Comments on: Reform or Freedom? http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2055 David Hayward is an artist trapped inside a pastor's body. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:29:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: societyvs http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2055#comment-42151 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:19:15 +0000 http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2055#comment-42151 "Being open has nothing to do with my like or dislikes" (Fishon) Let me ask you something, were you born a Christian or was this a conscious choice you made at some point in life? Now why pick this Christian faith - unless - you liked it (even when you may have disliked it at one point)? Your open-ness towards the faith actually was part of the process of 'becoming a Christian'. Sometimes being 'open' is just as normal as being 'right'. "Oh yea, and ‘open mind’ is a lovely thing to behold" (Fishon) It's true their is problems with being 'too open' - but I would also say there is also a problem with being too 'close minded' on an issue. Some of the people in religious groups who are so sure they are right actually committ actions so anti-religious it makes one wonder how they got there...and it was actually quite easy - they figured it all out. From the klan's popularity in the 1920's to abortion doctor shootings - those people all committed atrocities in the name of God - and they were so 'close minded' to think they were doing 'right'. I don't fear an open mind - what is scary is one that gets too closed. "The problem with your suggestion is that you are suggesting that when the time comes to decide what stays and what goes, that will expose the lack of, what I believe you would characterize, as true freedom, because some things are going to go." (Fishon) Possibly, but they all had 60 days to express themselves as best they saw - true freedom is restricted by the community (and sometimes for good reason). But when I mean freedom - I mean in it in the way 'each of us relate to God' - and I think we have to be open to the idea this is gonna be a lot different from person to person. "The head of the Church did NOT call us to a freedom from limitations or a freedom from does and don’t, but to a freedom from the penalty of sin" (Fishon) Does not sin result in death? If we are free from death - how come we still die? Free from sin - or maybe just the abilities? I would debate the freedom we have been given is about following the intents of the Law and not just the logistics of it - and that's freeing. Thous shalt not murder - says nothing about anger - but Jesus asks us to even deal with that attitude (which is different for each person)...and a good freedom comes from seeing the usefulness of these things. This is also something we should do when we look at teachings like 'God is love' - which says nothing about how we treat one another - but obviously points us in the direction of compassion. I get David's vision but only because when I attend church I know that my views and ideas are different than the majority - and I think that's okay. I am free in the fact that I do not have to be like the majority to follow God - I can be me with God (as much as I am not the accepted norm and all in Christian circles). But I know the church will restrict me for as long as I live and breath - I am not like the norm they expect of a 'great Christian' - and that also sucks. I know I have a gift for leadership of some sort - my personal opinion is this will never be realized again in the church environment - because of theological differences alone. So I take my gifts outside the church - where they are most likely needed anyways - and help out there in my local community. But I would love to speak my peace about what I have learned in my faith with the church - but maybe God has 'cut the strings on that idea'? So how can I truly be free when where I want to be free I am restricted? That's the whole point of this dialogue and I think it worth looking into with some real depth - and not just for some 'routine answers' to the question - there aren't any good ones. “Being open has nothing to do with my like or dislikes” (Fishon)

Let me ask you something, were you born a Christian or was this a conscious choice you made at some point in life? Now why pick this Christian faith - unless - you liked it (even when you may have disliked it at one point)? Your open-ness towards the faith actually was part of the process of ‘becoming a Christian’. Sometimes being ‘open’ is just as normal as being ‘right’.

“Oh yea, and ‘open mind’ is a lovely thing to behold” (Fishon)

It’s true their is problems with being ‘too open’ - but I would also say there is also a problem with being too ‘close minded’ on an issue. Some of the people in religious groups who are so sure they are right actually committ actions so anti-religious it makes one wonder how they got there…and it was actually quite easy - they figured it all out. From the klan’s popularity in the 1920’s to abortion doctor shootings - those people all committed atrocities in the name of God - and they were so ‘close minded’ to think they were doing ‘right’. I don’t fear an open mind - what is scary is one that gets too closed.

“The problem with your suggestion is that you are suggesting that when the time comes to decide what stays and what goes, that will expose the lack of, what I believe you would characterize, as true freedom, because some things are going to go.” (Fishon)

Possibly, but they all had 60 days to express themselves as best they saw - true freedom is restricted by the community (and sometimes for good reason). But when I mean freedom - I mean in it in the way ‘each of us relate to God’ - and I think we have to be open to the idea this is gonna be a lot different from person to person.

“The head of the Church did NOT call us to a freedom from limitations or a freedom from does and don’t, but to a freedom from the penalty of sin” (Fishon)

Does not sin result in death? If we are free from death - how come we still die? Free from sin - or maybe just the abilities?

I would debate the freedom we have been given is about following the intents of the Law and not just the logistics of it - and that’s freeing. Thous shalt not murder - says nothing about anger - but Jesus asks us to even deal with that attitude (which is different for each person)…and a good freedom comes from seeing the usefulness of these things. This is also something we should do when we look at teachings like ‘God is love’ - which says nothing about how we treat one another - but obviously points us in the direction of compassion.

I get David’s vision but only because when I attend church I know that my views and ideas are different than the majority - and I think that’s okay. I am free in the fact that I do not have to be like the majority to follow God - I can be me with God (as much as I am not the accepted norm and all in Christian circles).

But I know the church will restrict me for as long as I live and breath - I am not like the norm they expect of a ‘great Christian’ - and that also sucks. I know I have a gift for leadership of some sort - my personal opinion is this will never be realized again in the church environment - because of theological differences alone. So I take my gifts outside the church - where they are most likely needed anyways - and help out there in my local community. But I would love to speak my peace about what I have learned in my faith with the church - but maybe God has ‘cut the strings on that idea’?

So how can I truly be free when where I want to be free I am restricted? That’s the whole point of this dialogue and I think it worth looking into with some real depth - and not just for some ‘routine answers’ to the question - there aren’t any good ones.

]]> by: fishon http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2055#comment-42051 Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:38:48 +0000 http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2055#comment-42051 David, Oh, you haven't upset me. But you do drive me crazy, sometimes. Big difference. As for the rest of what you said, well you talk a good talk, but you don't take responciblity for what you say when you duck my and others questions. What you said in the above statement is just going in circles. You seem to have a big dream, but you don't say how to get there. You keep saying "Freedom, freedom, freedom," but you won't define it, and you won't answer, maybe can't answer, a simple real problem. You made the statement: "True freedom, I would suggest, would not abuse another person or their property, or other people or the environment." Theory is one thing, taking care of and solving a problem is another. You constantly throw out theory, but don't give solutions. fishon David,
Oh, you haven’t upset me. But you do drive me crazy, sometimes. Big difference. As for the rest of what you said, well you talk a good talk, but you don’t take responciblity for what you say when you duck my and others questions. What you said in the above statement is just going in circles.

You seem to have a big dream, but you don’t say how to get there. You keep saying “Freedom, freedom, freedom,” but you won’t define it, and you won’t answer, maybe can’t answer, a simple real problem.

You made the statement: “True freedom, I would suggest, would not abuse another person or their property, or other people or the environment.” Theory is one thing, taking care of and solving a problem is another. You constantly throw out theory, but don’t give solutions.
fishon

]]> by: nakedpastor http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2055#comment-42033 Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:16:11 +0000 http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2055#comment-42033 fishon: i'm sorry to upset you. but i'm convinced that if we set people free first, or rather allow them the freedom that is theirs, or rather acknowledge their freedom, that is enough for now. THEN maybe we can deal with the consequences. about the defacing of nature... it is obvious when someone uses their freedom to abuse or enslave others, then there isn't really freedom. they are bound by greed or whatever. and we are free to protest. fishon:
i’m sorry to upset you. but i’m convinced that if we set people free first, or rather allow them the freedom that is theirs, or rather acknowledge their freedom, that is enough for now. THEN maybe we can deal with the consequences. about the defacing of nature… it is obvious when someone uses their freedom to abuse or enslave others, then there isn’t really freedom. they are bound by greed or whatever. and we are free to protest.

]]> by: fishon http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2055#comment-42018 Sat, 31 May 2008 19:54:27 +0000 http://nakedpastor.com/archives/2055#comment-42018 David, YOU: "True freedom, I would suggest, would not abuse another person or their property, or other people or the environment." -----David, you make so many idealistic, wonderful statements, and wrap them around the word "freedom." Then you leave the rest of us to battle/debate them, and all the while you give no solutions to legitamate questions that your statements and questions posse. That drives me wild. -----Here is a question that involves part of your statement I quoted above. Where I live, Power Companies have put up about 500 huge wind mill tower in the upper end of the Columbia River gorge. They were put up under the guise of helping the overall enviormental situation. Now a power company wants to put them up in a place that will take away from the view of hundreds of people from a pristine view of Mt. Hood. Those people say that the towers will ruin the enviorment, which includes a view of Hood. Much like the fact, we wouldn't put up wind towers on Mt. Rushmore, or place them around Old Faithful because of the visual, enviormental impact. So, David, in "True freedom" of "...not abuse[ing] another person or their property, or other people or the environment," what might your solution be? Some one has to make a decision, and in your senario of "true freedom," someones freedom is going to be taken away. That is, unless you do have the answer to the battle that rages over the towers. The battle is real, it is not a hypothetical. fishon David,
YOU: “True freedom, I would suggest, would not abuse another person or their property, or other people or the environment.”
—–David, you make so many idealistic, wonderful statements, and wrap them around the word “freedom.” Then you leave the rest of us to battle/debate them, and all the while you give no solutions to legitamate questions that your statements and questions posse. That drives me wild.
—–Here is a question that involves part of your statement I quoted above. Where I live, Power Companies have put up about 500 huge wind mill tower in the upper end of the Columbia River gorge. They were put up under the guise of helping the overall enviormental situation. Now a power company wants to put them up in a place that will take away from the view of hundreds of people from a pristine view of Mt. Hood. Those people say that the towers will ruin the enviorment, which includes a view of Hood. Much like the fact, we wouldn’t put up wind towers on Mt. Rushmore, or place them around Old Faithful because of the visual, enviormental impact.

So, David, in “True freedom” of “…not abuse[ing] another person or their property, or other people or the environment,” what might your solution be? Some one has to make a decision, and in your senario of “true freedom,” someones freedom is going to be taken away. That is, unless you do have the answer to the battle that rages over the towers. The battle is real, it is not a hypothetical.
fishon

]]>