Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Late last week I heard this report discussed on NPR.  One of the clergy
    and two of the lay participants were interviewed.
    
    Among the reasons given for formation of the group studying and
    reporting back were:  a rise in suicide rates, alienation among the
    young, break-up of families [it was stressed _families_ ...not
    _traditional_ families specifically], and [predictably] shrinking
    involvement in mainstream religious franchises.
    
    To wit, the reasons were pretty standard.  But the group felt that in
    the light of recent history and current trends, the standard answer of
    're-state the rules VERY loudly and exhort to compliance, perhaps
    threaten retribution in the hereafter' just wouldn't answer.
    
    So they conducted extensive research in alternative family structures
    and mapped the values and norms within them against fundamental
    Christian teachings.  They concluded that these alternative family
    structures more often than not contained a level of spiritual and
    emotional support consistent with the traditional model and that the
    persons within them as dedicated to basic Christian tenets as any.
    
    I don't believe that they expected acceptance at this point.  But it is
    a first stake in the ground, so to speak.
    
      Annie

    re .0, it's about time some religion made an attempt to stumble into
    the 20th century.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    a number of mainstream churches, including lutherans, presbyterians
    and episcopalians are in the process of 'renovating' their theology.
    their internal workings, however, do not generally make for fast
    transitions.
    

    Religion changing its beliefs to accomodate current times makes
    about as much logic as suggesting that the NAACP should have modified
    their demands so as to fit in with "Jim Crow". In other words none.
    
    ~Cliff

    re.4 We're talking about these churches changing their *doctrines*
    to accomodate *people*. These people have always been on the short 
    end of the stick wielded by the churches. 

    I believe that evolution in religious thinking is both inevitable and
    necessary.  My own faith, Quakerism, has a name for this process--
    "continuing revelation"--and as such it is valued as an important
    aspect of its faith and practice.  It was this process of evolution in
    religious thought that led Quakers in the 18th century to the radical
    conclusion that slavery was morally wrong--an idea that religious
    conservatives of the day found abhorrent.

    Modern day religious reactionaries also resist the development of more
    compassionate and enlightened theological ideas on feminism and human
    sexuality.  I am proud to say that Quakerism has believed in the
    equality of men and women since its origin about 300 years ago,
    although I am not proud to say that, despite an enlightened outlook in
    principle, Quakers have not always in practice resisted the prejudices
    of their times.  We are all a product of our societies, and those who
    seek to make changes for the better run against strong social currents
    of sexism and other evils.  It will thus take a lot of effort to
    completely turn things around.  In addition to proclaiming sexual
    equality, many Quaker meetings now perform same-sex marriages, but this
    process (which requires the consensus of membership) is taking time. 
    For some religions, the process of change awaits not the group
    consensus, but the dictates of a patriarchal and authoritarian
    body--or, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, one man.  I suppose
    that progressive Catholics can hope that after the current pope dies, a
    more enlightened one will take his place, since they can't exactly
    throw the rascal out through a popular vote.

    -- Mike

re .6


>    For some religions, the process of change awaits not the group
>    consensus, but the dictates of a patriarchal and authoritarian
>    body--or, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, one man.

	This is untrue. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church,
	changes in doctrine come through God.
	
	God does not run a democracy.

					Tom_K

          <<< Note 870.7 by TOMK::KRUPINSKI "C, where it started." >>>
>>	This is untrue. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church,
>>	changes in doctrine come through God.
    
    Via the Pope, usually.  Luckily the Pope has always been on the
    non-heretical side when controversies arose.  It would be real
    embarassing otherwise.

    naw, Jim, they just rewrite history to exclude that
    
    aka 'Pope Joan'
    
    Bon

    re .7, so he says.  I doubt that many non-Catholics actually believe
    it, though.
    
    Lorna
    

    Tom_K
    
    I'm a Catholic, (which means universal btw) I'm a member of the
    Episcopal church which is also a 'Catholic church'...Greek and
    Russian Orthodox church members are also Catholic. You are a Roman
    Catholic, I'm a Holy Catholic to use our churches official titles.
    
    and it is quite possible to be a member of a church and believe it
    is in error and work from within to reform it. When churches do
    not allow for reform from within one gets the sort of rigidity
    that brought about the Protestand reformation.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,  
    
    Just to avoid confusing people, if you are a member of the Episcopalian
    Church (the church in which I was brought up and later left) then
    you might be catholic, but you wouldn't be Catholic, would you?  At
    least I wouldn't.  
    
    - Vick

Note:

	I had misread .10 and made a reply (.12) which, while accurate,
	was not relevant to the discussion (given that it was based upon a
	misunderstanding). I hence deleted it (unfortunately while
	Bonnie was replying to it).

re .10

	How is what non-Roman Catholics believe relevant to Roman Catholics, 
	with respect to the Roman Catholic religion?

					Tom_K

    It's always been a mystery to me that religions would be interested in
    dealing with reproduction from an "ethics and/or moral" viewpoint. Sex
    is essentially a biologically programmed function that deals primarily
    with the continuation of that particular species. As such, trying to
    regulate it seems futile. It reminds me of that old joke about trying
    to teach a pig to play the piano. You'll never make good music and you
    will annoy the pig.

    re .15, then I, in turn, could ask you why you expect the beliefs of
    the Roman Catholic church to be relevant to non-Catholics, especially
    when stated as though fact?  I'm sure you realize there are
    non-Catholics who read and write in this conference.  Why state
    something that is a matter of faith to a particular religion as though
    it were universally accepted fact, and expect it to go unquestioned?
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .15

Tom_K, it is my understanding as a nominal Roman Catholic that the RC
Church professes to be the *true* church of Jesus Christ.  How, then,
since Jesus' mission was directed to *all* people, can the RC church
say with a straight face that it cares not what nonRC people think?
Such a stance is absurd and is perhaps the best demonstration of why
thinking people who love Jesus are leaving the RC Church in droves to
join churches where their beliefs are respected.

-d

    - Vick 
    
    you are correct, my appologies, I'm a catholic and a Holy Catholic
    and an Episcopalian.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    Maybe I should just stay confused :^), but what is a Holy Catholic
    precisely?  I know what it means to be catholic, and Roman Catholic and
    Episcopalian, or at least thought I did.  :^)
    
    					- Vick
    

    The 'Holy Catholic church' is another name for the Anglican or
    Episcopal church.
    
    Bonnie

re .17:
	What leads you to believe that I expect the the beliefs of 
	the Roman Catholic church to be relevant to non-Catholics?

re. .18:

	Perhaps you are right. Certainly the Church would like to assist
	as many people as possible in finding their way to God, and, like
	many religions, the RC believe it has the best way (but, at least
	according to what I was taught, not the only way). But that doesn't
	extend into doing something that goes against God's teachings, simply
	to pad the membership roles. To do so would mean a larger church,
	but the resulting church wouldn't be a RC one.

	The idea I was trying to get across was that the RC church does not 
	base it's doctrine on what the people want people to do, but rather 
	what God wants people to do.

						Tom_K

    
    Rathole alert!
    RE the pope always being on the right side of the issue, anybody have
    any information how "the right side" was determined during medieval times
    when there was, more than once, more than one pope at a time. ...?
    
    Jamd
    maverick, and somewhat cynical Catholic

Re: .22

Sarcasm alert!  The following definition, quoted from the Curmudgeon's
Dictionary, is intended to provoke a laugh, not anger.  I have opinions
of my own that I will present after it.

    religion, n.  An attempt to understand and obey the whims of
    whatever sort of being one imagines one's God to be; hence,
    one man's excuse for starting a war, and the next man's excuse
    for refusing to fight in it.

        All religions look equally silly from the outside.

			- Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love"

The whole thing, I think, hinges on what human beings *think* God wants
them to do.  If you believe that the Pope has an infallible inside
track, then that sort of closes the door.  If not, then it is possible
that God continues to reveal Her meanings to us as described in Mike
Valenza's reply.  I myself have a pretty hard time believing that my
God mandated that the ancient Hebrews mercilessly annihilate the people
who already lived in the land of milk and honey that He supposedly gave
them for their own.  Similarly, the sin of onanism, which is interpreted
to mean that masturbation is evil, wasn't really the spilling of Onan's
seed on the ground; the sin was in defying the laws under which it was
Onan's responsibility to impregnate his dead brother's widow so that the
brother would not be without an heir.  But see where we are now?

It comes down to interpretation; and even Humanae Vitae recognizes this.
(That's the encyclical on birth control, for the nonRCs among us.)  In
that encyclical it is stated clearly that although the ideal is to put
complete trust in God's choices for us about our bearing children, we
are human and fallible, and some of us can't achieve that level of
faith.  It goes on to lay out that matters of birth prevention are for
the "educated Christian conscience" of the people involved to decide,
not for the Church to edict upon.  And this, mind you, was from Paul VI,
a notoriously conservative prelate.

-d

    I had got through a same topic about the new declaration of the
    church on the sex on the note CHRISTIAN. Of course the note is for
    christians and the view points are the christian view point.
    
    To the non-RC, it may be hard to understand our faith to God. But
    let me give a very simple explanation.
    
    We human, do not know how we come when the earth was borned. We
    think we are not come out from a thunder hitting a rock. We might
    be a fish at first, or be a cat, or simply a human. But sure there
    should be something, or someone, "made" us. Then we call the one
    who made us God.
    
    The concept of God is too very simple. The engineers who design
    or build the VAX 9000 will be the God of it. The engineers designed
    the machine and of course want the machine to run as designated.
    But the VAX 9000 is rigid on process. The way it process is limited.
    So the chance it go wrong is very very low.
    
    We as human made by what we called God, can have very flexible way
    of process our life. We can do this and that on our way. But we
    ought to know there is also a designated way for the process, as
    designed by the "engineer" God. The right way is His way, from the
    simpliest implication.
    
    Why we think RC church or other God believeing church know the right
    way? It's because He directly told us the way. He created a process,
    Jesus, to tell us, and we believe.
    
    Actually our faith is very simple. You would never think that 1+1=2
    is wrong. Simply we think that God is our "engineer" and our church
    is created by Him, thus we know the right way, or you may say, His
    designated way for us.
    
    Very simple we learn 1+1=2 without any suspection. We need not prove
    it and then we believe. Its kind of faith. If you can prove 1+1
    not equal to 2 (1+1 != 2), please let the Nobel prize know, they
    sure would give you one Nobel prize.
    
    The way we have sex is also a designated process. We have sex to
    give child born, it is the original. So man will have sex with woman
    (heterosexuality). If we have homosexuality, we cannot give a child
    born, then our sex is not the right way. We should not do such sex.
    
    
    Mickwid.
    

    That was a great analogy!  Way to go!
    
    -Jody

Re: .25

Although I applaud your attempt at explanation, I don't appreciate your
stating it as fact.  The following is presented not necessarily because
I believe it, but because the opposing position deserves equal time in
this, a nonreligious notesfile.

>   Why we think RC church or other God believeing church know the right
>   way? It's because He directly told us the way. He created a process,
>   Jesus, to tell us, and we believe.

It is not proven fact that there is a God, nor is it proven fact that
Jesus was created to tell us about that God.  These are your beliefs,
and I respect them.  But they are not the beliefs of some 75% of the
world's people.  To state them as fact is insulting to those people.

>   We human, do not know how we come when the earth was borned. We
>   think we are not come out from a thunder hitting a rock. We might
>   be a fish at first, or be a cat, or simply a human. But sure there
>   should be something, or someone, "made" us. Then we call the one
>   who made us God.

It does not follow that we were "made."  Because we cannot understand a
situation in which something that exists was not "made," we do not allow
for the possibility that such is the case.  Reading Stephen Hawking's
book "A Brief History of Time" with an open mind might change some of
your ideas about where we came from.

Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the masses."  It is natural to
us to wish that this life is not all there is.  So we are ready to grasp
at any hope.  If someone tells us there is a God, and presents that God
to us in a way that we find appealing, we choose to believe what we are
told.  That does not make it true for others, even though it may be true
for us as individuals.

You use 1+1=2 as analogy for the correctness of your beliefs.  Well, 
there are mathematical systems in which 1+1 does not equal 2.  With an
equal possibility, there are Universes in which everything you believe
is wrong; current thinking based on Schrodinger's cat is that there are
an infinity of parallel but slightly different Universes.

Why do we have sex?  Robert Heinlein speculated that sex is the gamete's
way of making more gametes.  Although that was clearly an attempt to be
funny, he actually hit it right.  Recent research indicates that sexual
reproduction is the higher-life analog of a recognized bacterial process 
providing cells whose DNA become damaged DNA with the opportunity to
grab bits of other DNA strings to repair or replace damaged parts.
According to biologist Richard Michod, mates are essentially spare-parts
shops.  We can sanctify sex or dress it up for Sunday or whatever we
like to do with it, but these are all human interpretations of a process
that requires no interpretation.  And it's a process that does not need
to have been designed - it is one that could occur randomly.

IF your beliefs work for you, fine.  But don't tell me they have to be
right for me; even if they are, it's a matter for me and my own personal
God to decide.

-d

    re .27, good reply, thanks, I agree, etc.
    
    Lorna
    

    No one told -you- that GOD is or is not, good for you.  Our own
    spirituality is very personal and very much our own... you did show
    yours the same way as .25 did with the exception that you rebufed
    him/her and he/she did not rebuke anybody, the explanation was so nice
    and straightforward and simple that... "most" readers liked it.
    
    Besides, it is good to have FAITH in something... it helps with moral
    and values, it gives a purpose in life, a purpose in our existence.
    
    There are some who do not have any of these, for others, it means a
    lot.  Let's live and let others live and let's not take ofense at
    either choice.  Generosity is great when given freely!

re: .29

> ...you did show yours [beliefs] the same way as .25 did

I most certainly did not.  I stated explicitly that I was presenting
my remarks not as a statement of belief but for the purpose of giving
equal time to an opposing view.  You cannot derive any conclusions
whatever as to my beliefs from what I said in .27.  I intended it so.

> "most" readers liked it.

Proof?  Numbers?

> it is good to have FAITH in something.

Good for you.  Prove to me that it is good for everyone.

> it gives a purpose in life.

This presumes that life requires a purpose.  You insult anyone who has
come to another conclusion.

I think that while you are entitled to your beliefs, your knee-jerk
reaction would be better entered in the Christian notesfile than here.

-d

> I think that while you are entitled to your beliefs, your knee-jerk
> reaction would be better entered in the Christian notesfile than here.

Jeez, -d, I'd hardly call .29 a knee-jerk reaction.

I think you're over-reacting to other people's beliefs.

    Religion, spirituality, and faith are matters of a very personal
    nature and highly emotionally charged.
    
    While discourse on these matters by persons of differing viewpoints can
    promote greater understanding and personal growth; heated debate,
    judgemental stances, and preaching only raise the heat and chew up band
    width.
    
    Please keep this in mind.
    
      Ann Johnston
      =wn= comod
    
    p.s.  I believe that we've strayed a tad from the basenote discussion
    of evolution in doctrine ... Annie [the noter]

	It's a circular definition, actually:

	RC doctrine comes from God, so if it doesn't come from God,
	then it isn't RC doctrine... 

					Tom_K

Kathy, I'm not reacting to others' beliefs at all.  I'm reacting to
their insistence on making their beliefs apply to *me* by stating those
beliefs as fact.

If someone wants to believe that eating tomatoes will kill hir, that's
fine with me.  But for hir to tell me that tomatoes are poisonous when
I can stand there and consume a tomato without injury to myself is
something I find highly objectionable.

Furthermore, I find it objectionable that people tell me what I just
said when what I just said included an explicit statement contradicting
what they tell me I said.

Enough.  I hereby withdraw from this topic.

-d

    I've never found my beliefs.  I find it irritating to listen to a
    believer smuggly expounding on "what is".  But that's the way
    believers frequently are.  I identified with everything -d said, even
    if it didn't express her own opinion.  I'm not claiming I'm right to
    feel this way.  But that is the way I feel.  My knee jerked too.
    
    					- Vick

    Yes, well, my knees are permanently bruised from the jerking they've been
    doing on this issue ...
    
    Is it _really_ to much to ask that in a discussion of the motivations
    and possible outcomes of a controversial paper on changing church
    doctrine in a mainstream Protestant _Christian_ organised church, that
    we try to rise above our reflexes?
    
    I believe we were trying to talk about a possible evolution in
    Christian doctrine; not about whose revelation [or lack thereof] is
    right.
    
      Ann J
      =wn= c/m

    Thank you Ann,
    I wholeheartedly agree with you, I said that in my first para... also
    advocated for tolerance and generosity.
    
    I am glad that those things can still be found.
    
    Thank you for your intervenction.
    Ana

> Kathy, I'm not reacting to others' beliefs at all.  I'm reacting to
> their insistence on making their beliefs apply to *me* by stating those
> beliefs as fact.

Well, I'm not a Christian, so it's not a matter of me "being on their
side" or anything. 

I find other people's religious beliefs interesting, as long as I don't
feel they're condemning me. I've often felt condemned when I've listened
to people describe their Christian beliefs. I didn't feel that way at
all when I read the notes in this string.

Kathy

    I find it slightly amusing that the older religions are more in
    keeping with the 20th century than the newer ones.
    
    
    
                                    L.J.

How much older are you talking about?

I don't find Judaism or Islam any more "up-to-date" than Christianity.
Do you consider Paganism an older religion or a new one?  I do feel it is
more in keeping with current times, but I know many people would disagree
with me.

D!

    re: .39  Particularly the "oldest" one!                     
    
    Religion, it seems to me, has always been obsessed with sex and food,
    and most have strict rules about both.  I find those things irrelevant
    and the religions still pedantic about them, a bit quaint.  To me, the 
    issues should be finding the common thread(s) among all life, (the
    Eastern religions seem to understand this instinctively), and dealing 
    with universal "laws" such as not killing, not stealing, not lying, 
    etc.  When I was growing up, the hysteria around not eating meat on Friday 
    seemed awfully ludicrous to me.
    
    The Presbyterian church, (and "presby" comes from a Greek or Latin root
    meaning "old"!), is to my mind swinging in the right direction by
    realizing that there are much larger issues than what its parishioners
    are eating or how and when they're having sex.
    
    Dana, try not to take offense.  Religion requires "faith" and so
    religious people genuinely believe in their religions - they have to. 
    To them, the things they say *are* fact and if they don't present them
    that way, they'd probably feel a little hypocritical.  "Difference"
    doesn't really count as something to value when you've got a great
    emotional investment in one certain belief as being correct.  Most
    organized western religions can't afford tolerance - they would fall 
    apart as some seem to be edging toward.  As the world continues to 
    homogenize and thicken with people however, tolerance will become a 
    requirement and religions *will* change or they will wither.
    
    Sandy  

    Yes, I'm refering to paganism, wiccan, worship of the mother or
    whatever else you want to call it.
    
    
    
                                      L.J.
    
    
    p.s.  Christianity is fairly new in my opinionated book!  ;^)

    
    .39,  .42
    
    That's what happens when women's magical/spiritual powers get appropriated;
    takes a while to find 'em again...
    
    ;-)
    
    Dorian
    

>    Religion, it seems to me, has always been obsessed with sex and food,
>    and most have strict rules about both.  I find those things irrelevant
>    and the religions still pedantic about them, a bit quaint.  To me, the 
>    issues should be finding the common thread(s) among all life, (the
>    Eastern religions seem to understand this instinctively), and dealing 
>    with universal "laws" such as not killing, not stealing, not lying, 
>    etc.  When I was growing up, the hysteria around not eating meat on Friday 
>    seemed awfully ludicrous to me.
    
Sandy,

	An interesting thing to do is to try looking at the major religions 
(eg Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Baha'i, Zororastrianism, Buddhism, 
Hinduism, Babism etc) and look at the teachings of their Central Figure (eg 
Christ, Muhammed, Baha'u'llah, Buddha etc) from both the social and the 
spiritual point of view.  In each of these cases, the time, the location 
and the culture in which these Figures appeared was different.  As a result, 
the social part of their message was different.  For instance, the Jews are 
admonished not to eat pork.  Could this be due to the fact that in the time 
of Abraham and Moses there was no way of dealing with trichinosis?  However, 
the spiritual teaching of these religions repeats itself from one religion 
to the next.  The intensity may differ and the emphasis may differ.  But 
there seems to be a common thread throughout.  Each religion teaches about 
the existence of a Supreme Diety, that this Divine Being wants our love and 
wants us to love each other and to treat each other the way we want to be 
treated.  The way these themes are stated differs slightly but it's there.  
In trying to get at what the founder of the religion taught, as opposed to 
what various members of the clergy say, one might find a very different 
sense of what religion is and isn't....


		But then again, maybe not.  ;')


Ron

    
    is sex spiritual in any religion?
    
    D.

    It supposedly was in the Goddess religions.
    
    B

    I believe the Hindu practice of Tantric yoga has a sexual aspect, but
    I haven't studied it (unfortunately, I guess!).  Updike covers the
    topic somewhat in his novel S.  

    
    Well if sex was spiritual in the Goddess religion and was/is in Hindu
    Tantric yoga, what happened? Why isn't it spiritual in the main
    religions of the West (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)? Where *do* the 
    main religions stand on sex anyway?
    
    Dorian
    

    re: .48 (Dorian)
    
         It's called "control."  If sex were "free" then those who are
    into domination and control wouldn't have any.  Virtually every
    religion uses sex as a control device...as a means to keep its 
    members in line.
    
    Frederick
    

    re .48, my impression has always been that Christian religions think
    that sex is dirty and/or bad unless it's being done by a married
    man/woman combo.  Maybe I got the wrong impression, but that's the one
    I got.
    
    Lorna
    

    re.50
       Well, if it is wrong we're in the same boat.  And they think
    something filthy becomes a marvelous thing after some individual
    not in the relationship says you can confuses the hell out of me.
    
    
    
                              L.J.

>It is not proven fact that there is a God, nor is it proven fact that
>Jesus was created to tell us about that God.  These are your beliefs,
>and I respect them.  But they are not the beliefs of some 75% of the
>world's people.  To state them as fact is insulting to those people.

    Is there anyone can tell me if there is no God, how can we come
    (but don't tell me about we come from our mother)? In my memory,
    the Big Bang theory do not carry any decription about how the lifes
    come.
    
    The history teach us there was a time a man called Jesus appeared
    and taught people like what is described in the bible. Was he come
    from God? We believe, just like you believe you come from your mother.
    
    
>It does not follow that we were "made."  Because we cannot understand a
>situation in which something that exists was not "made," we do not allow
>for the possibility that such is the case.  Reading Stephen Hawking's
>book "A Brief History of Time" with an open mind might change some of
>your ideas about where we came from.

    Well, there is a common point that we were made. Very simple too
    if we were made, there should be something made us. We cannot deny
    it. Even there is a theory that strong air pressure can cause some
    simple organic substances to form more complex substance like DNA,
    but how do the pressure come? Something made it. How do the organic
    substance come? Something made it. We cannot deny this.
    
    And will there be anyone can tell me what is written on Stephen
    Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time".

>You use 1+1=2 as analogy for the correctness of your beliefs.  Well, 
>there are mathematical systems in which 1+1 does not equal 2.  With an
>equal possibility, there are Universes in which everything you believe
>is wrong; current thinking based on Schrodinger's cat is that there are
>an infinity of parallel but slightly different Universes.

    Ok, please tell me when 1+1 not equal to 2. Don't tell me like the
    tv advertisement that 1 favor + 1 favor = 1 favor, or 1 color +
    1 color = 1 color. I can also say 1 number + 1 number = 1 number.
    Yeah, its true too we believe 1 number + 1 number = 1 number AND
    1+1=2. Also don't apply base 2 to say 1+1=10, 10 base 2 = 2.
    
    This is a kind of believe, faith and trust. I do not know that how
    you as the non God-believe people think, but I really cannot find
    any reason to make me believe there is no God.
    
    Last of this reply, I think we express our view on the notes is
    to let others know our feeling or our point. I don't know how you
    feel if you see my replies, but I never attempt to change others
    mind. If you think I do so, then very sorry for my poor wordings.
    
    
    Mickwid
    
    

    re:.52
    
    	� Is there anyone can tell me if there is no God,
    	how can we come [...]? �
    
    That's not the point. I may not know what the origin of the universe
    is, but my not knowing in itself is no proof that God created it. I
    may *believe* that God created the universe, but again, that's not a
    proof in itself.
    
    It comes down to the classic conundrum: Who or what created God?
    Me, I don't see any big difference between the belief that the
    universe wasn't created and always existed, and the belief that
    the universe was created by a being that wasn't created and always
    existed. If anything, Occam's Razor would favor the former, as it
    contains one less unprovable assumption.
    
    My problem with the "rightness" of Christianity or any other religion
    is that arguments in favor of it always come down to circular
    reasoning. It's right because God said so, but in order to believe
    that "God said so", you have to believe in the rightness of the
    religion.
    
    As far as the 1+1=2 business goes, I don't see that as a valid
    argument. The reason that no one questions that "rightness" of that
    equation is because our mathematical system is *defined* so that it
    is true. If "2" didn't exist, and our counting system went "1,3,4,5..."
    then 1+1 would equal 3.
    
    I should point out, so that I won't be accused of being anti-Christian
    or anti-religion, that I do consider myself Christian as far as my
    beliefs go, though I'm not affiliated with any specific sect. Where
    I differ from the Christian mainstream is in that I don't see religion
    (in general or Christianity in particular) as being something that's
    "right" or "not right". I use my beliefs as a basis for *my own* moral
    code. As such, I don't feel that anyone else should be bound by my
    beliefs. Even if, for example, I believed that homosexuality was
    wrong (I believe no such thing, this just for the sake of argument),
    I would simply use that belief to guide my own behaviour, and not
    presume to expect that everyone else follow suit. And even if (again,
    just for the sake of argument) I thus felt that anyone who engaged
    in homosexual behaviour was immoral, I wouldn't presume to try to
    regulate their behaviour. Their morality is of concern only to
    themselves and God; it's not mine.
    
    --- jerry

    Did you know, Ann asked conversationally, that there is an entire
    conference for discussions like this?  It's called RELIGION, and is
    infelicitously located on node GRIM.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    I thought I'd share this poem with everyone... The conversation was
    getting a bit heated. 
      
    Eventually, everyone will relate to this poem, one way or another...
    
    Have a nice day!!!
    
    Maria
    
    A.K.A. WMOIS::M_LEE (Former Dec Employee, now residing in Georgia)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    			'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE JESUS CAME
    
    
    	'Twas the night before Jesus came and all through the house
    		Not a creature was praying, not one in the house
    	 Their Bibles were lain on the shelf without care
         	in hopes that Jesus would not come there.
    
    	The children were dressing to crawl into bed
    		Not once ever kneeling or bowing a head.
    	And Mom in her rocker with baby on her lap
    		Was watching the Late Show while I took a nap.
    
    	When out of the East there arose such a chatter
    		I sprang to my feet to see what was the matter.
    	Away to the window I flew like a flash
    		Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash!
    
    	When what to my wondering eyes should appear
    		But angels proclaiming that Jesus was here.
    	With a light like the sun sending forth a bright ray
    		I knew in a moment this must be THE DAY!!!
    
    	The light of His face made me cover my head
    		It was Jesus! returning just like He had said.
    	And though I possessed worldly wisdom and wealth.
    		I cried when I saw Him in spite of myself.
    
    	In the Book of Life which He held in His hand
        	Was written the name of every saved man.
    	He spoke not a word as He searched for my name;
    		When He said "It's not here" my head hung in shame.
    
    	The people whose names had been written in love
    		He gathered to take to His Father above.
    	With those who were ready He rosed without a sound
    		While all the rest were left standing around.
    
    	I fell to my knees, but it was too late;
    		I had waited too long and thus sealed my fate.
    	I stood and I cried as they rose out of sight:
    		Oh, if only I had been ready tonight.
    
    	In the words of this poem the meaning is clear:
    		The coming of Jesus is drawing near.
    	There's only on life and when comes the last call
    		We'll find that the BIBLE was true after all!
    
    
    Rev. 19:11-16

    That was "lighter"?
    
    I found it downright offensive.
    
    D!

       -< My bible collects dust, along with other literary ref books! >-

     re .56
    
    Well, I guess *I* ain't goin'. I don't think I'd trust a man all lit up
    like a Christmas tree who could float, anyway. 
    
    I'll just stay right here on Earth, live my life, do what I think is
    right, help others as I can, die and get buried. Frankly, I'm not
    asking for anything else anyway, so I don't really see why I should get
    upset at getting left behind.

    

  Sigh -- Proselytizing never goes out of style.

  Amusing side note:  Please note that according to the author,
  only the names of saved *MEN* are written in the book.  I wonder
  where that leaves the women and children.

                                   Atlant

    I noticed that too, Atlant.  The 10 comandments are the same.  I mean
    after all, I'll never covet my neighbor's wife, so the comandments
    clearly aren't talking to me!  I guess women are free in Catholicism!  
    More likely, we're just considered to be some of the things men, (the 
    real people), get in life.  You know, a home, some cattle, a woman...
    
    Corny as this may sound, some years ago I dreamed that I'd died and met 
    the Catholic image of Jesus.  He asked why I'd never had kids.  I
    proceeded to tell him of the status of women in our culture, of the
    oppression that's rooted in our fertility if only that we do not have
    equal time, energy or priorities to fight men for equality and that
    it's set up to require such a fight.  But the neat part is that he 
    chuckled in a "you silly person" kind of way and asked me if I
    thought God would create a being that couldn't reproduce itself.  Then
    he told me woman was what was initially created and that man was
    created *for her* rather than the other way around, as someone to help
    *her* as she went about her business of bearing and caring for children.
    
    That made a lot of sense and after that, I knew why organized religions
    never made any sense to me.  They seem to un-naturally stretch
    reasoning to fit a man-created idea of the world - right down to having
    us believe that a man named Adam was what God had in mind and only as an
    afterthought he created a little plaything to keep Adam from getting
    bored, someone to stroke his ego by bringing the animals to him for him
    to name, etc.  This stuff is supposed to be the more important parts
    of life in Eden?  More important than the creative power and boldly 
    inquisitive nature of woman?  Adam was the first "rulebound" man, Eve
    proved women to be more "situational", to borrow from that string.  I
    think it was Jody who once mentioned Kim Chernin's book, "Reinventing Eve".
    It's quite an eye opener, right down to the serpent being an ancient
    symbol for knowledge - and considered a *good* symbol.  After my dream,
    I started doing some reading on the subject and I keep coming up with
    the exact opposite of patriarchy so much so that patriarchy, as
    expressed in cultural traditions and religions, now appears to me to be
    not an action but a reaction.     
    
    Sandy

    
    - .1
    
    Why Sandy, how you talk.  ;-)
    
    (Not to mention the serpent being anciently associated with the
    Goddess...)
    
    Dorian

Article        44807
From: [email protected] (Louie Crew)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: My bishop's text on lesgay issues (BBC)
Date: 16 Jun 91 15:39:41 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
Wed 29 May, BBC2, 10.20pm. Fifth Column: Bishop John Spong of New Jersey
arguing that Christian disapproval of homosexuality is outdated.
 
This is a complete, but unofficial, transcript. 
 
Louie Crew (via uk.motss)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Presenter:
  "John Shelby Spong comes from North Carolina, where he was brought up as a
Christian fundamentalist.  He was ordained after graduation and became a bishop
of the Anglican Church in the United States in 1976.  He is now Bishop of
Newark, NJ.  He has three children and is married to an English woman.
 
  "The Church of England so far has not accepted the idea of homosexual
priests.  The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, acknowledges this as a
problem . He would like the Church to look into the question further, as there
are those in its congregation who find the matter one of great offence.  Bishop
Spong believes that gays and lesbians are entitled to full inclusion in the
life of the Church and that their loving relationships should be honoured in
the same way as those of heterosexual couples."
 
Spong:
 
  "I was born in and nurtured by the conservative evangelical wing of the
Anglican church in the United States.  Today I am a bishop of this communion,
known as a liberal thinker.  I advocate the ordination of women and the full
inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the Church.  This is the
story of my journey both from this conservative background and into an ever
deepening relationship with my Christ.
 
  "Growing up in the Southern part of the United States, I'm not sure that I
had ever heard the word "homosexual".  Oh, I can remember shouting "you queer"
on the schoolground to someone who seemed to deserve my insult.  But I did not
know what that meant.  When I did learn about homosexuality as an adult I
simply accepted the generally held view that homosexuality was either a
sickness or an example of moral depravity.  If anyone questioned these
conclusions, I would simply appeal to definitive quotations from the Bible.
There was the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the condemnation in the Book of
Leviticus, and St Paul's negativity in Romans.  That was quite enough for me.
 
  "So my prejudices continued unchallenged as my career as a priest developed.
Hardly anything else however in my conservative Christian background enjoyed
that unchallenged status. My education would not allow my literal
interpretation of Scripture to endure. Thinkers like Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac
Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud presented me with
knowledge of which the writers of the Bible knew nothing.  Then the American
Civil Rights movement made the Bible's easy acceptance of slavery not just
quaint but wrong.  The women's movement made the Bible's attitude towards women
archaic and even evil. Each of these tides I rode.  And though the claims that
the Bible was the unchallenged Word of God died for me, the Bible itself did
not die.  I believe that the essence of Scripture can be separated from the
literal words, and I continued to feel the Bible's inspiration.  Yet I never
raised the gay or lesbian issue.
 
  "By this time I had become a bishop in the New York area.  I was 43 but in
many ways my education was just beginning.  Gay and lesbian people were very
obviously part of my new world. Most of them were quite alienated from all
forms of the Christian church. Most, but not all.  Indeed, I discovered that
some of my priests were gay.  They were closetted, but they were gay.  My first
inclination was to retreat into ecclesiastical hypocrisy.  "It's OK," I
proclaimed, "so long as their homosexuality is not practised."  I spoke of my
intention to love the sinner but hate the sin, a threadbare clich'e but one
still used in high places.  But if sexual activity was part of the life of a
gay priest, then I felt that the integrity of my office required me to purge
the ranks of such offenders.  How I grieve now, for those I hurt.  I claimed to
be even-handed.  "No heterosexual priest," I asserted, "can live with his lover
in a rectory either."  "But Bishop," a gay priest countered, "a heterosexual
priest has the option of marrying his lover.  I do not."  That disturbing seed
of truth entered my consciousness and never went away.
 
  "In time I came to know gay and lesbian clergy willing to entrust their
stories to me.  Against incredible odds these people had formed loving and
life-giving partnerships even in hiding which had lasted 10, 20, and even 25
years.  Their lives were beautiful, sensitive, and caring.  It was harder and
harder for me to see sin in such love.  More and more what I observed did not
fit the judgment of my moral views, the condemnation of the Bible or the
official stance of my church.  So I opened myself to learn.
 
  "I read extensively, I became aware that many members of the scientific
community see homosexuality as biologically given not morally chosen.  It is,
they believe, a perfectly normal expression on the spectrum of human sexuality.
Homosexuality is also present among some mammals who do not think or choose.
Once the Church assumed that to be different was to be evil. Even left-handed
people were victimised.  It occurred to me that we were doing the same thing
now, but with homosexual people as the victims of our ignorance. How many
heterosexual people can remember choosing to be heterosexual?  I certainly can
not.  I only remember awakening to the realisation that not only could I
tolerate girls but I really liked to have them around.  I wonder why a
heterosexual majority continues to assume that the homosexual minority chooses
their sexual orientation.  If homosexuality is part of the identity of some 10%
of the population as many scientists today state then every one of us must have
someone close to us who is gay or lesbian.  We love them, but we do not know
them. They live hidden, certain that if we did know them we would cease to love
them. What a heavy burden that must be to carry.
 
  "Last year, I buried a gay priest. He died of AIDS.  I did not know he was
gay until a month before he died.  He had a perfect closet.  He was married,
the father of a son, and divorced.  But he told me he had been gay all his
life.  He lived hidden from his family, his congregation, his bishop. But when
death was upon him, he asked me to tell the world at his funeral, of the real
Ray Roberts, to allow him to be honest in his death in a way that he had never
been honest in his life.  I did that, and in many ways that funeral was the
final step in my conversion.  The Church has gay priests in far greater numbers
than most imagine. I think it is time to admit that, to accept them, openly,
and allow their deepest commitments to be publicly acknowledged and blessed.
 
  "Of course homosexuality can be lived out destructively.  So can
heterosexuality. I think the Church should oppose promiscuous sex, predatory
sex apart from love and commitment.  These activities are wrong, whether they
are heterosexual or homosexual, because they dehumanise both aggressor and
victim.  But loving, life-giving, tender, faithful relationships among gay or
lesbian people must, I believe, be honoured recognised and blessed as they are
among heterosexual people.  Surely those priests who are gay and whose
relationships with their partners exhibit the marks of holiness should not be
barred from continued service?  Nor should homosexuality alone be a barrier to
ordination.  Eight of the clergy of my diocese have come out of the closet.
Seven of the eight live openly in vicarages with their partners. They are known
and loved in their churches and communities as couples.  They live with no fear
of being exposed.  They are in my opinion competent effective courageous
priests whose lives I honour and whose friendship I treasure.
 
  "So this is my witness. I still value my evangelical Christian roots, but the
experiences of my life have called me out of my homophobic prejudices and into
a deeper understanding of all humanity.  I offer this vision to my brothers and
sisters in the Anglican communion.  I also urge the Archbishop of Canterbury
who, like me, was nurtured by the conservative evangelical wing of our Church
to lead our communion, so that the public hypocrisy of our church might be
banished and the private practice of our Church might be lifted from the
shadows and homosexual persons might be recognised accepted and honoured and
their life-giving relationships blessed.  We Christians worship a Christ who
invited us all to come unto Him just as we are without one plea.  For the sake
of this Christ, surely the time has come to open the doors of the Church and
publicly to welcome and love gay and lesbian people."
 
 
 
 
    Louie Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected]
    Associate Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected]
    Academic Foundations Department . . . . . . . CompuServe No. 73517,147
    Rutgers:  The State University of New Jersey. . . . . . 201-485-4503 h
    P. O. Box 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  201-648-5434 o
    Newark, NJ 07101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  201-648-5700 FAX
 
                    Only a dead fish floats with the current.

    That was wonderful.....Thank you Mike, for entering it.
    
      -HA

    mike,
    
    thank you for putting the previous in the file.  i'm going to show it
    to my mother, for her sake.  this is so wonderful, i am finding it hard
    to express my pleasure at such a statement of support.
    
    sue

    I was at Portland Maine's Friends Meeting yesterday and saw this.  I
    thought if might be of interest.  
    
    ************************************************************************
    
    
         This was part of the report submitted by the ad hoc committee
         on same gender relationships of the Portland Friends Meeting.


         ...In the meantime, the Ad Hoc Committee encourages every
         Friend to engage in a reframed question/dialogue:  How has
         homosexuality touched our individual and collective lives? 
         Are we as a community able to reflect on these experiences? 
         How can we honor and support these parts of our experience? 
         What is the quality of our individual and collective
         relationships within our meeting?  Is our Friends Meeting
         truly an open community celebrating our diversity and supporting 
	 that of God in every person?

    ****************************************************************************
    
    Now, here is the actual report, with the minute at the end.
    
    
                     PROPOSED MINUTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

		Ministry and Counsel has been looking at ways Portland 
         Friends Meeting can be a more inclusive community.  We have been
         helped by a group of lesbian and gay attenders and members who
         (met) with us to discuss their experiences and their desire 
         to be fully part of our meeting community.

         	One point of division is represented by our marriage
         practice, which so far has only been open to heterosexual
         couples.  And yet the notion of two people seeking Divine
         assistance in their deeply committed relationship actually
         has little to do with sexual preference.  It is about sharing
         and nurturing love, and about holding couples -- as we hold
         individuals -- in the Light.  We have had to ask ourselves
         "How fully can we accept and nurture loving relationships
         that have a spiritual basis?".

         	We have learned how many meetings in New England
         Yearly Meeting have opened their practice of marriage to
         include any two people involved with their meeting who want
         to be united as partners in a spiritual union.  After several
         months exploring our own feelings and experiences, we now
         recommend that Portland Friends Meeting take this step.  But,
         in approving the following minute, we did not want the meeting
         to rush into quick outward acceptance without enough inward
         understanding.  Our meeting as a whole may need to go through
         a process that mirrors the journey of members of Ministry and
         Counsel as we learned how to listen, to discuss, and to
         learn, before we could eventually accept and affirm.


         	This minute is also an affirmation of our concept of
         marriage as something that happens *within our community*. 
         We have regularly refused requests for marriage under the
         care of meeting from couples not connected with the meeting,
         or where the meeting cannot offer continued support.

         	In using both the terms "marriage" and "celebration of
         commitment", we wish to affirm that all the joy, love, and
         support of the meeting community can be available to all who
         join with us.

         	At our meeting on October 3, 1990, Ministry and
         Counsel passed the following minute:

         	
         		A same-sex couple requesting marriage 
         		or a celebration of commitment under 
         		the care of Portland Friends Meeting 
         		should be considered in the same way
         		we would consider such a request from
         		a heterosexual couple.



    

    

Okay, that's a good start... now I've gotta ask the NEXT question:  Why
restrict it to only TWO people? 8-) 8-) 8-)

On a somewhat more serious note:  A lot of politicians, especially those
right of center, have spoken volumes on the importance of "The Family" to
society.  Believe it or not, I couldn't agree more!  The catch is, I 
believe a "Family" can consist of *ANY GROUP* of people who share living
arrangements and mutual support (financial, emotional, whatever).

The fact that the Boston Diocese fought so vehemently when the Boston
City Council tried to make this exact concept into law shows that when
MOST folks speak eloquently of "The Family", what they REALLY mean is
a black-and-white still shot out of "Father Knows Best".  Never mind that
that model doesn't serve everyone's needs:  if you're the type that
DOESN'T thrive in such an arrangement, then you're just a "bad people"
that we can dump on all we want 8-( 8-( 8-(

Kinda gives you a clue as to what their hidden agenda is, no?

Of course, people then say "What'll that do to the marriage and divorce
laws"?  Answer:  It means we'll have to re-think them and generalize
them a lot, won't we?

set mode/nerd:

I see the current body of family law as being kind of like a very crudely
written program.  Do any of you software types out there remember your
first programs?  You used hard-coded array sizes, hard-coded procedures,
and made TONS of assumptions about the nature of the input data.  As long
as the input data fit your assumptions, you were fine.  As soon as you had
to operate on a dataset that "pushed the envelope", your program broke.

Those of us who went on in our software careers learned that such things
as dynamically allocated arrays and table-driven algorithms led to MUCH
more flexible systems.  No longer did you have to change the whole program
when faced with a dataset that violated some of the tacit assumptions you
made when writing it in the first place.  You might have to make a table
tweak or something here or there, but the overall structure of your program
remained intact.

So it is with family law.  Right now, it's got many hard-coded assumptions
about "fathers", "mothers", "husbands", "wives", and "children";  as soon
as a family comes along that BREAKS these assumptions, the law simply says,
"Well, you're not REALLY a family, since you don't fit OUR algorithm.
Therefore we don't have to TREAT you like one!"

[Me?  I prefer the object-oriented approach 8-)  Everyone is a member of
the base class "family_member", and various roles are derived classes.
You can even mix and match through the magic of multiple inheritance 8-)]

[OK, OK, does it show that I've been hacking C++ code all week? 8-)]

[I'll shut up now...]

set mode/jim_as_usual

8-) 8-) 8-)

--jim

    Re: .67
    
    Robert A. Heinlein, the science-fiction author, espoused the variable-
    sized family as a concept in most of his later works, say, beginning
    with _Stranger in a strange Land_ and following through the remainder
    of his Howard Families novels.
    
    Despite what I consider to have been a strong sex bias -- not a true
    feminist one but rather a very voyeuristic and male-oriented "women are
    better" one -- some of those ideas on family made, and still make, a
    great deal of sense to me.
    
    -d

    Re: .68
    
    Yeah, I probably should have credited my source 8-) 8-) 8-)
    
    [Does this mean I can never be a college dean now? 8-) ]
    
    --jim