<p>bneg,</p>
<p>thanks for that calm breath of fresh air; you make good points.</p>
<p>If your neighbor thinks all religions are equally valid paths to God, he may be a baptist-- but he’s no evangelical. (Perhaps, however, he’s an evangelical who thinks you are damned, but as your neighbor is polite.)</p>
<p>SBmom, </p>
<p>With all due respect, and respect is due, I think this is a rather high-handed claim on your part. </p>
<p>First of all, it is the nature of being a Christian to be an evangelical. To the best of my knowledge it refers to the injunction to all Christians to preach the Gospel (good news) of Christ; which is that mankind has been redeemed from original sin, or saved from sin. Good News indeed if it is true and many believe it is. To be a Christian is to be evangelical. To attack evangelism is to attack Christianity per se. Cotton Mather, George Fox (<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox_University[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox_University</a>) Martin Luther King and St Francis were all evangelicals. </p>
<p>Secondly, it is not the same to claim that all religions are equally valid paths to God as you do in your last post, as to say (when you did in your prior post) The Evangelicals are quite clear that nobody gets in to heaven without signing on to a very narrow version of Christianity. Period. </p>
<p>Im sure you recognize the difference. Hindus and Jews do not believe their faith is equal to others either, as a rule they believe that they are different and to a degree better. It is the nature of belief to believe your particular belief is the correct one amongst the constraints of all others.</p>
<p>Im not completely up on Patrick Henrys theology, however, as I said, Billy Graham who is certainly more iconic of the Protestant Fundamentalist movement than PHC, has said clearly and repeatedly that there is nothing in the Bible that would exclude Muslims and Jews from Heaven and condemn them to Hell. Rev. Graham said that God will decide and we dont know who gets into heaven and who does not. As you must know, it doesnt get bigger than Billy in these circles even if there are those who take a different view. </p>
<p>My Baptist neighbor is what you would undoubtedly call a Conservative Christian; he would and has called himself just that. I suppose he knows what he believes even if it does not match your opinion of what he MUST believe, that he MUST in some way be hateful, or that he MUST be disingenuous when spending time with our family. Imagine if we were talking about a gay person and someone was insisting that contrary to the way he feels he really liked women but was concealing the fact, or was unaware of the fact as you claim of my neighbor having had no experience with him and based on your monolithic prejudiced view (pre-judging) of Christian Evangelicals.</p>
<p>Or imagine that we were talking about the Jews, and we extrapolate from the fact that they claim to be the Chosen People that they believe that God condemned all others to be not chosen and all that that would imply. How long would that crow fly?</p>
<p>This is the problem with all of this. Many of a secular disposition–near all based on these posts–paint with a very, very broad brush. Certainly there are hateful Evangelical Christians (perhaps even some entire churches within the evangelical movement), but then, there are hateful Muslims and Jews, Democrats and Republicans, Atheists and agnostics (and even some organizations dedicated to eradicating religious concepts and condemning all traditional religious teachings and theologya number of links have been posted to just this effect in this forum, in this thread and others). Intolerant, Id say.</p>
<p>However, this cartoon caricature does not even come close to an accurate representation; as I said, it reminds me of some of the hateful things said about gays, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc (although, these things are usually said by the baser, unrefined elements of our society, not the supposed intellectual elite with Ivy league and other privileged degreessomehow, you would think we should expect more thoughtful and thought-out remarks and analysis from them).</p>
<p>bneg, either you have no clue as to how to read my posts or you are twisting what I say on purpose, so one last time:</p>
<p>It is all well and could to say “please wait until marriage to engage in sexual relations, it is what God would want”…and then the information stops, or misinformation is given. SO you have a group of kids who are sexually active, maybe not doing the one activitiy that could result in pregnancy, but THEY ARE DOING SEXUAL ACTS, and they are doing them with no clue as to how to keep themselves safe, emotionally and physically. So, if the intentions of Christian teachings and Abstinence programs are to keep kids from having sex, well, these kids ARE HAVING SEX- all the things I described are happening, whether you like it or not. And these kids are doing it with little facts, little information, and thinking, well, I don’t have to think about being safe, cause gee, nothing bad can happen from oral sex…it takes a level of maturity to keep one safe and healthy, emotional and physically when it comes to sex, and the JUST SAY NO mentality doesn’t really work. Because when the kids say yes, and they will, it is fairly normal to have some contact with a partner, they need to have the correct information. So, if someone is told, be abstinent, okay, I won;t have sexual intercourse and I will be anstinent, but I can do this and this and this, and because I am not doing the biggie, I don’t need to be safe. While other kids know that you ALWAYS need to be safe. Its like saying, well, I am only going to go 20 miles per hour, so I don’t need a seat belt. Or, I am only going around the block on my bike and I don’t need a helmut.</p>
<p>And normal society: what is that? please enlighten me…what era would you like to give me as a model for normal? Okay, we have a time when people owned slaves, we have a time when morality was regulated by the government with regards to alcohol, and that didn’t work, we have a time when women were not hired for jobs because they were women, we had and still do, a time were segments of the population were segregated because of skin color, we have a time when women couldn’t even vote, we have a time when witches were burned at the stake, we have a time when people were lynched, we have a time when we slaughtered the Native Americans, so tell me, what era would you like our society to be modeled after…</p>
<p>Shades of the Middle Ages! I guess it really is true that history repeats itself - anyone see us going into another Crusades here, or is it just me?</p>
<p>‘but through your posts you proved yourself to have the same attitude as those who intend not to improve society.’</p>
<p>um, what does that mean…improve society…let me see, I owe you no explanation for what I do to improve society, but here goes anyway:</p>
<p>I work with the homeless, I volunteer with the disabled, I clean beaches, I was a girl scout troop leader, I clean my parks, I volunteer at schools, I volunteer at the local food bank,I teach my Ds right and wrong, I go to Church, I help with the youth group, I collect eyeglasses for the Lions Club, I collect cell phones for battered women shelters, I raise money for homeless family shelters, I got my redcross certification in emergency and first aid, next week I will take a training for Neighborhood Emergency Preparedness, I recycle, I shop green, I don’t do drugs, I don’t drink to excess, and I have been married almost 20 years. I have two wonderful very lovely Ds, and live in one of the most diverse exciting cities in the world.</p>
<p>So how should I improve society…oh yeah, tell teenagers JUST SAY NO…okay I am done</p>
<p>Fountain Siren, </p>
<p>I appreciate that you have calmed your tone somewhat from your earlier posts. I was about to mention adab.</p>
<p>You keep circling back to ‘yes but there are bad and good of every faith.’ This is obvious. It is also not the main topic here. It is more of a sidebar point-- a point that I made as well earlier in the thread. </p>
<p>We are discussing a certain hardcore <em>brand</em> of Christianity and you object to opinions others have about that brand, because you know Christians who do not follow it precisely. I also know Christians who do not follow it. Okay? Agreed. </p>
<p>Further I also know quite a few <em>PH style</em> evangelicals (do you?) whom I consider nice, kind, decent, good people. I like them. They like me too, and I suspect they feel genuinely sorrowful about me having misguided religious beliefs and being destined for hell.</p>
<p>You have several times said something like: ‘how would people view your statement if you made the same point about Jews or Hindus or gays?’ Well, I have <em>not</em> made my point about these groups, NOR about Christians in general. I have deplored any brand of Fundamentalism (Jewish, Christian, Islamic, or otherwise) that does not recognize the spiritual validity of others’ religious paths. </p>
<p>I can both criticize that aspect of Fundamentalism AND concurrently recognize that good, kind, and decent Fundamentalists walking righteous paths certainly exist-- their <em>belief</em> that others are damned would not negate the decency or goodness of their acts and deeds, nor disqualify them from heaven. There are also Fundamentalists who behave hatefully. Okay? We agree here too. </p>
<p>I have one Evangelical Christian in my immediate family and several in my wider circle of friends, whom I genuinely respect and love, and who “walk the walk” of Christ-like loving kindness. I see that their beliefs are helpful to them living their lives. I yet feel that their notions of the exclusivity of salvation are deeply misguided-- and, in the hands of many of their Evangelical brethren, are often damaging to others. </p>
<p>For example, one friend recently invited me to participate in her son’s fundraising effort for missionary work. I will not do this, as I belive it is wrong to go into other cultures with an intent to convert people who already have other religions. I find that arrogant. (Yes, I get that missionaries are often also doing the “scut work” of global society, and that does have great value.) I will, however, make a donation in her son’s name to a non-religious aid group. (BTW, I also get it that NOT to be a missionary, in her belief system, would be a moral and ethical failure. I do get it that she is trying to do the righteous thing.) </p>
<p>So yes, I recognize there are kinder, gentler ways of being Evangelical. Perhaps this is your neighbor’s way. Perhaps some Evangelicals also doubt the damnation aspect of their own doctrine. There are Catholics who are pro-choice too-- but let’s not confuse this with the official position of the Pope.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, you seem to say the validity of different religious beliefs is to be respected. I agree. Where we seem to part company is that I “judge” the fundamentalist position to be morally wrong and you don’t.</p>
<p>Are their some religious (or irreligious) views that would violate your moral laws? My guess is there are. Well, my notion of natural moral law is violated by the damnation/conversion aspect-- the “my way or the highway” aspect-- of fundamentalist religions.</p>
<p>Certainly, I feel that fundamentalist thinking is less broad-minded than what is needed for the best governing of a multicultural society. Simple as that. I don’t write off everything else their religion stands for, nor fail to see the value of their religion, nor wish to suppress it. </p>
<p>As I said earlier: “Wouldn’t it be ironic if God had in mind that the best way to test everyone’s genuine ability to love one another and not to judge was by placing hundreds of different belief systems on the earth and seeing who could manage to figure out that nobody else was damned?” I’m no expert, but think that is pretty close to a Sufi view.</p>
<p>With respect to the OP and to the Patrick Henry Evangelists (the main topic of this thread) I am not prejudging, nor am I misinterpereting. I am talking them at their word. If you’d simply read the “statement of faith” for Patrick Henry (go ahead and add Wheaton, or Bob Jones, or other Evangelical schools) you’d see that.</p>
<p>The Quran advises </p>
<p> vie with each other in good works and in the end I [God] will show you in which ways you all differ. [That is leave the critique to God and follow one of his divinely revealed paths then, when we make his acquaintance in Heaven, God will let us know what was good and what was better]</p>
<p>There is also Rumis story of the Shepard and Moses (my paraphrase/translation).</p>
<p>Moses was walking along a mountain path when he came across a Shepard praying out loud to God. He prayed:</p>
<p>Oh most Holy God, I love you so. If you were here I would caress you and hold you and cuddle you and feed you warm milk and put little knit booties on your feet .</p>
<p>Moses, hearing this unconventional prayer, knocked the Shepard across the head and insisted that he was an unbeliever who knew nothing of God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the omnipotent Most High.</p>
<p>The Shepard, recognizing the Prophet of God, crawled away horrified and wailing. </p>
<p>Moses then said his own prayer to inform The Most High of the wonderful thing he had done in berating this Shepard who was unfit to pray to God. And God replied,
How dare you tell those who love me how to love me. This Shepard is one of my most faithful servants and lovers. It is for me to decide who will love me and how to love me. Not You. Get out of my sight!</p>
<p>Moses was dizzy, horrified and broken in spirit. Not knowing what to do, he went on a journey to find this Shepard. A journey that took him through Mountains and Valleys and across the seas until one day he found some footprints on the shore that seemed to wind and spell out incantations and prophecies of the greatest mysteries of life. He followed them spellbound. At the end of all this writing he found the Shepard sitting on the shore and he fell at his feet pleading forgiveness. </p>
<p>The Shepard laid his hands upon Moses and lifted him to his feet and said, Moses, you owe me no apologies, Your beating me and berating me caused me to wander across this world and into the deeper mysteries God, my LOVE, has laid out before us all and now, finally on these shore I am where I always wanted to be and could never have reached this place without you. I am finally with my Beloved
I am next to God.
Moses walked away from these shores blessed, and was, as well, closer to his Beloved. </p>
<p>Rumi also wrote,</p>
<p>“Are you a spiritual window shopper?
Do you go from store to store,
grabbing, handling, weighing and purchasing nothing?
Take a chance, buy something
just to be involved in this Holy commerce;
Do something crazy, like Noah, and don’t care what anyone else thinks.”</p>
<p>It seems unfair to criticize someone in love with God, when God, the divine self, makes us crazy in our pursuit of Divine Beauty and Will…to be like Noah and the simple Shepard…and perhaps even, my Baptist neighbor or any other Baptist or evangelical for that matter, no matter how offensive we find them.</p>
<p>It is not criticizing someone love for God…when did that even come up? I didn’t see that. Its the idea that many Fundamentalists sects DO criticize others, do judge others, do want to change others, do think others are going to be damned, do think others are sinners and immoral, and many want to make their beliefs part of government policy.</p>
<p>So, I find it disingenous to say we are criticizing someones love with God. It is the twisting of that love to fit an agenda that I find frightening.</p>
<p>And as the PH say on their website, I will be going to hell, but from what I can see, I am going to have some pretty wonderful company.</p>
<p>“Fundamentalists sects DO criticize others, do judge others, do want to change others, do think others are going to be damned, do think others are sinners and immoral, and many want to make their beliefs part of government policy.”</p>
<p>And what you just did was what? </p>
<p>Are you criticizing others?
Are you judging others?
Would you like to change fundamentalists?
Do you think their view of heaven and hell is incorrect?
Do you advocate for your beliefs to be part of public policy?</p>
<p>I do.</p>
<p>Believe me, if there were fundamentalist on this board criticizing your belief in God or lack of belief, I would find their view of you as intolerant as your view of them (but that is unlikely to occur). As it is, there are no fundamentalist on this board criticizing anyones beliefs, only those who criticize Fundamentalists and those few who disapprove of the criticism and react to it.
I would never attend PHC, I would have a very difficult time fitting in, as you can imagine. Moreover, I do not find their agenda appealing. But what I think some people have a problem with is the fact that fundamentalism, in the guise of PHC, may be migrating (in part) away from the gravel-roads and hills of America to the institutions of the governed; they were easier to make fun of when they were just bare-foot, pregnant and ignorant.</p>
<p>Its easy to criticize someone else for being intolerant, but, like many other things, tolerance, it seems, begins at home.</p>
<p>I hope I have not criticized anyone else’s faith or lack of faith in this discussion. If I did, I really wish I hadn’t.</p>
<p>Then again, maybe when non-fundamentalists “push back” we help the fundamentalist on his journey. I am following my path, same as you. I speak up about wrongs that I see, same as you.</p>
<p>I am a lover of poetry so I adore Rumi.<br>
I like this one:</p>
<p>In generosity and helping others be like a river.
In compassion and grace be like sun.
In concealing others’ faults be like night.
In anger and fury be like dead.
In modesty and humility be like earth.
In tolerance be like a sea.
Either exist as you are or be as you look.</p>
<p>I would love to know your interperetation of the last enigmatic line with your deeper knowledge of the philosophy behind it.</p>
<p>To citygirlsmom:</p>
<p>This is how I interpreted you. Advocating abstinence will not work, because people will do it anyway, and what we should do is inform about safety. There are other activities that may cause hurt, and so we do not stop a particular one of the activities. </p>
<p>And this is my response: informing about safety does not contradict with informing about abstinence, and the two can be done together. There is quite unreasonable to say ‘no’ to abstinence because people aren’t sticking to it; you simply cannot predict how many kids WILL seiously think about it when we inform about abstinence. And for the dear innocent children, I believe people who care about society would give advocating abstinence a try BEFORE they conclude it as useless doing so. So why are you giving up so fast, citygirlsmom? you obvious care about it to share in this thread in the first place. </p>
<p>That was my point, I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your post, but that was definitely the message you sent and still are sending. </p>
<p>Please do not misinterpret my post as a personal attack; I was disappointed at how a person so concerned about society to have such a pessimistic attitude. And how,with that attitude, you seem to advocate “forget about abstinence”, which makes this possible solution seem even more awkward and impossible for those who are trying. </p>
<p>And I agree with you. Society is usually abnormal. But the thought of that should make us want to advocate this possible solution even more.</p>
<p>bneg,</p>
<p>I agree about the dual approach. I have taken this approach with my D. I was 100% full-tilt abstinence when she was a kid and then as she got older I made sure to add that Plan A was abstain but plan B was not to Abandon plan A with no safety net at all.</p>
<p>It is tricky to make sure your kid is informed about the possible Plan Bs while still maintaining the firm support of plan A. This is where we get into trouble. So many people think that if you talk about Plan B (birth control, STD protection, being careful & selective) it dilutes Plan A (abstinence). I think if you talk about Plan B it reinforces your relationship with your now-nearly-grown child and validates that you are handing them the reins to their life and realizing they may make different choices than you would prefer.</p>
<p>Still, tricky.</p>
<p>to citygirlsmom to make things a bit clearer, the best way is to advocate safety and abstinence together. Safety provides a motivation for abstinence.</p>
<p>teenagers just aren’t very scared of anything.</p>
<p>(except pregnancy)</p>
<p>I agree that we should also be discussing about how to actively be involved in making a concious decision whether to be physically intimate and that abstinence should be a choice . However what I have a problem with is when abstinence is assumed to be the primary solution and accurate information is not given about other choices and supports.
I think it is critical to give information about disease transmission, what is involved to carry a pregnancy to term including risks to the fetus from substances and lack of nutrition. We really need a very comprehensive health course taught not only in high schools but as appropriate in middle and elementary schools.
For some people this may be the only place they get information about disease transmission, nutrition, benefits of exercise etc.
I realize that this isn’t the primary focus of public education,but you would be horrified at the old wives tales that are still taken as fact regarding pregnancy and birth</p>
<p>I agree. Some educations systems have been too focused on academics. There is no way to educate a young child to be moral with social studies or to be healthy with PE.</p>
<p>After rereading some of the posts some observation:
Everyone here who is arguing with Fountain Siren must remember you are arguing with a 17 year old, Albeit one who is articulate. You can be a very smart 17 year old and still have no actual understanding of the real world, as opposed to the idealistic one. Very young people can’t necessarily understand or have a real view of the “forest” for the trees they’ve been taught about. Wisdom takes years.
Also, the human race, as animals, were given very powerful hormones, so that we as a race would procreate and survive. Very powerful urges. Because we used to die much younger, these urges are meant to start in the teen age years and ensure the race survives. Good luck if you think some speeches abou “waiting” are going to work. The one religion that told everyone not to have children or sex died out. It is beyond some religious groups to stop the human hormones from doing their job. We have survived and multiplied. If ithe act was meant only to procreate we would go into heat and be chased around by men for short periods of time. We were given to ability to have pleasure. Why ever would we think it was meant only to have babies. It was meant to join the body and spirit and to make a relationship that was be there for more than just making babies in a quick act. We were meant to join together, male and female to raise our young…for a very long time. The act of lovemaking makes it worthwhile and enjoyable to stay together and to have a real joining of body and spirit. Strong urges indeed. The best we can do is teach everyone to have safe sex. I might remind everyone that for centuries people were busy having sex in and out of marriage when you couldn’t even have safe sex. Good luck</p>
<p>Christianity encourages sex in a traditional marriage. "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28)</p>
<p>And what you said to fountainsiren is rather mean. I do not disagree with you simply because I am also 17. Take a look at Bush for a demonstration of the relationship between age and wisdom.</p>
<p>"Christianity encourages sex in a traditional marriage. "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28)</p>
<p>Why wasn’t I invited to the ceremony? Which one of those “traditional” marriages" - Abraham’s, where his wife gave him a concubine as a present? (he marries again after Sarah’s death); Jacob’s four wives? David’s? Solomon’s? Or maybe you are referring to Jesus’ marriage? </p>
<p>Are you suggesting that Christianity frowns down upon sex which isn’t “fruitful”, doesn’t result in timestables, or subduing the earth?</p>