Author |
Message |
Mameblanche
Member
04-13-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:05 pm
Dh and I saw the baba wawa special and it was excellent! We commented throught the show to each other as there was lots of food for thought. Sorry you missed it, but am betting they rerun it. Its too good to waste.
|
Slinkydog
Member
11-30-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:38 pm
I watched the special and did enjoy it. I found the different perspectives quite thought provoking, just as I have found this thread. I was raised in an evangelical church, and although I no longer attend I do still have my beliefs (though not nearly as conservative as I was taught). However, as many of those professing Christianity have become so political, and are trying to make their beliefs the law, I am finding myself more and more turned off to religion. I think organized religions are defeating their purpose of "converting" others by trying to shove it down their throats.
|
Kearie
Member
07-21-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:43 pm
Slinky...what exactly is evangelical?
|
Slinkydog
Member
11-30-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:53 pm
Let's see. I just heard a preacher dude from Colorado on the Barbara Walter's special express it very succinctly. There are 3 components: 1. Believe in God 2. Believe the Bible is the word of God (that he breathed it into the authors, etc.)(I think this also goes with literal interpretation and infallability, or at least that is what I was taught) 3. Born again.
|
Goddessatlaw
Member
07-19-2002
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:11 pm
Well, I certainly disagree with that, Slinkydog. Catholics are not "born again." Hell, we're not even considered "Christians" if you consult the Yellow Pages. And we're certainly not literalists when it comes to the Bible. At least not in Dominican teachings. Anyway, that preacher dude needs to think somemore. Parts two and three require re-disection. Great quotes, Max. Makes me want to go read Ghandi. Oh, and what Karuuna said overall. PS I need to go back and read the whole discussion, I've only read this page (hangs head in shame, ignores pissed-off husband and goes back to the top).
|
Abby7
Member
07-17-2002
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:22 pm
.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-31-2000
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:48 pm
Yeah, that would be the Focus on the Family dude, eh?
|
Abby7
Member
07-17-2002
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:50 pm
lol, dude.
|
Goddessatlaw
Member
07-19-2002
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:51 pm
OK I've read the first two archives in the thread and I don't want to read more before I check in. Newman, you know we don't agree on a thing having to do with politics so I'll leave that out of the mix. Frankly, I live politics night and day, in and out, personally and professionally, and I come her to get away from that shit, not to rehash it. Hence my refusal in the past year or so to visit the politics threads. On a human and baby-boomer level, I would like to say this. My entire life I've been a loner. Even in a big crowd of friends, I've known I'm on my own. For whatever reason. Since my first day of kindergarten, that's been the case. You know what you know. I lived by myself from the age of 18 until the day I got married, more or less a college roommate or two. As an adult, no roommates, and certainly no live-in boyfriends. Very hard on myself, extremely hard on others, and certainly no room for compromise. I never thought I'd change or make room for anything else. 'Round abouts 40 (ok, right on the dot), I had a talk with myself. Self, I said, what you're doing isn't working. Maybe the problem isn't everyone else, maybe it's you. Newman, if your life isn't suiting you, if you're not hitting the high notes of your dreams, maybe it's time to reevaluate how you view life (and particularly other people who might enhance or devalue) your existence. Subject matter: politics, they are what they are and your opinions are your opinions. So what? Is it worth tanking a conversation with an interesting person because you have developed differing opinions based on your differing experiences? My Dad is a dyed in the wool, Depression-era, Southern Baptist Democrat, and I love him with all my heart. We just the hell don't talk politics. Because it causes conflict where none belongs. He raised a Catholic Republican, and maybe that breaks his heart on some level, but he loves me enough that it doesn't kill him (oh, he married one, too.) So what about politics? It's a marginal subject. It's not life. It's a topic (unless you're a professional politician, and then we have a whole 'nother subject). OK, enough about that. What I'm trying to say from a personal boomer-baby standpoint is, I had to change the way I address life and the way I address other people to get to where I wanted to be all along. Sure, I had to go through all these other experiences to get to this point, but once I made my mind up to give people (and life as it is) a chance, all sorts of opportunities opened up. Maybe this can work for you too? Sometimes you know what you know, but you would be surprised if you gave a chance to the things you THOUGHT you knew and didn't like. You might just find out different. Probably that last paragraph didn't make much sense. All I'm saying is you can't change the world around you for the most part, all you can do is vote and hope for the best, but you can change the way you view it. If you know what you want in life, and you're not getting it, try changing up your game. In the short run it takes a bit of concentration, in the long run I've found it pays off a million times over. That is all.
|
Kearie
Member
07-21-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:51 pm
Thank you Slink. I've know there are several religions that say they are "christian religions"...I was just curious as to what an Evangelic Church is ... main beliefs...as opposed to others. Is it correct to say that Evangelicals are the "born-again christians"? (By defininition)
|
Kearie
Member
07-21-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:56 pm
The Focus on the Family dude? LOL
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:56 pm
Great post Gal!
|
Goddessatlaw
Member
07-19-2002
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 8:07 pm
Thanks Mocha, I hope Newman thinks so, too. I had a chick give me this talk when I was 27. I dismissed it and didn't re-consider it until I was 40. We boomers are a tough bunch, I tell you.
|
Grannyg
Member
05-28-2002
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:02 pm
And Newman, she ended up and married the most wonderful guy in the world. Now two wonderful people are together!! Yay!!!
|
Schoolmarm
Member
02-18-2001
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:06 pm
GAL....good God, we certainly ARE related (well, except for the Catholic part!) My church is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Evangelical takes a vastly different meaning in this case. Lutherans believe in one baptism (in infancy) for the remission of all sins. There is no "born again". We are saved simply and purely by the grace of God. [Hence, the t-shirt "Lutherans do it with Grace alone" on the front and "Where's Grace?" on the back. LOL] Evangelical in this sense means to evangelize or spread the word of God. Typically Lutherans are not very good at this, but live a godly life. I think that the term is more fitting in that the Lutheran church is called the "Evangelische Kirche" in Germany, the home of Martin Luther. In this sense it means Protestant. Other denominations such as Methodists and Baptists and Episcopalians are very rare there. You are either Catholic or Lutheran, basically. (There are some Bretheran/Mennonite in certain areas). Today's Evangelical churches are characterized by being born again and having a personal (rather than a corporate) relationship with Jesus Christ, often as their personal Lord and Savior. Worship is often on the emotional rather than intellectual or spiritual side of the triad. The Holy Spirit plays a larger role than in many other denominations. Hymnody often uses first person language and a simple or repetitive vocabulary. Much of the focus is on saving the unsaved, and hence the evangelical name.
|
Kearie
Member
07-21-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:12 pm
Thanks for the explaination Schoolmarm.
|
Schoolmarm
Member
02-18-2001
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:24 pm
Oh, geez...I just reread my post and it almost seems as if Lutherans are Evangelical..... Well, they are in the historical sense of the word. They are NOT in today's world. Lutherans are amongst the Christian denominations that get irritated at the "born again" Evangelicals for giving Christianity a "bad name" in the eyes of many people. <Marm steps out of the pulpit and back onto the organ bench for the Christmas onslaught of music.>
|
Slinkydog
Member
11-30-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:34 pm
Kearie, Schoolmarm did a much better job of explaining than I did, but, yes, I am talking about the "born again Christians." As Schoolmarm suggested, I was taught that if you "accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" that you are a born again Christian. "Dude" was not the guy from Focus on the Family. I can't remember his name, and had not heard of him before. Goddess, I'm confused on what you disagree with. Do you consider Catholics to be evangelical, and if so how do you define it? I've never considered Catholics to be evangelical, but I may be wrong.
|
Kearie
Member
07-21-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:46 pm
Dr. James Dobson is the Focus on the Family guy. So is he an Evangelical?
|
Kearie
Member
07-21-2005
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:49 pm
Slinky---I grew up with the same teachings. Born again from John 3. I just never knew it was evangelical.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-31-2000
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:04 pm
Ted Haggard si the president of the National Assoc of Evangelicals in Colorado Springs. He's just down the road from Focus on the Family and they collaborate on many national and faith issues; including campaigning against gay marriage. Peas in a pod. Colorado Springs is like a mecca to folks of similar ilk.
|
Newman
Member
09-25-2004
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:25 pm
GAL, But politics IS life. I think Gandhi said that. Check the archives. I think I understand what you're saying to me and I thank God that you didn't advise me to try "VOLUNTEERING" somewhere. Really, I've searched a lot more than most people. Even at my new church, the Unitarian Universalist, I am exploring new avenues, going to the community forum instead of the actual church service and liking it better. GAL, I don't tank interesting conversations. It's just hard to imagine having an interesting chat with a far right wing Christian conservative. They are anathema to me. I don't buy what they're selling. Listen to Bill O'Reilly. Then listen to Al Franken. It's night and day. I'm always re-evaluaating myself. Right now I'm stepping back and trying to write less, talk less, and listen more.
|
Newman
Member
09-25-2004
| Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:40 pm
Just watched my tape of the Barbara Walters Heaven special, or most of it. Somehow I only got about 30 seconds from the Dalai Lama. Was there more that I just missed somehow? His view of heaven might be closest to mine. It was an interesting show. I was warned that it was kind of lightweight, which it was, but that's ok. Mitch Albom is one of my heroes. He didn't really shed any light on the subject for me, a disappointment. Mostly the show reaffirmed my dislike for traditional organized religion. I thought that Pastor Haggard was laughable. I couldn't relate to him at all nor all those Evangelicals singing and waving their arms in the air and emoting. Not for me. Not my style. The description of heaven, as a place, where you meet up with your former pets, husbands, wives, eat, never gain weight, no sex (because the joy is in the Lord), have a full head of hair because apparently you get to choose at what age you want to be up there. It just seems so preposterous. Wouldn't it be awfully crowded? It merely reinforced my idea that religion was invented by man to overcome the fear of death. Heaven was put in so you would have a nice place to go to because, let's face it, life is a struggle for most of us, and it's pretty easy in the year 2005, America, compared to earlier centuries. Why would anyone believe that after you die, IF YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS, that you go up into the clouds to a big garden where you see all your friends and the family members that you like, and are 29 again, forever? And how would that not be boring? And would all your old girlfriends be up there? Nope...just the ones who believed in JC. Would the girlfriends get along? Would they require a lot of attention? High maintenance in heaven?
|
Slinkydog
Member
11-30-2005
| Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 7:04 am
Yes, Ted Haggard was the preacher dude I was speaking of. I knew James Dobson's name because it is, unfortunately, seared in my memory. I hope my earlier post did not leave the impression that I was advocating the evangelical beliefs as THE truth. I actually think Schoolmarm's description of the Lutheran beliefs are more in line with my beliefs now, or at least it certainly sounds more appealing to me. Regardless, people are currently free to believe as they wish and I don't have any problem with other denominations or religions. My problem is with religious groups trying to impose their beliefs on other citizens by codifying them. The groups that seems to be doing this more than any other are the evangelicals, and I find that it is having an effect which is opposite of its purported mission. As Schoolmarm said, the focus of the evangelicals is supposed to be to spread the word of God and to save the unsaved. IMO, that can't be truly accomplished through force and through making those that believe differently, essentially, criminals. In fact, even though I was raised with those beliefs (which are hard to shake even when one grows up and looks at things more intellectually), I now often find myself rolling my eyes and scoffing when I hear a James Dobson, a Ted Haggard, a Pat Robertson, etc., speaking. To me, the born again Christians who are currently spewing hate for those who believe or live differently than they are giving Christianity a bad name.
|
Slinkydog
Member
11-30-2005
| Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 7:10 am
Newman, there was more than 30 seconds of the Dalai Lama. His view was that there is no physical heaven, but that the life you live now affects the next life you will live. It was all about reincarnation. If you are good in this life, you will have a better life next time around. If you are bad in this life, you will have a worse life and may even come back as an animal (May not be such a bad thing. I've often had people say they would like to come back as one of my dogs).
|
|
|
|