just to add my 2 cents to the dialogue.... I don't know how it came about that folk understood that Ritchie and I were mortal enemies.... I didn't tink we were - in fact I've stated to him and in public - I like the guy... and I say what I mean and mean what I say
I don't give a rat's arse if he's a capitalist - he engages me civilly and provokes my thoughts, he responds to everything I say nearly and he doesn't get personal - not once.... and I like his remarks about my so-called left leanings - they're quite clever.... you can tell the guy is educated and I enjoy his bent on words and meanings.
Imagine that. Somebody else who recognizes ( at least occasionally
) that words have meaning-- even when I dispute the meaning of lot's of words he chooses.
here's a recent slice of conversation I had with Robert:
I suppose these are really rhetorical questions, not the kind where the "?" has any real semiotic value.
Sounds more like the desperate attempt of some Grand Power Master Chairman Kommisar Wannabee to ward off the imaginary takeover of the imaginary horde of extreme right wing heteronorms.
But, since you asked so nicely....
Robert, why the rattle, rant,and rave doctrine? If you really need to rant and rave, at least get the things you're ranting about right and try to rave with at least some slim connection to some form of reasoning and at least a hint now and then of some kind of internal logic.
This is pathetically sloppy and incoherent thinking..
Quote
if so - then all of humanity can become Gods? can't they?! - otherwise you are faced with the fact that somehow Jesus was special - inferring not quite human, again making the Trinity doctine a mistake! even a heresy itself!!
Sorry, but no. Pick any verse or verses you like, believe anything you want about them. .
Either way, there is nothing in the scripture and nothing in your post that makes any "if so," or "otherwise..." and no "making the Trinity..." anything.
The scripture does not say you will become God,. You won't become God, and you won't have proved anything about anything whether you do or you don't become God, the demiurge, a butcher, baker, or a candlestick maker.
Did you get this stuff from one of your theology courses? Sue 'em and get your money back. I'll testify for you. You was robbed, comrade.
Oh, the horrors of it. Get the children to safety. More terrible eye poking and personal attacks from the Worlds Worst Possible People delegate to the UCC forums.
What a bunch of bloody gallahs. About to call for the divvy van because they can't tell the difference between argy bargy and havin' a blue.
Here's the guy who supposedly just got his eye poked, evidently back from hospital.
again Ritchie’s ok - just a righteous capitalist 'cause it's probably been good for him.... I am a leftie but I know decent bosses and such, and I imagine him to be of that ilk.... and he's definitely not homophobic - least ways that's how he comes across.... maybe a little conditioned to heterosexual normality - 'cause blokes like him don't think much upon such things - give 'em a spanner and they're fine, but ask about issues of social inequality and such - they scratch their head, 'cause generally they've never been guilty of it - they treat all the same - decently.... but don't understand or just can't get it - that sometimes discrimination is systematic and institutional and sometimes societal
nope I could have a beer with ol’ Richie – no worries….
Yikes. You've just destroyed some major social constructs and paradigms here in the forums.
We're supposed to be mortal foes, locked in combat.
We can't have a beer together. What will the neighbors think?
All other issues aside, Robert, you and I are amongst the very few here who couldn't care less whether what he have to say is popular or not, and don't have a problem with someone disagreeing- as long as they are up front and straight about it.
And they don't seem to grasp the nature of argy-bargy.
Like I said above, nobody has to wonder what you think about anything. No need to wonder about what I think either.
You'r gonna have to translate "spanner" before I can fully figure out what you mean above.
Of course I'm a little conditioned to heterosexual normality. Did id ever occur to you that you might be "a little conditioned" by homosexual normality? How do you figure I got to be the way you perceive me to be without my thinking about it much? I drive most of my friends crazy because they say I think too much about anything and anything. Worse than that, I want to talk about what I think, and find out what you think. Especially at meals. They don't understand that the purpose of a snack is eating food, the purpose of a meal is talking. That's why there is more food- because you'll be talking a lot, so you have to keep your energy up.
Now, Robert, since you asked so kindly, hold on to your Grand Master Power Kommisar constructs and paradigms of hetero-normativity and churches and the clergy, and I'll tell you what I thought- as part of my process of considering the call to ministry.
Early on, I happened to have just joined the Episcopal Church- which had just had the first ordination of women. No big deal to me- the Reformed Church I came from had been doing it for over a century. For the local Episcopalians- major earthquake. I was astonished- congregations were splitting, and a large number in the state left the denomination. This first group of women published a book describing how they had come to recognize, understand and respond to what they understood as a call to the priesthood. I read it and found them describing my own experience-- understand this now--- --I am speaking specifically to what they wrote - and they each wrote in that book a section that specifically told about their understanding of God and their experience of the call-- not the response of others, not the institutionalized sexism they were confronted with. Just their personal understanding of God , and the call they believed they received.
There was no difference between their experience and mine. It struck me-- epiphany type of struck me-- If I had any comprehension of God, so did they. If they were wrong, I was wrong. If God was nothing like their experience God, then God was nothing like my experience of God. If they had no call, neither did I.
Now slow down-- make sure you get this. Again, there wasn't anything at all odd, let alone nothing startling to me about women as priests/ministers. The church I grew up in was Women-as-minister-normative.
The epiphonal impact on me was personal and in connection to my early grappling with the call--and finding someone else clearly describing to me their experience of their call, which helped me in understanding- and reassuring me in my own. I had found some other people to relate to with whom I had a shared call-to ministry-normative. This was early in the process for me- I'd only just joined a congregation after some years of estrangement from church land. There was more to come with the epiphany- but much later. I had no idea at the time what was to come down the road. ( which is why God invented time. If everything happened much quicker, we'd never figure anything out and probably go crazy)
I did attempt to think about it outside of the personal impact, and relate it to others in regard to the issue in the Episcopal church at the time. I had little to no luck trying to explain that to the people who were horrified because if they didn't stop this, God would surely rain down calamity on their house, the crops would fail, their women would be barren, and we would enter another Dark Age.
Feelings? Thinking? I did not experience a "thought" about ministry. I experienced A CALL. The call to ministry is visceral. It is all encompassing.
But so was the reaction of those I just described. Their horror was a feeling, and it too was visceral. My attempts to explain it were useless. They couldn't think about it, they didn't know how to think about it.
Now zoom ahead- years later-- to hetero-normative me, joining the UCC-- and the issue is gays in the church , and gays in ministry.
This is not hetero-normative. I have no history, no experience, and no place to draw from to make sense of it all. Thought's...? sure.
Feelings..? Plenty. Of course they are all hetero-normative thoughts,and hetero-normative feelings, but I had never heard of the word at the time, so no help there.
This is why God invented epiphanies.
When I thought some more, I did have an experience to draw on- and an experience of sorting out the conflicts of thinking and feeling, and specifically in relation to issues of faith. And an understanding of how impossible it seemed to explain it to someone who had a visceral reaction and didn't know how to think about it-- only this time the person who didn't know how to think beyond the feelings was me.
I came upon a book- again--actually, a web site discussing a book by a gay person and his experience of his call to ministry, and a comment section including other gay folks and their stories of their call.
The way I "felt" about gay people was not the same way I "felt" about women.
But the way the way I thought-and felt- about their stories of their call, when I read it, was the same way I thought, felt, and experienced viscerally before:
If I had any comprehension of God, so did they. If they were wrong in their comprehension of God, I was wrong. If God was nothing like their experience God, then God was nothing like my experience of God. If they had no call, neither did I.
There was no difference between their experience and mine.
So, the heck with the neighbors. Let 'em say whatever they want.
I'll have a liquid gold with anybody I want to.
This is why God invented the internet. And beer, of course
I'll consult my social calendar and the bloody time difference charts , and get back to you.
How many different time zones in Australia, and which one are you in?
