Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: compromise on ID ... or not



Yeah, I lived for a year (1965/66) a coupala blocks from the Berkeley
fellowship. They are so skewed they won't have a minister, tho I'm
certain they can afford one.

bc, more skewed than thou.

Rick Tarara wrote:

I think John was referring to those who look at their church as a fellowship
rather than an institution. That applies to many small christian sects.
Identifying themselves that way doesn't prevent having some very dogmatic
doctrines. Likewise, in my experience (with my wife a member), Unitarian
fellowships can be pretty wildly skewed towards the liberal end of the
spectrum and show the same kinds of intolerance towards those who disagree
as do some of the conservative churches. Like minds will congregate and
then reinforce each other in thought, word and deed.

Rick


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Cleyet" <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: compromise on ID ... or not



Congregationalists?
rather reformed / liberal / humanist Jews?

bc

John M Clement wrote:


Of course. Everyone knows that Unitarians take this point of view,
but that there are other congregations that do the same is not as well
known.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



You mean in addition to UUs? I pray.

bc, nominally a Unitarian

P.s. The Unitarian church is a building; the people are members of
a
Society.

John Clement wrote:



I have two colleagues who are very religious. One is a Christian the
other a Muslim. One believes that Genesis is literally correct; and,
he
expends a great deal of effort trying to show that the laws of
physics
can be made compatible with that view. On the other hand, he
considers
some other parts of the Bible as being not literally true, including
some the parts that have to do with how one should behave.



Well, all Christian denominations do this to one degree or another.
The
mainline churches generally consider the parts of the Bible from
Genesis to
the flood to be allegorical. And the book of Ruth is now considered
to be a
moralistic story, but not actual history. Then of course all parts
which
have to do with kosher law are always excluded as being
inapplicable. Why,
one wonders, can some consider Genesis to be literal, and still eat
pork,
shrimp... Now when I see someone trying to expend that sort of
effort, I

cut
ou will not know when that is). It is probable that some


of Bush's actions are guided by this and that he considers himself
to be an
agent of the coming apocalypse. BTW there are some Christian
churches (not
Unitarian) which view virtually all of the Bible as allegorical with
an
important moral message.




If I were going to bet on which one of my colleagues were going to
make
it into heaven, if heaven exists, I would choose the second one in a
heartbeat!


As would many Christians, Jews, Hindus ...




Mark