feeling they get when they hear gospel is god - it's very intangible but feels real to them, and they can't reconcile that what they're feeling isn't some supernatural being, if they don't understand why we know god doesn't exist.
People do need to come to a materialist understanding of God's inexistence, but there needs to be more. Something has to offer them reasons to live, to hope, to keep going through all the routine and degrading monotony and pain and blech of living under this system. And it doesn't have to be artificial, like religion. And it doesn't have to be dangerous and degrading like this fascistic christian morality being pumped by Bush and his cohorts.
Revolutionary communism -- especially and in particular the advancements concentrated in Bob Avakian and the attention he has focused on morality -- does fill the void that so many turn to religion to fill. And in a totally different, radical way. It's a morality based on an understanding that people can actually live without having to be in constant competition with each other for survival and that no human is "below" another because of where they were born, what religion they pracice, what language they spek, etc. No American life is more valuable than any Iraqi life, for example. But all this is complex and requires people in their millions searching through what Avakian has brought forward. Because ideology will dictate your morality - your understanding of the world and people, etc., and transforming your ideology is a twisty process. And morality is different and can't be treated the same way.
People need to be discussing how it's possible for humans to live cooperatively with each other and in a way that understands the mortality of the earth's resources, etc., NOT because it sounds nice, but because there's a material basis for this. There is enough resources in the world to feed, clothe and house everyone. There is no human nature, good or bad -- people need to really understand that for themselves. If people arne't genetically/spiritually-programmed toward greed, selfishness, rape, murder, etc., then what does that mean for the potential to change human relations from "me first" to "world/humanity first"? We should think about that - talk about that. Revolutionary Communists should be living examples of that potential - refusing to live according to the terms set by this system - and Bob Avakian is a shining example of how that can be done. He is one of those rare leaders who has, for decades, dedicated himself to living to fulfill the great needs of humanity - basing himself on a material and possible and radically different future. At great personal risk, even, he has been creatively re-examining not just what does it mean to be a Communist in a "post-Soviet Union, post-China word", but what does it mean to be "human" - what should it mean. This is something that marks him as incredibly special and unique, but he is made up of the same things we all are - just like the rocks and trees and stars -- and he shows what we are all capable of. And the more we emulate that example, the more we can actualize that. No bourgeois leader is capable of being as honest to their spouse as Avakian is to millions of people.
And these questions of what does it mean to be human --or American in the "New Rome" -- is something many millions are wondering today. For millions of people, they can't look at the state of the world and think America is the world's good cop - or if they do, they're struggling because it doesn't fit into what they see. This country certainly isn't the "benevolent rich neighbor" either. So, what is it? Who are Americans when America is the mightiest empire? What does it mean to be American when you don't want to live in the mightiest empire? Why do you think so many people have been looking into becoming ex-pats? It's not for the better treatment their wallets would get in Canada or Europe. It's stems from a desire to live in "harmony" with the people of the planet.
I mean, let's be real here. Let's talk about the direction things are headed in and how the powers-that-be want to define being American, and the morality that goes with that. This traditional morality upchuck says women are supposed to be quiet, demure, mothers (or chaste virgins), preferrably silent and take leadership from their husbands as husbands take leadership from god. It teaches that sex is solely for reproduction, and is only to be between a man and a woman, as with marriage. And their program is far more estensive than even that.
And to get even more serious - this is the morality that is now in power, leading this country, with significant backing from an extreme social base. And we have to understand this. This morality has struck a chord with millions of people living in this country, across all different strata. It has filled a void they had felt - whether it's because they lived a life addicted to drugs or alcohol or were abused by their husbands, or grew up feeling alienated from society - whatever people have struggled with, this traditional morality has provided a certainty, a "stable" absolutist view of the world and people, and also provided means for "self-exploration" (however limited) and revenge against others, and "the other". People want to know why their daughters are into dressing like Britney Spears when they're 13, or why their marriage failed, or why they fight with their mother, or are estranged from their father, etc. Now, I don't think I'm covering everything here - it's layered and the reasons for people's attraction to this is vast, but no matter what, what this says is that people, if won away from this backwards morality -- or, rather, to be won away from it -- they need a new morality, a new way to understand and deal with the difficulties they've encountered in life.
It doesn't hurt that this "morality" is being pushed at them constantly like free credit cards. Have you seen Good Housekeeping, or Redbook lately (or other magazines targeting "moms")? My mother -- who couldn't sleep during the lead-up to the elections because she was so scared Kerry would lose and who clenches her teeth everytime Bush is on tv -- has been noticing how all these magazines are promoting this christianity much more. Articles about God, advertisements for christian music, celebrities interviewd about their faith in Jesus, etc. Or how about the abundance of not-very-blatant and popular "christian" music like Lifehouse and Switchfoot-- they're not singing a bunch of lame songs about how you'll perish in hell without Christ. They're singing about alienation, and a longing for meaning in life, and a desire to feel connected to people and "high powers", etc. And I dare say they have songs that have moved me. I mean, take this:
We were meant to live for so much more
Have we lost ourselves?
Somewhere we live inside x 2
We were meant to live for so much more
Have we lost ourselves?
Somewhere we live inside
We want more than this world's got to offer
We want more than the wars of our fathers
And everything inside screams for second life
(from "Meant To Live" by Switchfoot, which has been described this way: Rarely does a rock band combine explosive guitars with an intense longing for meaning. )
They're not all lame musically and they're speaking to that sense of alienation, longing for meaning, and something to hope for that a lot of middle class youth and other feel. I know I could relate to those feelings -- late at night, after a day of living and working or going to school in this degrading system -- with all the things that keep you up until 4 AM unable to sleep -- there's a lot you find yourself thinking about and searching for.
But this is not truly inspiring, rebel music with its sights set on a world where people don't feel "lost". When people get attracted to this music, and want to get closer or know better the musicians, they'll learn they're anti-abortion. Not everyone will get into that component, but it is a doorway for a lot of youth.
Can communists, revolutionaries and other progressive people, artists, etc., speak sufficiently to the longing that these folks have been speaking to? Offering an ideology, a morality, a way of living to fill that void? I think we can and have - but it's not just a matter of whether we can - it is urgent - so very urgent - that we do that. We must be out there understanding the world, changing the world, and showing that the morality of resisting traditional mores and fascistic values is the only morality worth living and dying for.
People should be searching for more than this life has to offer -- searching for meaning and ways to relate to people and understand ourselves -- because the dog-eat-dog shit doesn't cut it. But neither does traditional morality or religion.
And these christian fascists - as has been pointed out in books and articles by Bob Avakian, and many others from Ron Suskind to Esther Kaplan - are dangerous and deadly --deadly -- serious. They believe this country is literally in a fatal, moral tailspin - headed for the "End of Days" when all of humanity will be judged and right now many of them - including in the highest offices of the land -- believe this country is on a Good v. Evil worldwide tour and God's got their back. Some of their most vocal leaders have said that the horror of Sept. 11 happened because of the "liberal" values such as feminism and homosexuality have been running rampant. And there are christian ministeries on a "mission" to convert Muslims, who they believe are followers of an inherintly evil and violent religion. These are people who believe in Armageddon (the biblical, not Hollywood version), and the Anti-Christ (who, in the best-seller series, "Left Behind," controls the United Nations, so we see how they view that organization and the significance, to them, of Bush refusing to accept their authority).
As crazy as that may sound, it must be taken seriously. And we must find the ways to defeat it by bringing forward the many millions who are disgusted, frightened and upset by it, and fighting for a morality that can not just oppose it but replace it for good.
|W|P|on this "compromising" -you are compromising anyway.
Do you follow the teachings of Leviticus and Deuteronomy on killing a man who mixes the forbidden kinds of fabrics?
Do you kill disobedient children?
Do you command your followers to take women as prisoners of war, and to kill all non-virgin women? (the story of the Midionites)
Do you offer up your daughters to invading armies in hopes of staving them off? (the Story of Lot)
Do you believe that anyone who divorces and remarries is committing fornication? (Jesus in, I believe, the book of Paul)
Do you think that if a woman can't produce children for her husband, she should force a maid to bear those children instead and then give up the children to be raised as if they'd come from the woman herself? (Rachel and Leah)
Or, do you believe that daughters should have sex with their fathers if the daughter has no children? (Abraham)
Well, if the answer is "No" (and I'd really hope so!!!) to all of those, then you already are compromising. Because the Bible calls on you to do those things. (Go read it if you don't believe me - especially the four Mosaic books. And by the way, the comment about divorce is attributed directly to Jesus. In the NEW Testament.)
Let me ask you this: If you believe (as I don't) that all of the Bible was written by God (and plenty of Christians don't either) then why would God call on people to do these things? Why would the God of love and compassion call on people to kill children for talking back, or raping women en masse? Those are monstrous doings, never mind being very far from love and compassion!
The thing is, those aren't the commandments of God, or of Jesus. The Bible was written by human beings, who compiled a book of tribal legends, revenge-filled fantasies and tales of infighting between the various ethnic groups of the region, and morality codes corresponding to the way humans lived more than 2000 years ago. Of course nobody living in these times would, or should, follow all of what the bible says.
My thoughts are this:
If you insist that all of the Bible should not be compromised on, and we should follow every word of it, because it's all the word of God, then you find yourself defining God as a pretty monstrous figure, who defends rape, wanton murder, and incest. And who in their right mind would follow a being like that?
But if you don't think that we should follow all of those things, then you are compromising - just like nearly every practicing Christian does. So then the question is:
On what basis do you compromise? What do you use to guide you from the things you believe and the things you don't? You said you think Dobson is a lunatic, and I'm glad you don't go in for his gay re-education camps approach - but why do you think he is?
He, after all, would just say he's upholding the word of God, just as in the Bible.
|W|P|To Mr. Anonymous. You claim familiarity with the Bible. Yet you leave out certain facts. First and foremost the facts of the old and new covenant. Furthermore the Bible does not condone sin. Examples are given to be sure. But if you were to look into history you will find that sin led to bad things which are in play to this very day. To correct one of your errors Abraham did not sleep with his daughters. Abraham and his wife did the same thing you are doing. They tried to fulfill God's promise their own way. We can thank them for all the Arab nations (Ishmaelites) who are to this day in a birthright dispute with the Israelites. But enough of the old covenant lets look at your problem with the new covenant. First, what is marriage? Not your definition, God's. Why can't you have your own definition? Why can't you only follow what you like out of Scripture? Because the Bible is not a salad bar. You do not get to make your own God. |W|P|Actually, it's Ms. Anonymous, thank you ...But seriously, this "salad bar" thing comes straight out of these people who claim to be upholding the Bible just as it's written.
But you are avoiding the point of my post: even the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons and the James Dobsons, who rail up and down about not "picking and choosing" from the Bible - they DO pick and choose. They do because it is not possible nor desireable to follow everything the Bible says word for word. The Bible contradicts itself, for one thing, all over the place.
If you were literally upholding every word in the Bible - no picking and choosing, now!!! You'd have to not eat shellfish, since they're in the sea but have no scales or fins, and you couldn't eat pork, etc.
1 And the ****LORD**** spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you. 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. 13 (Leviticus 11:1-13, also from Bible.com.)
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 (Leviticus 20:11)
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 (Leviticus 20:16.)
You don't really believe you should take that literally, do you?
Or your point about how the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and that's why we must follow its definition:
I'm sorry, but the Bible is full of bigamy and polygamy! (pretty typical for desert tribes living at the millenium.) Solomon has hundreds of wives, David has all kinds of wives, Jacob has Rachel and Leah, etc etc - the Bible doesn't condemn them!! They're heroes, upheld and celebrated. God doesn't come down and say "Wait a minute, I told you all that marriage is between one man and one woman only!"
Here's an example of concubinage upheld, in case you doubt me:
"And Bethuel begat Rebekah: these eight Milcah did bear to Nahor, Abraham's brother. 24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, she bare also Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah." (Genesis 22:24-25)
from Bible.com.
Using women as nothing more than bearers of babies for their masters:
1 And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die. 2 And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb? 3 And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. 4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her. 5 And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son. 6
(Genesis 30:1-6, also from Bible.com).
Why is "The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" a valid criteria? Where is the actual thinking involved there? Where is the means by which you'd figure out if something was right or wrong? That's nothing but a recipe for zealotry- to do something without thinking or questioning, just because the Bible told you. Don't you think that's dangerous?
If someone told you to go and kill a man who'd committed adultery, would you do it - because the Bible calls on you do to so? Or would you use your brain and say that it's wrong, whether or not the Bible says?
What is wrong with actually using one's brain, one's reasoning, to figure out what is right and wrong? Should we not think without a Bible in our hands?
Do you think the only way for people to be moral is to follow the Bible? That without it, we're doomed (pun intended) to treat each other horribly, to go at each other's throats, to run amok? Why do you think this?
Because I sure don't. I'm not a Christian, I just enjoy reading this blog. I'm an atheist, a communist more specifically. And I'm a very moral person. I don't go around bombing other countries and starving their children. I don't authorize bloody torture while claiming to be sent by God. I don't send my police to beat up and kill youth in this country. I don't tell people what books they can and can't read. I don't believe in husbands beating wives, parents beating children, slavemasters beating slaves.
I do believe that relationships between people should be based on mutual love and respect, that there should be no oppression and exploitation in the world, that no one has the right to deprive another of the means to live and survive. Wouldn't you support that morality?
Because the people that run this country sure don't.
Thoughts?
Linda Flores
www.rwor.org
|W|P|Randy,I think your comments and questions are good and valid - and now we're getting somewhere.
I'm going to be offline for several days so I may not have time to write, but I wanted to suggest you read the post a few comments above this one, from Osage Bell - it's posing the question of what kind of morality we need to have.
My answer, as short as I might put it until I find a long one, is that we DO need morality - but not traditional morality. I'm a communist, as I said, and I have morals that are based on getting to a society where the world is no longer divided up into rich and poor, white and non-white, where men don't oppress women and where there is no longer a yawning gulf between those who work with their backs and their bodies, and those who get to work with their minds.
In the meantime, I also really recommend you check out the works of Bob Avakian, another prominent and provocative communist theoretician, read by all kinds of people (including progressive pastors and religious scholars.) He's written a lot on morality, the Bible, and fleshing out, if you will, what communists mean by morality and why the world we want to bring into being is one that the vast majority will want to live in (unlike the world we live in now, with its needless misery and suffering, where a small handful control the means for the rest of us to live.)
you can listen to audio talks on religion (including one on the Old and New Testament) on bobavakian.net,
and here's a link to a really good and thought-provoking series on this "morality - but not traditional morality" question:
http://rwor.org/a/v20/970-79/976/bones2.htm
thanks and happy reading ...
|W|P|A few things:1) North Korea isn't communist. They can call themselves that until they're blue in the face, but they aren't. I don't support their government either, which seems to me to be your basic modern dictatorship with some appeals to ancient feudal traditions to cement the leader's power over the ruled. They might cling to some shreds they pulled from communist theory, but anyone can pull a few things out of an entire worldview and still claim its name - doesn't make it true.
(And while we're on the subject, Cuba's not communist either - or Russia, or China, or Sweden, or any other country currently in existence.)
2) What is communism? What do you think it is? What do you understand of what it's about, what it proclaims, who is practicing it in the 21st century? Can you say what you understand it to be, just so we're on the same page?
You ask:
"Why would a 'good' person want such a murderous government?
I don't want a murderous government. Not now, not in the future.
That's why I oppose this government and its bloody war on Iraq, its war on Vietnam and secret wars in Laos and Cambodia, its invasions of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic; its supporting of bloody coups in the Congo, Guatemala, Chile, Iran; its funding of death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua ...
the list goes on.
You know, I don't think it's factually correct to say "yeah, I know, the U.S. might be bad, but it's not as bad as __________."
Meaning, I think that the crimes of the U.S. have caused countless deaths, and suffering, around the world, in its existence.
I also don't think it's ethical, or moral, to justify the crimes of the U.S. with "at least we're not as bad as ________." (Fill in whoever the bad-guy-of-the-week is here.) Because when it gets down to it, it *is* justification.
So no, I won't want a murderous government. I don't want to live in a world where my criticism is suppressed and my imagination is limited. I don't want to live in a world where books are censored, where immigrants are rounded up and deported, where the police kill young Black and Latino men without provocation.
I don't want to live in a society where it's perfectly legal for a company to destroy food they don't sell, but illegal for hungry people to take it from dumpsters.
I don't want to live in a society with strict, rigid roles for men and women that choke off human potential.
In short, I don't want to live under capitalism, especially as practiced in the U.S.
Do you?
I want to live in a world where millions of people are actually empowered to change the conditions we live under, to change the relations we face. To use just one example, that of marriage and the only solution the right-wingers can impose.
I want to live in a world where the solution to the problem of so many failed marriages is not "let's just force people to stay married" but
"What is it about the society we live in that makes it so hard for men and women to love each other and to get along? Could it be the rigid, archaic social roles we're forced to inhabit? Could the oppression of women have anything to do with it? Could the rampant individualism - a crucial element of capitalist morality - have anything to do with it either? How do we forge relationships between men and women that are founded on mutual love and respect? How do we do away with this situation where so many relationships are two "me first"'s clashing, and get to a "we" mentality?"
Do we have to foster acceptance of these social roles that are so constraining - is that the only way men and women can build long-lasting, mutually fulfilling relationships? Or can we foster a rebellious spirit regarding those?
I'm sorry i'm not able to get into what i think are the foundations of where i see you coming from, but i wanted to throw them out for discussion.
a) is the Bible the only way for people to be moral? Can human beings be good without god? Why or why not?
b) does the Bible represent the kind of morality we want people to aspire to and take up? Why or why not?
I think part of where you're coming from is that you don't think it's possible for there to be any morality without the Bible as a "constant" for people. I can understand why you'd think that, but i don't think it's true. I don't think human beings are born to "sin" and will only keep from hurting each other if we keep to the Bible. I have agreement with you that there are a lot of things wrong in the way we treat each other - adults molesting children, husbands beating wives/ girlfriends, marriages ending in divorce, young women having children they're not prepared to have, youth killing each other for no good reason. Here are some questions though:
We live in a society where individualism is celebrated and promoted at every turn, where survival for so many - especially the poor - depends on "looking out for No. 1". Does that morality, and the actual conditions we live in, have anything to do with why people treat each other the way they do? How much does it have to do with it?
And, if it does, how do you resolve this?
a) by getting people to accept their conditions and drowing their hurt, alienation, and sorrow in religion? or worse, teaching them that their misery is fundamentally their fault?
b) or actually fostering an understanding of why those conditions exist, and looking to end them?
That's all i have time for now ... I also want to say that "been there, done that" isn't exactly a way to get at the truth. In other words, I was wanting to know what you'd thought of some particular stuff I'd called attention to - an earlier blog post, some links elsewhere on the Internet - and it's fine if you don't want to read them. Just don't act like you can then speak intelligently about what they say.
Respectfully,
|W|P|I'd like to answer your charge that what communists are fighting for is a utopian ideal. Right after the election last november, i was passing out statements entitled "The will of the people was not expressed in this election." After getting a flyer and reading the title, a man came back to me and asked, "does any election represent the will of the people?" My answer was along the lines of "No, the will of the people can not be expressed in this system - there's rarely any real challenge from any bourgeois "liberal" parties like the democrats, or even the Greens on any important issues. and it's set up so there won't be. And the only way for the will of the people to be expressed is through, and during, and after revolution - communist revolution." This man then told me that he agreed with me about this system, but that people can't rise up to change it - he said "that's the place of god" - but when god's kingdom comes, then this kind of society, in essence a communist society, will be forged. Now that's utopian. On the other hand, communists see the real conditions in the world today, and the real forces leading to and affecting these conditions, materially - meaning we don't see any kind of god affecting these, and we don't apply just a simplistic analysis. Now from that basis, we see how we can advance the world situation to one where revolution can happen - to throw off all the chains of capiatlism and imperialism. This revolution will be a process, part of which must be beating back reactionary state power, reactionary ideas, and many times even reactionaries themselves using a wide variety of means, including but in no way limited to responsible, conscious violence. And there will be a process, which never fully ends, but continues through different stages, and gets easier as the repressive trends - leftover from capitalism and feudalism and all oppressive class relations - disspiate and disappear. now this is realistic, and this process has started, first in the paris commune, then in the early USSR, and then in China from 1949 to 1976, and it has suffered major setbacks. But now this process is beginning again, such as in Nepal. When we first truly get to a classless society, a stateless society, a borderless society, a communist society then people will be able to make the decisions, collectively and using a scientific approach, to answer the questions of 'what's right and what's wrong', 'what's good and what's bad', etc. and in the process that brings us to that society, we will be getting closer to answering those questions. and after we initially answer that, the answers, as well as the questions will evolve - reflecting the evolving nature of society. and there will be continuing struggle over these things, but the oppressive relations between classes, between sexes, between genders, between nationalities, etc. will be removed, and the process of finding answers will be liberated. |W|P|Websters definition(s).Communism:seeking a violent overthrow of capitolism and the creation of a classless society. An organization in which all economics and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self perpetuating political party. Now which part are we supposed to like? The controlled by a totalitarian state? Or the dominated by a single and self perpetuating political party? Oppression removed? I was there. The people have no say in what is good or bad. They are told. This conversation would land both of us in jail. permanently. I truly feel sad for you. Stuck in this land full of capitolists and Christians. But at least here you are free to complain about it.
|W|P|First, I like the blog. It's comforting to a fellow Christian who's pretty moderate. I'm getting pretty tired of a lot I hear from the religious right. I don't really understand this Sponge Bob thing though. What is this video and the "pledge". Do 8 year old kids know what half of the words in this "pledge" mean?
If the creators of Sponge Bob wanted to license his image to be used for this promotion, they have that right. If you disagree with homosexuality, don't watch it and don't let your kids watch it.
It's not like Sponge Bob is taking off his shirt and showing a nipple!
|W|P|Of course they're against what the Bible stands for; that's a given. I really suspect that those who made this decision are the ones made uncomfortable by the ad, whether their readers would be or not.Looks like some free publicity for the Bible. I doubt I would have heard about it without this story, since I'm not in the indicated demographic. Now I know, though, and it might make a nice gift for my sons, who are in the correct age group.
|W|P|if you haven't heard, Rolling Stone backed down and will be running the ad after all.-Renita
|W|P|Classic! The left is just as crazy as the right indeed. "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here i am, stuck in the middle."
|W|P|I'm the culprit and I thought I'd answer your mystery- it started when I read an article on the Chicago Tribune about an interesting site called bookslut.com. An article there referenced the abortion t-shirt controversy, and I got intrigued and hit google - for info on the shirt (which I'm still trying to get) and also I was very curious to see how it was being discussed in the internet world. And so I came upon this blog and I felt compelled to jump into the (albeit old) debate.So there's that story,and as I read your blog further I've gotta say that I find it interesting and fun to read, so keep posting. I look forward to reading and discussing more on this site.
One thing seems clear after reading a lot of different blogs/discussions: The t-shirt, and the wearing of it, are stating among many things that the woman wearing it is not ashamed or afraid to say she's had an abortion. And it is precisely that sentiment that stirred up so much anger. I think that speaks to something very key, and I'd like to know what y'all think about it.
Later,
Linda Flores
Jon Fortt|W|P|Linda,Thanks for posting. I think we'll find that this debate is a lot more complicated than whether we think abortion should be legal or not. It comes down to what we believe abortion is.
Hard-line conservatives say abortion is murder. I think, though, that the legal definition of murder includes malice, and even the staunches pro-lifers would have to admit that it's tough to feel malice toward an unborn entity.
So what is abortion, then? I think it boils down to what we believe about the origin of human life. Are we alive because our parents intended it, or are we alive because God intended it? Christians, who believe we are alive because God intended it, see parents as mere vessels for the fulfillment of God's will. From that worldview, abortion is an unwelcome interference in God's process.
Now: Does that mean Christians should feel free to impose that worldview on others?
David Tieche|W|P|Chloresterol is bad. Everyone knows so. It causes heart disease, which is the main killer of men in the United States.The goal is to lower chloresterol. So what to do? Should we really make a law telling men to lower their chloresterol. Sure, it's a good thing, but can you really legislate it? I mean, really? Even if it is right and good and the best thing to do (which everyone is agreed upon), it's tough to legislate.
Let's say a man ignores the law and continues to eat steak and onion rings every day. Chloresterol jumps to 230. Does he go to jail? Do the people who fed him fatty foods go to jail?
I bring this up because I think the goal for Christians is not to make abortion illegal, but to make it rare. I mean, who cares if it's illegal and the same number of women are having abortions, right? The goal is to make it rare.
Here's the analogy that some Christians use that bothers me: if a woman wanted to kill her 1-year-old, would you let her? No! The police would protect it, and arrest the woman. We need to do the same with unborn fetuses. It's the same thing.Here's the problem. It's not the same thing. A 1-year-old is actually INSIDE a woman. I can't understand how people don't see that that simple fact makes the situation very difficult. How can you make a law protecting a person who is hidden (in many ways entirely invisible) to the outside world?
I think the battle we want to win is LESS abortions. I think Christians would make people feel a whole lot more comfortable if they'd use the institutions that are theirs, mainly the church and persuasion, to influence their world, rather than hi-jacking politics.
Of course, one of the greatest heroes of the 20th century, a man whose birthday we celebrated yesterday, was famous and sucessful merging the two. Using the church to influence society, and using law to bring about social change for justice. So maybe I'm talking out of my butt....
I wonder what MLK would say about this debate. I wonder more what Jesus would say.
|W|P|I think that to say that Christians (or any other religion) shouldn't seek to impose their world view on anyone else is exactly right – I think we would call that a theocracy. And in the case of abortion, there are lots of people who don’t think they would choose abortion but think it would be wrong to make it illegal. I think this is an important dividing line – there are all kinds of books filled with testimonials about what women had to go through to get back-alley abortions. Think of the sheer terror faced by a woman who needs this procedure but goes into it not even sure if she’ll be able to have children in the future, or if she’ll even come out alive. The people grouped around Bush, those that I call Christian fascists – because they justify all the horrors they plan to impose on society by reading from the Bible, and they think Bush was sent by God – are determined to make abortion illegal. First they attack it by making it impossible to even get one – parental consent laws, waiting periods where a woman must listen to often inaccurate “information”; then they fund anti-abortion groups to attack clinics and mislead and misinform women about the actual safety of abortion. Then once abortion is nearly impossible to get, they’ll have created a climate where the Supreme Court, who Bush is planning to stack with anti-abortion justices, is declared all-out illegal.
My question for anyone who cares about social justice is: what kind of a society would that become? What kind of a society is it where women are forced to give birth against their will?
I say that the right to an abortion is fundamental to women’s liberation – that without it, women are forced backward in time and history.
I’m asserting that nobody would want to live in a society where women don’t have the right to abortion – not even people who wouldn’t choose it for themselves.
What do you all think?
By the way, there are a lot more thoughts and variables here, but I think superlong posts should be avoided when possible, so I'll post them in sections.
Thanks!
Linda Flores
rwor.org
|W|P|Jon raised a point that I think is important here and I think has much larger implications. What do we use to make decisions about our bodies? What criteria?I think that we need to base ourselves on scientific and biological reality, and understand fully the truth of what we're dealing with. But you do also need morality. It’s not enough to know the truth, you have to know what to do with it. You have to ask what kind of world you want to live in and whether the actions you're carrying out serve that world now or if they undermine yours – and humanity’s – process of getting to that world.
Jon pointed out that there are widely differing views on what abortion is. That’s true. So shouldn’t we try to figure out what’s objectively true? Wouldn’t that be an important place to start?
We have to look at what is going on in a woman's body, what we actually know from basic biology, to determine what is the difference between a person and a fetus.
A fetus is part of a woman's body - wholly dependent on it for food, shelter, its very existence. It’s a potential human being, living in and entirely dependent on an actual human being, who has feelings and dreams and a life of her own.
Is a fetus human? In the sense that it’s not dog, or cat, or rosebush, yes, it is. And again it has the ability to become a person at the end of those nine months.
Is it alive? Yes, in the sense that almost all of the cells of a human body are alive– the cells of your heart are alive, sperm cells are alive, brain cells are alive. (The follicles of your hair, and the top layer of your skin, are dead cells, for example.)
But is it a human being, just as much a human being as you or me or the person who installed the computer I’m writing you all on?
I think that the facts are pretty set on this one – no, it’s not a human being yet.
A fetus occupies the body of a woman, and for the nine months that she carries it, it takes over her bodily processes. If she doesn't get enough nourishment, the energy first goes to the fetus. If she isn't eating enough minerals, say, calcium, the fetus can begin to take calcium from her bones. In short, her body is fully absorbed, if you will, by the process of growing this fetus which will become a baby when it's born. Which means it’s no small thing if she doesn’t want what will come out of this long process, which involves back pain, sickness, discomfort, and a very painful birth with the distant risk of death (just how distant it is depends on whether you live in an industrialized country or not, or even in this country which nationality you are and if you have access to good healthcare.)
Different viewpoints in healthcare and biology – what to make of this?
I read a fascinating book that I recommend to everyone, called The Spirit Catches You And You Fall Down, by Anne Fadiman. It’s very well written and moving, the story of true events within the Hmong community, who have immigrated to the U.S. from Laos. The majority of such immigrants came from very small, isolated villages, where they had been living in economic conditions that were very backward and had a corresponding ignorance about the basic workings of their bodies. They thought that the body had a finite amount of blood that the body did not replenish, so you can imagine how squeamish they were about blood transfusions and surgeries. They never dissected bodies, had never seen an X-ray, had for the most part not been to any kind of formalized schooling – so they had no idea what bodily organs were or what functions they fulfilled. As a doctor in the book put it, “How would you intuit the existence of lungs, if you had never seen them?” So they thought birth defects were caused by cursing spirits, and that epilepsy was caused by a spirit that grabbed the soul out of a person’s body.
When the daughter of one of the Hmong families in the book is diagnosed with epilepsy, there is a huge, colossal misunderstanding, with two worldviews and moralities clashing – and neither was adequate to really resolving the problem. Hmong families in general didn’t trust doctors, didn’t know why the doctors performed surgeries or did spinal taps, and this particular family didn’t see the relationship between the pills their baby daughter hated, and the illness that they saw as being caused by spirits. So they wouldn’t give the pills, which had sometimes severe side effects, because they didn’t see how the pills were curing the disease, and so to them the side effects were not worth it. Instead, this very broke family spent thousands of dollars on amulets and folk treatments which had no chance of working, since they weren’t dealing with the cause of the disease.
The coldness of the medical establishment (except the kid’s dedicated doctors) and its bureaucracy and flat-out racism, had no way to reach out to this family, whose ignorance resulted in the child getting not nearly enough medicine and getting severe brain damage, caused by seizures.
The point of this rather long story is that it raises – when there are different views about what is going on in someone’s body, it can be deadly if there is not an effort made to find the truth. If I think that the swollen, puss-filled wound on my arm is caused by an angry spirit, and I don’t get antibiotics, that differing viewpoint could literally kill me by way of a deadly infection. Or even when it’s not that stark – if you think that your high blood pressure is caused by God’s wrath and not the high amount of salt you eat, your health will be affected because your assessment of what was going on is not in line with objective reality.
But now we have to bring out morality too. Even in the blood pressure example, there’s the fact that African-Americans in this country suffer from higher blood pressure than whites do, and many theorize that this is due to the effects of racism and national discrimination. (I agree.) So what kind of society would you need to set up so that there is not a divide so sharp between whole groups of people that one whole group is unhealthier than others?
And back to the abortion question – Jon said “Christians believe we are alive because God wanted us to be”. It may sound flippant but I really would like to know – does everything that happens to our bodies represent God’s will? If I got cancer would it be because God wanted it to be so? If that were the case, then it would indeed be going against God’s will to fight that cancer. I don’t think that most people on this earth hold that view any more – and if a parent refused chemo for their kids because they thought this, they would rightly be locked up.
Is it only the things that are positive that we attribute to God? If a woman has large breasts that cause her back pain and restrict her life’s movements, is she interfering in God’s will if she has surgery to reduce them?
My point is, we all use particular criteria to determine what we will do with the developments of our bodies. In this society, that criteria is determined by morality, all right – a no-good one.
Capitalist morality sees women as sexual objects, so women get plastic surgery to look more appealing, and they rank the ability to look good way above the negative effects such surgery might have on their bodies or their wallets. Young women refuse to use birth control because they are more afraid of gaining weight than getting pregnant – they are guided by a morality that places women’s attractiveness above whatever dreams and goals they might have for their young lives, and where motherhood is seen, not-so-subtly, as the highest goal a young woman could achieve – higher than whatever life she might have had if she’d swallowed those birth control pills.
It’s not because these women are stupid, and although I think they have their priorities exactly backward seen through a worldview that seeks to liberate women and places their minds and spirits, if you will, far above their bodies or the babies those bodies could produce, the reality is these women have their priorities exactly tuned to the priorities of this society. They’re not wrong when they notice that a woman’s looks and sexuality are highly prized and can be traded for the necessities of existence, not to mention any sense of self-worth or accomplishment.
So let’s go back to the examples above. Even those that believe that God gave that woman her large breasts would not say that it’s interfering in God’s will to remove them- because they use a criteria that puts the comfort and health of the woman above whatever ethical concerns are raised by drastically altering the body through surgery.
But when you extend that to what a woman should do with a fetus that they believe that God has given her, it changes. Then questions such as a woman's emotional and physical well-being, comfort, plans for the future, and flat-out individual preference aren't considered legitimate anymore.
What many say is that because the fetus is now a being of its own with rights of its own that trump a woman's individual choice. However, I think that's not an assertion that's based on reality - and more importantly it's not why abortion is so opposed.
I don't think that many of the right-wing Christian fascists - or at least their leaders - oppose abortion because they think the fetus is a baby and they love and seek to protect babies.
I think that's pretty important - it's not out of any concern for "life" that George Bush wants to oppose abortion. This man has presided over more death in four years than has ever been seen in my generation - and many of those have been real, actual Iraqi children. You all know Jerry Falwell, right? He's rabidly anti-abortion (and homophobic, and pro-Iraq war, and ...)When he went on international TV all worked about about the Teletubbies indoctrinating kids in the "gay lifestyle", he revealed the extent to which in order to follow a Christian fascists program you have to STOP THINKING. But remember even further back, when he led his followers to pray for Rios Montt, the born-again Christian dictator in Guatemala who ruled in the 1980s? Rios Montt was known for leading death squads that attacked whole villages if they were suspected of aiding the rebels in Guatemala's 30-year war - including bashing in the heads of babies. THIS is what Falwell supported and prayed for.
So he does not get to claim he cares for the lives of babies - and no one should allow him to get away with saying so.
They oppose abortion because they aim to control and dominate women's bodies, because their entire social structure is based on the nuclear family, with women dutifully filling their role as mothers and wives.
(It’s highly ironic that if these much-vaunted fetuses are female, they have more rights and protection in the womb than out of it, according to some of these right-wing forces. Remember HHS giving health benefits to fetuses but not to pregnant women?)
Here's the thing: if that fetus is actually the same thing as my friend's one-year-old baby, then abortion would be murder, and it would be wrong. But they are NOT the same thing - I know that because I study human biology and reproduction with an eye toward understanding the truth.
And Jerry Falwell and George Bush and all these other leaders know that too.
thanks,
Linda Flores
P.S. I like the poster who wrote about forcing men to eat less cholesterol - because I think that it points to a central contradiction. It's often said by anti-abortion people that abortion is "irresponsible" because if you have sex you should be prepared to accept the consequences. That's an ugly, punitive point of view - but it's also not said about anything else. You don't hear doctors say, "Well, I'm not going to perform your bypass surgery because you should have known about the consequences of eating all that cholesterol"!
When a woman has an abortion, especially in order to keep living the life she wants to live, she's breaking out of her role as mother and producer of children, and defying a patriarchal order that has one place for her.
That, not "killing babies" is what gets the right-wingers so incensed.
Jon|W|P|Maybe they're really into unjust wars that kill thousands of civilians, and take pride in the idea of destroying the earth. Maybe they see W as the visionary and architect for bringing on the apocalypse. Or maybe, just maybe, they're just plain crazy. David Tieche|W|P|Is that last wording there "hearsay" or "heresy"? I couldn't quite tell. I am stunned by this poll. Now, I'm no full-time pastor, mind you, but I do speak every now and again. And if someone asked me who influenced me as a pastor, I would list about 100 pastors I'd seen who have influenced me, starting with Billy Hybels and John Ortberg, going on to Mike Breaux and Andy Stanley and Erwin McManus and Rob Bell. Then, I'd probably go to authors who aren't pastors but whose writings have grown me spiritually, like Brennan Manning, Frederick Buechner, C.S. Lewis, John Elderidge . Then, I'd probably go to theologians or professors, like John Piper or Francis Shaeffer.
There's just no way George W. Bush influences me as a pastor. He doesn't do anything even remotely pastor-like. Well he does speak publically, I suppose. But if you're inspired by Bush's public speaking...well....then, man, I feel sorry for your congregation.
|W|P|billy graham......sell out to ecumenicalismrick warren......just check his writings with scripture, the original text not the new "translations"
james dobson.....a follower of jung's psycho babble
george bush...please help the church now
|W|P|I can't believe you call yourself a follower of Christ...I didn't expect you to bring up race....Its people like you who won't let the past die....Oh and when you start talking about all the things you haven't seen Bush do, remember nobody has seen you go through what your ancestor's did but you still claim your "right" to fame. The same is true with us Christians we will never be Christ but we have a right to claim "fame", because of who we follow. Jon Fortt|W|P|Race? Fame? Huh? You're talking crazy. |W|P|Your words " whether it's overweighted with white evangelicals." Jon Fortt|W|P|You misunderstand my terminology, then. I'm speaking in statistical terms. You might note that all of those listed as influential are white evangelicals, and that the president is particularly popular among that demographic. If the survey were weighted in that direction, and not properly representative of other ethnic groups and other Christian groups, that could explain the results.It's not racial. It's demographic. Calm down.
Jon Fortt|W|P|I didn't mean to mock them, or to imply that none of them belonged on the list. I was making the point that the overall list was sort of an odd grouping, when you consider that the president made the bottom of it, while those others were left off. Jon|W|P|What amazes me is how blind the Christian community is. At no time did they pick up on the fact that they were political tools. Gay marriage should be way down the list of issues that Christians should be concerned about. But once again, the Republicans were able to doop simple minded Christians. Instead of being concerned about social justice issues, like the poor and persecuted, or the environment (God's creation and gift to us), they were worried about people of the same sex joining into a committed relationship.Also, marriage shouldn't be a part of our government anyway. Marriage is a religious institution, and from a Christian perspective, is a union between a man, woman and God. It has no place in our federal or state government -- only civil unions at best.
David Tieche|W|P|That was a really cool article...but I have to say that the first thing that struck me is that Safire opened up his commentary on the tsunami quoting Voltaire, which is exactly the same approach that David Hart took in his column, on the same topic. I'm not implying anything. It's just interesting, is all. Don't see Voltaire quoted that much these days. Or the Bible for that matter. mis_nomer|W|P|Hiya, found your site while looking for a scanned version of Safire's article. Thought I would say hi. |W|P|Going to church and salvation have nothing to do with each other. So many so called christains no a days are so judgmental that they are more concerned with the other people's sins than with living their own lives. Surmons are filled with political hype and crap that I get nothing out of church. |W|P|I'm sick and tired of other Christians questioning my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ because I don't attend church. Lord knows I want to be in church. I've been to I can't tell you how many churches. And what do I hear and see? Lines of people giving jewelry, money "for the kingdom" and not being taught about the Kingdom. An emphasis on Old Testament sermons and nothing being taught about the New Covenant or the new Dispensation of Grace. Sermons filled with messages on tithing when the Lord is looking for cheerful givers. People constantly asking me what my ministry is and what I am doing for the church when I don't want to say I went without being sent by the Lord. Sermons about President Bush and not much about the Lord Jesus Christ. NO. I'm disgusted and tired of the cultural Christianity that exists in the church today. It is not the Truth. I don't want to be entertained - great choirs - well that's wonderful. I'm looking more to be edified. The so-called Christian right is NOT RIGHT. The arrogance and the "us four and no more" mentality that I see is sickening. I've seen 2 Christians in the last several days get blasted by non-Christians because of their inauthenticity, lies and unethical behavior. It's an embarrassment to Jesus Christ. Yet they go around telling everyone how much they love God. It's an awful witness. Don't judge me. You have no idea what I've been through. I'm a wounded Christian. Been on the front lines of spiritual battle. And all I get are "Job's friends" making all kinds of stupid comments. I love the Lord Jesus Christ very much. Thank God for His healing power. ButI'm sick of the political undertones of the American Christian Church. I say no thank you. You cannot legislate morality. God already tried that - see the first 5 books of the Old Testament. That's why Jesus had to come. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed.
|W|P|Some of you aren't as Bible smart as you might like to think, I think you are smart but only "book" smart, the Word clearly says to go to church. Church is not just for you but for God!!! If you are ganna quote the Bible then at least take the time to read it all and quote it right! As for the guy who has lived a hard life, i am sorry, the Lord say's His yoke light so if its so hard then maybe you aren't doing something right! I realize that the Christian life is not always easy but by far it's not HARD thats why Jesus died for us! |W|P|Some of the 10 million unchurched aren't lazy, marginalized, or hypocritical. Some of us are actually being obedient to what the Lord is calling us to do."The Church" is not a building or a particular church fellowship; "The Church" is the worldwide body of Christ. Church is not somewhere you GO, it's something you ARE.
The Bible does NOT say "go to church"! Hebrews 10:25 says do not forsake ASSEMBLING or MEETING together. Today there is an assumption that means showing up Sunday mornings to an institutional building, but it didn't take on that meaning until Constantine. The New Testament Church met mostly in homes as do many believers around the world! So was the New Testament church not legitimately born-again? Or is it about people, not location?
Almost three years ago the Lord very specifically took my family out of the "institutional" church. We were not wounded, lazy or hypocritical, in fact we were in leadership for many years but searching for more God in the church! Although desperately hungry for more, we did not leave until He released us. When He finally told us it was time to come out, we thought that He was going to place us into another traditional church family. In fact, we searched and searched only for Him to continually say "not here". Each time we thought He meant that particular church family. What He really meant was, not the setting of institutional church.
During this wilderness time we have continued to get together with other believers, iron is sharpening iron and our roots are growing deeper instead of shriveling. Instead of being impaired, our faith is maturing and we are growing by leaps and bounds...which is more than was happening while we were "going to church". Now that our time and energy are no longer taken by church programs, we are actually having more fruit spreading the gospel in our neighborhood. In fact, now we're praying starting a regular church meeting at our house.
Andrew Strom has an free ebook posted online called "Out-of-Church Christians". I recently read it and identified with much of what was said. If anyone is wondering why many people aren't "going to church" anymore and are interested in finding out why instead of reflexively judging them, this ebook is a good place to start.
|W|P|okay, so it'd be nice to go back to church again (after 30 years of going), but when you find out alot of the things you thought were "truth" were man's own ideas, it stops you, shuts you down. Truth should set you free and I have not found many churches like that. |W|P|Considering what most people get out of an average church, their time would be better spent just sitting down and reading a bible. If you are in a good church, then yes, it is important to keep going there, because every time you go you will get something out of it that you never would have learned spending twice as long reading scripture. If not, you definitely need to get out of the church. If you can, find a good one, but otherwise, have private meetings with other christians. In fact, have private meetings with other christians, in groups wherever you can, regardless of whether or not you are in a good church. |W|P|After reading some of the other comments from people who do not attend their church, I must say that I am disappointed. God does tell us that we need to go to church. It is not to see how much we can get out of the services! It is to show our obedience to GOD! If we are so consumed with "how little we want to go", or "who is speaking today", or "I don't like what church is becoming", etc, then I believe we are missing the importance of our Spiritual growth. God loves us all very much, so why are we so selfish and arrogant towards Him (to all of us born-again believers) |W|P|Christainity and going to church are two different things. Going to church has nothing to do with salvation. Jesus did not say "go to church". In fact the people who he had most of his arguements with were the pharasees who were the church leaders of that time. Jesus said "belive in me". That is all that is needed to be a christian and that is all that will ever be needed. If you say going to church is nessisary for salvation you are argueing with the bible. |W|P|ok so im a genuine believer, pray in tongues, know and hear from God, which is why im not in church. I was 'committed' to an aog (well known respected growing pentecostal movement in australia) but realised things were off at my old church; manipulation, control, twisted scripture, abuse of authority positions, incredibly unbalanced lives, divisive leadership styles, false prophecy; cried out to GOd who showed me, and many others, including pastors, the truth. Just because someone says they are christian, or a church comes under denomination, it may not be truly of God or his kingdom. He who has an ear, LISTEN to what the holy spirit is saying. DOnt assume those who arent in church are un committed believers who are lazy or dont know God, and DO NOT make the mistake that deception cannot enter into a pentecostal church to the point where its leaders are stood down (happened recently) and it is viewed as a cult. Or if you do decide to believe this line of thought that one isnt a true or committed christian unless in church, show the scripture to me, and learn to differentiated from man made doctrine. In church or not, the question is do you know him? |W|P|I have spent many years feeling like a failure as a christian because of my dissapointment with church, until i realised it is 'church' that has got all out of whack. Thousands of committed christians who dearly love the Lord, the world over, are now longer attending a church and searching for something else. That something is what we hear being spoke to us within our hearts by the holy Spirit, that the christian churches are failing God and His people, especially unsaved people. Christianity has become like a moral cultural club to 'join' , with a lot of similar values to world ie; exessive focus on money, fashion, an acceptance of being completly worldly and being a christian on the side. And what's with this recent involvement in politics? Are some pastors so egotistical that some politican just has to give them a call claiming to be a christian that they go all ga-ga and lead many gullible christians in their church into supporting a politician fishing for votes under the guise of being a christian, can't people see this for the scam it is? No, church long ago ceased to be about God, it has become like a safe culture in this immoral world that people find a sense of safety and belonging in, but it is run by man, not lead by God. Other Christians that are quietly and confidently following the Lord in their own hearts must pray to be led to other such believers who have given up on our modern day version of church, and meet together the way God intended, in our homes,not funding extensive renovations on our church bulidings year after year, instead focusing on Him and helping the poor and needy, supporting each other in our walks, and not 'running' a church, tithing money from church members, coming up with new and flashy ways to get people to come and stay at 'our' church. Don't pastors realise that the lights and special effects and all the other initiatives to make church more acceptable to non-christians really just turn them off. They think; if Jesus is as great as they say he is, then why do they have to go to such lengths to 'sell' Him. God should be evident to others in our daily walks. Anyway, these are my thoughts. I do believe God is magnifecently in His marvelously amazing way, calling his true followers to Him in these end times. Something really special is happening. Don't give up. |W|P|I have spent many years feeling like a failure as a christian because of my dissapointment with church, until i realised it is 'church' that has got all out of whack. Thousands of committed christians who dearly love the Lord, the world over, are now longer attending a church and searching for something else. That something is what we hear being spoke to us within our hearts by the holy Spirit, that the christian churches are failing God and His people, especially unsaved people. Christianity has become like a moral cultural club to 'join' , with a lot of similar values to world ie; exessive focus on money, fashion, an acceptance of being completly worldly and being a christian on the side. And what's with this recent involvement in politics? Are some pastors so egotistical that some politican just has to give them a call claiming to be a christian that they go all ga-ga and lead many gullible christians in their church into supporting a politician fishing for votes under the guise of being a christian, can't people see this for the scam it is? No, church long ago ceased to be about God, it has become like a safe culture in this immoral world that people find a sense of safety and belonging in, but it is run by man, not lead by God. Other Christians that are quietly and confidently following the Lord in their own hearts must pray to be led to other such believers who have given up on our modern day version of church, and meet together the way God intended, in our homes,not funding extensive renovations on our church bulidings year after year, instead focusing on Him and helping the poor and needy, supporting each other in our walks, and not 'running' a church, tithing money from church members, coming up with new and flashy ways to get people to come and stay at 'our' church. Don't pastors realise that the lights and special effects and all the other initiatives to make church more acceptable to non-christians really just turn them off. They think; if Jesus is as great as they say he is, then why do they have to go to such lengths to 'sell' Him. God should be evident to others in our daily walks. Anyway, these are my thoughts. I do believe God is magnifecently in His marvelously amazing way, calling his true followers to Him in these end times. Something really special is happening. Don't give up. |W|P|I think all this discussion is facinating but in some ways it disturbs me as well. Jesus lived a simple life with simple messages of how to live and act. Man seems to take the simple word and transform it into massive complicated debate. Just as established churches seem to create their own laws which then become the rule away from jesus's message.So we take 'views 'on what could be the possible meanings and create more 'fog'If we try and follow his simple 'word' then whether its in ones own house ,in a congregation, or whatever then he will understand our sincerity of action,he is a forgiving god that understands surely.
Seeker of enlightenment.......
|W|P|Amen! It's about time so called Christians get back to studying the Bible than trying to get into politics with the motive of trying to change, or rule the government of the day. Wear out the knee caps instead of the voice box you dull eyed and hard hearted Christian! Jon|W|P|James Dobson can't figure out if he's Jesus' campaign manager, or the founder of an organization that creates Christian oriented material for families. Because of that, he's turning Focus into a joke of an organization to "thinking" Christians, and non-Christians alike.I'm just glad there are organizations like Sojourners that understand what's really important out there, and understand the true meaning of social justice within politics.
Joe|W|P|There is more to politics than abortion. In this country there are poor people, lost people, people who can't read (which means they can't read a Bible).The answer that Dobson would probably give to you is that it dosen't really matter if you are poor, or lost, or unable to read if you are not alive. For conservatives, life is the first right upon with all other rights are dependant.Grace and Peace,
Joe
Jon Fortt|W|P|Joe,True. It's hard to trust those who seem pro-life but seemingly anti-living.
Where is advocacy for living wage, living education, living compassion?
I can understand the pro-life argument. I just wish they were also pro-living.
|W|P|Howdy there, neighbor (I live about 30 miles north of you). I'm following this issue on my blog, I Speak of Dreams (http://lizditz.typepad.com).This is a complicated issue.
I believe that an independent or private school (different things but often confused) should be able to determine or limit what kind of students they wish to enroll. It is common, for example, for some Christian schools to require a family recommendation from a pastor before enrolling the student.
What the dissident parents and parishioners demanded was that "St. John the Baptist School in Costa Mesa accept only families that sign a pledge to live by Catholic doctrine "
Well, hmmn. No divorced parents, no parents who practiced birth control (not a problem for the two-father family),
The deal is, I doubt they'd be able to fill the school.
Another feature underplayed by the news reports is only 18 people made the demand. That's less than one percent of the parents in the school. Should a small vocal minority be able to hijack the mission of the school in this way?
Oscar|W|P|Whatever happened to showing forgiveness and love? Did Jesus forbid anyone from attending his congregation? Were there not heathens and prostitutes there? How are we suppose to influence people into seeing the light if we continue to push them into the darkness? |W|P|The real problem here is that the couple belong to a gay activist group that advocates for same-sex marriage called Family Pride Coalition. The men take their adoopted children to social functions where everyone has two "daddies." The men are not shy about their arrangement. They make themselves highly visile as a "couple" at the school and in church. They attend every school function together with their four adopted children. One of them was featured in a New York Times article in early 2004 titled "Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home", and Family Pride Coalition has two documents posted on their website on how to advocate for same-sex "families" in schools. These men are challenging church teaching, but more important they are introducing and indoctrinating their adopted children into a lifestyle that is unnatural and unhealty. The school, by allowing this is by implication endorsing homosexual acts. This is scandalous to the other children in the school who will come to believe that families headed by same-sex couples are equivilant to those headed by heterosexual, married couples. Regardless of what their church officially teaches about homosexual acts or marriage,they will be influenced by the actions and by the role models of the two homosexual men. And that is exactly the idea. |W|P|I would rather teach my children to accept all people than to single ANYBODY out as being 'less than'.I am a mother of two young boys, living in Costa Mesa. I was searching for the school's link in order to read more about sending my oldest son to school there.
It's so disheartening to think that there are parents at the school that think its necessary to try and kick these children out of school.
Yes, yes, yes...I do realize that many people disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. But, listen here, People...what about all of those way-ward heterosexuals in the church?? I think it's so hypocritical.
It gives me 'brain freeze'.
I believe in teaching our children the Bible and its teaching.
But I also think its my moral obligation to teach my children that ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL!
Live and let live!
|W|P|To let everyone know, I have 2 kids that go to St. John the Baptist in Costa Mesa and it is a wonderful school. The best I have every seen. The parents, teachers and principal Sister Vianney are very dedicated to the children. The 2 kids were allowed into the school because every child should have the opportunity to learn in a very uplifting environment. They will still be taught the Catholic ways just like every other child in the school. The school will not change the way they teach or believe because the 2 kids have gay parents.This is a small group that wants the kids and parents to be denied access to the school, I hear about 18 parents?
I happen to know that the majority of the parents at the school support the principal in having the kids attend the school and the parents be involved with the kids functions at the school.
Also, if the kids are expelled from the school? Stay tuned, for a major protest by the parents that do support the kids.
Just like the person wrote before me and I quote.
"I believe in teaching our children the Bible and it’s teaching.
But I also think its my moral obligation to teach my children that ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL!
Live and let live!"
|W|P|i'm an alumni of that school and you know what i totally support the pastor and principal of the school for their decision. it's just so sad that the children are being punished. the parents send their kids to a catholic private school for a purpose, and they know the church's standings on this issue, but that's how they want their children raised. i'm just so sad that anyone has to even be approached with such an issue. |W|P|I am actually stunned that gay parents would even want their children educated by a school that is part of a bigoted and hurtful institution that continues to clearly demonstrate that GLBT individuals have no place in their limited view of the world. The harm of exposing these children to such views is incredible. I urge such parents and individuals with progressive ideas surrounding issues as love, sexuality, and family planning to leave the Catholic Church to those who long for the days when those outside the Church hierarchy chose not to think for themselves but to blindly and foolishly accept the word of MAN as the word of GOD. |W|P|I have a kid that goes to St John the Baptist School in Costa Mesa & two of my older kids graduated there. It's a wonderful school. Sister Vianney and the school helped our family when we were in need. I really don't think having gay parents has anything to do with getting a good education for our kids.