tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post5219708487478902263..comments2023-10-24T05:49:04.269-04:00Comments on The Chaliceblog: What if evangelicals started saying they were "Standing on the Side of God"?Chalicechickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-5548224292852562992013-09-23T00:46:45.489-04:002013-09-23T00:46:45.489-04:00emotional, and spiritual lows. Why?
In Baptist t...emotional, and spiritual lows. Why?<br /><br />In Baptist theology, your Justification and your Sanctification---your essence as a follower of Christ...if you boil it all down...is really dependent on you and your feelings. <br /><br />Do I feel saved? Do I feel I really repented in my born again experience? Do I feel that I truly had faith when I made a decision for Christ; when I prayed a version of the Sinner's Prayer? If I am really saved, why do I feel at times that my faith is so weak? Maybe I need to do the born again experience again; maybe I need to pray the Sinner's Prayer again, just to be 100% sure that I am saved. I want to know without any doubt that I am saved, and if I do not feel saved, I begin to doubt my salvation.<br /><br />Baptist/evangelical theology tells me that I will always feel Christ's presence and strength inside me, if I am a true believer. But what if I don't feel him there sometimes? If it is true that I should always be able to hear God speak to me, in an inner voice or feel his inner presence move me/lead me to do his will, what is going on when I don't hear anything or feel anything? Have I committed some unknown sin and he is refusing to hear me? Or is the reason that I don't hear or feel him present within me... is because I'm not really saved!<br /><br />I was so incredibly happy to find Lutheranism and find out that my feelings have nothing to do with my Justification, my salvation, nor with my Sanctification, my walk with my Savior and Lord! My salvation was accomplished 100% by God. <br /><br />http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/09/tired-of-baptistevangelical-roller.html<br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-36158213204568943772009-09-20T09:44:37.311-04:002009-09-20T09:44:37.311-04:00I got a lot out of Michael Warner's The Troubl...I got a lot out of Michael Warner's <i>The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life</i>, which left me agreeing with Bill that marriage should be decoupled from the state, <i>a la</i> France. (Or is that ooh la la?) The slogan has bothered me a great deal. My reaction, sometimes, is that I myself am standing on the side of sex. I express it a bit more earthily, when I'm sure of my audience.John A Arkansawyerhttp://www.arkansawyer.com/wordpress/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-82090916636025020382009-09-17T16:32:26.027-04:002009-09-17T16:32:26.027-04:00Licensing and recording by the government are both...<em>Licensing</em> and <em>recording</em> by the government are both late 19th century things, and still unknown for many recent immigrants to America.<br /><br />An amazing number of people don't have a <em>certificate</em> or birth and can't quite tell you how old they are.<br /><br /><em>Licensing</em> which is a privilege granted by the County and State was not widespread for a very long time in the US. As were marriage ceremonies by Licensed clergy. The whole notion of Licensing is a pretty modern notion.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-48377802141419529592009-09-17T16:27:56.209-04:002009-09-17T16:27:56.209-04:00What individual entitlements do you believe come w...<em>What individual entitlements do you believe come with marriage? </em><br /><br />Entitlement to Social Security Widow / Widower benefit.<br /><br />Entitlement to a spouses benefit on my pension, even if we divorce.<br /><br />Entitlement to Health Insurance on my Policy.<br /><br />You can't die intestate by the way in Illinois anymore. Every Illinoisian has a will whether they know it or not. The State gives you one if you did not beat Illinois to it.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-69445088750262912282009-09-17T16:26:08.524-04:002009-09-17T16:26:08.524-04:00PG, licensing and recording/ registering are disti...PG, licensing and recording/ registering are distinct functions: the former authorizes a future marriage; the latter gathers data regarding the marriage that has come into being. I don't have a clue about the history of it, but licensing could have been instituted at a completely different time than recording/ registering.Paul Oakleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17426789386840488470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-48255427919020713542009-09-17T16:23:18.132-04:002009-09-17T16:23:18.132-04:00The government always has registered some people a...<em>The government always has registered some people as married and some as not.</em><br /><br />Nope<br /><br />My Minister did a whole sermon on it. Get yourself a book on the history of marriage.<br /><br />When I started working for Social Security back in the 70s we had a guy who was an expert on custom and common law marriages because we would still see people legally married who never had a license but were married under common law, or by custom. <br /><br />It was only in the 1920s that things really became standardized.<br /><br />Wikipedia has a decent entry on the history of Marriage Licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence<br /><br />Birth Certificates also a fairly recent thing i.e. recent meaing past 100, 150 years or so. Most people could not tell you exactly how old they were...Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-54800129994712278342009-09-17T15:46:13.030-04:002009-09-17T15:46:13.030-04:00Marriage Licensing came to be after the Civil War....<i>Marriage Licensing came to be after the Civil War. I always thought it part to enforce miscegenation laws but I'm not a historian on it either.</i><br /><br />Eh, what? The government always has registered some people as married and some as not. How do you think prohibitions on bigamy were enforced? If it was all just based on what the church marrying the people thought of it, then a Catholic who obtained a legal divorce would have been unable to remarry, because the state would have been constrained by his Church's opinion that he wasn't really divorced at all. <br /><br />Also, why do you think there was marriage licensing in states that never prohibited miscegenation? I had to go to the Marriage Bureau to get a license for my interracial marriage, even though I live in a state that's never banned such marriage at all.<br /><br /><i>Any entitlements linked to marriage should be uncoupled and linked directly to individuals. </i><br /><br />What <i>individual</i> entitlements do you believe come with marriage? The obligations and rights of marriage, as one might expect, are in relation to another person. The ability to file jointly -- with another person. The designation of a related party with whom certain transactions will be "looked through" -- with another person. The default when you die intestate (without a will) of to whom your property passes -- to another person.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-55676584333783418392009-09-17T14:06:13.464-04:002009-09-17T14:06:13.464-04:00@Together Beth: Former UUA President Bill Sinkford...@Together Beth: Former UUA President Bill Sinkford just spoke yesterday or the day before at the national press conference announcing the "Respect for Marriage" act introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Jerry Nadler from New York.<br /><br />Sinkford used the slogan at least twice, and the official SotSoL website has been pimping the video for the last 24 hours or so. (It was a pretty good speech, actually.)Jesshttp://jesspages.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-51796373034709434872009-09-17T10:35:18.809-04:002009-09-17T10:35:18.809-04:00@Paul, I always just assumed that the rule that o...@Paul, <em>I always just assumed that the rule that one marry in the county that issued the license for the marriage to be valid was the law everywhere in the US rather than an oddity.</em><br /><br />It may be. I've only looked at Illinois law. The Counties will vary too. I can't recall the differences now, but you can find them on the web.<br /><br />I know there is a rule against marrying cousins under age 50. Over 50 is OK.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-38424225091326468792009-09-17T10:31:20.652-04:002009-09-17T10:31:20.652-04:00Marriage Licensing came to be after the Civil War....Marriage Licensing came to be after the Civil War. I always thought it part to enforce miscegenation laws but I'm not a historian on it either.<br /><br />I've joined the Ron Paulites on this one and think Government best to get out of the Marriage Licensing business all together.<br /><br />Any entitlements linked to <em>marriage</em> should be uncoupled and linked directly to individuals. <br /><br />We're heading towards a culture of radical, autonomous, individuality so we best retrofit our institutions to accommodate it.<br /><br />That's why UUisms <em>Marriage Equality</em> frame so archaic.<br /><br />The Marriage era of State Licensed unions followed by a Solemnizing Ceremony are coming to an end.<br /><br />It's weird professed <em>Progressives</em> are at the tail end of history here.<br /><br />Evangelicals can see this reality far more clearly and have all sorts of groups set up for the divorced, and single parent... we ramble on with appalling statements about our divorce rate is lower.. great.. who wants to go to a Church preaching that sort of smugness when ones own family can be fair from that Donna Reed family picture.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-9190230466889596152009-09-16T20:48:15.206-04:002009-09-16T20:48:15.206-04:00It is really hard to please UUs ... is all I can s...It is really hard to please UUs ... is all I can say.hsofianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-5240807059498577262009-09-16T10:55:30.429-04:002009-09-16T10:55:30.429-04:00Bill, being from IL as I am, I always just assumed...Bill, being from IL as I am, I always just assumed that the rule that one marry in the county that issued the license for the marriage to be valid was the law everywhere in the US rather than an oddity. (Never safe to universalize from one's own experience, though, I guess.)<br /><br />My earliest memories of talk about weddings include people warning each other to make sure they got the license at the right courthouse. That was 41 years ago when I was 8 and my youngest uncle was getting married. I was too young to remember the surrounding talk at the earlier weddings for my older cousins.<br /><br />The ceremony thing I also encountered in New Jersey, when my oldest daughter was married in a civil ceremony by the vice mayor of the township where we lived. It was short and sweet, but a definite ceremony. <br /><br />I understand the same-county rule because no county reasonably has jurisdiction to authorize or record anything taking place elsewhere. But the ceremony requirement seems a mere relic from a former time, since it is the recording of a legal document that serves as the verification of the marriage's official existence.<br /><br />But then, "ceremony" can mean anything. Unless defined otherwise by law, the ceremony could just be the gathering of official, marrying couple, and legal witnesses in one space and signing the document.<br /><br />What is a bigger illogical relic, though, is the authorization of clergy to perform a state function. Now THAT is problematic. <br /><br />IMESHO, the official wedding should be state only. People are always free to have any religious ceremony their religious institutions allow or that they do on their own, without there being any need that the minister serve as if a government official.Paul Oakleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17426789386840488470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-31843925045358730742009-09-16T08:59:42.693-04:002009-09-16T08:59:42.693-04:00Wow...we're off on a tangent, but @PG re:
Tha...Wow...we're off on a tangent, but @PG re:<br /><br /><em>Thankfully, in America we don't require people to get married religiously in order to be recognized as married.</em><br /><br />Illinois requires a marriage cermony --of no partricular type-- by an official licensed to perform one. <br /><br />One odd twist is the cermony has to be performed in the county the license is issued in. <br /><br />If your licsenced to marry in Cook County, you need to marry in Cook County, or else Illinois will not consider you married.<br /><br />Talk to Illinois Clergy and you'll hear stories about this rule.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-29815372685636356512009-09-15T21:58:27.260-04:002009-09-15T21:58:27.260-04:00Oh, and let's not forget the sermon series on ...Oh, and let's not forget the sermon series on the seven principles. <br /><br />I vote that YRUU do the time for all ages for one of those sermons. Non-Creedah the Cheetah MUST make an appearance this year. <br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br />CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-77682964547146216392009-09-15T21:49:25.241-04:002009-09-15T21:49:25.241-04:00I would be interested to know if this campaign is ...I would be interested to know if this campaign is getting beyond UU-land at all. Like many things UU, it seems to be internal. If we're going to grow as Morales would like, then we should probably look at what evangelicals are doing well. <br /><br />CC, our minister is making this campaign an "emphasis" this year. Should be interesting...TogetherBethnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-7627309946735650182009-09-15T19:56:51.414-04:002009-09-15T19:56:51.414-04:00It's about making a family, and working togeth...<i>It's about making a family, and working together with them to make a nest for that family to live life in. It's only in this sense that I can see it has real and broad value. And it is only in this sense that the public has an interest in making it an institution.</i><br /><br />What do you consider "making a family"?PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-43251071942540666712009-09-15T18:21:49.333-04:002009-09-15T18:21:49.333-04:00Is a migrant worker not genuinely married if he sp...<i>Is a migrant worker not genuinely married if he spends 9/10 of the year out of his home country and away from his family so he can earn a living to support them?</i><br /><br />Yes, he most certainly is - in a quite tragic way.. But yes, mutual support is nesting, especially at the subsistence level - it's sharing responsibility for the nest where, ideally, you share space and grow your family. The migrant worker is unfortunate because he has to also provide a "side" nest for himself where he doesn't get to see the family he is helping to nest, at least for much of the year. <br /><br />I've always objected to the notion that marriage is some sort of "love" contract. I think you should treat your family with love, and should be able to expect love from them. But the first time I tried marriage, I thought it was some kind of pledge that the teenage romance would go on in perpetuity. Didn't quite work out that way - my expectations were all wrong. It's about making a family, and working together with them to make a nest for that family to live life in. It's only in this sense that I can see it has real and broad value. And it is only in this sense that the public has an interest in making it an institution.smijerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565212411446092552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-76156552583423003882009-09-15T18:10:23.124-04:002009-09-15T18:10:23.124-04:00smijer,
I'm not sure what you mean by nesting...smijer,<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by nesting. Is a migrant worker not genuinely married if he spends 9/10 of the year out of his home country and away from his family so he can earn a living to support them?<br /><br />I'm uncomfortable mandating any more for marriage than the law generally requires. The law (with variations among states) requires mutual financial responsibility, sex, sexual fidelity (adultery remains a crime in many jurisdictions and <a href="http://www.blogdenovo.org/archives/000531.html" rel="nofollow">has been prosecuted</a>), etc. <br /><br />I don't think the law has any business inquiring into either romantic love or "nesting," and marriage is a legal status. If we're talking about religious marriage, that's a whole other matter and frankly I don't think gay rights activists (among which I'd count myself as at least an ally) should go into it. If churches don't want to perform certain marriages -- if, say, the Orthodox Jews wouldn't want to marry me to one of their own even if I converted -- then that's very strictly the business of the congregation and of no one else. Thankfully, in America <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02jewishness-t.html" rel="nofollow">we don't require people to get married religiously</a> in order to be recognized as married.<br /><br /><i>((((No, trust me - they will use the Bible)))<br /><br />Good, because the "church history" argument is a little too "because we said so" for my taste.</i><br /><br />Meet textualism versus originalism...PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-71956095412197187722009-09-15T16:14:40.608-04:002009-09-15T16:14:40.608-04:00My examples of extramarital sex that the bible doe...<i>My examples of extramarital sex that the bible does not perceive as sinful are don't apply, not because the bible doesn't have them, but because Exodus, for example, is a "non-Christian" book of the bible*.</i><br /><br />True enough, 1) it's a Jewish book, and Jewish exegetes are often better at figuring it out than Christian ones... But it is a *part* of the Christian Bible... and a part of "the Law" that the Paul's epistles indicate Christians (especially non-Jewish ones) no longer live under. 2) you are oversimplifying the import of the passages. For instance, Zechariah 14:1-2 does not advocate, justify, or legitimize rape - it simply defines for the Israelites how they will be treated by those sent against them by the Lord. 3) These are "among" things that the Bible says, but they aren't the definitive stance of "the Bible" (assuming it has a unified and coherent stance).<br /><br /><i>The Evangelicals will defend their biblically-based objection to homosexuality by using church history as the basis for their position rather than the bible. (2:16pm post)</i><br /><br />No, trust me - they will use the Bible. Catholics will also discuss the Tradition of the Church. Protestants generally will *employ* church history in forming their exegesis, but they will be *appealing to* scripture. Especially Paul, whose writings are normative for most protestants in a way that Exodus is generally not. <br /><br />I'm not trying to harsh your buzz. I like you - & this is a tricky subject. I'm just a Bible enthusiast, and sensitive to efforts to take a post-modern approach to the Bible in attempt to communicate with Christians who treat it as sacred..<br /><br />I hate blogger for not allowing blockquote.smijerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565212411446092552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-83729848063084108632009-09-15T16:12:14.141-04:002009-09-15T16:12:14.141-04:00If anyone wants to look at what the UUA is using t...If anyone wants to look at what the UUA is using the slogan for currently, that's pretty easily answered by going to <a href="http://www.standingonthesideoflove.org/" rel="nofollow">Standing on the Side of Love's Website.</a>Chalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-77825456965929288032009-09-15T16:00:45.513-04:002009-09-15T16:00:45.513-04:00This reminds me of what the character Rimmer said ...This reminds me of what the character Rimmer said in Red Dwarf- "my family is Seventh day Hopists. You see, their version of the Bible had a typo; it said,'...Faith, Hop, and Charity, and the greatest of these is Hop"- so every Sunday was spent hopping. If soup was served at lunch, you had to wear a s'wester."<br /><br />My own family stopped quoting the Old Testament when I pointed out 28 passages that said there is one God, indivisable, denying the possibility of a Trinity. They've discovered it's really difficult to oppose gay marriage or witchcraft using only the New Testament.Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-37092459397461383442009-09-15T15:53:44.593-04:002009-09-15T15:53:44.593-04:00I'll come back to the details tonight, but I t...I'll come back to the details tonight, but I think SSM is one issue I would never engage anyone on without a lot of preparation.<br /><br />It's amazing to watch people talk completely past each other on it.<br /><br />I didn't see UU's Standing on the Love message as closely linked to UU stands on SSM as CC has here. <br /><br />I think engaging Evangelicals and other Christians --especially Catholics who really give the brain power to Evangelical thought I think-- on our slogan and the theology behind it would be interesting.<br /><br />Just getting into the habit of linking some Evangelical sites when UU bloggers reference Evangelical thoughts would be useful engagement.<br /><br />I've toyed with doing a post on Inerrancy using the Chicago Statement on just what's meant by Biblical Inerrancy useful.<br /><br />When you live in Northern Industrial cities, the Evangelical presence is a lot different. It's important for UU's who are often in reaction to another faith, to understand there are many different kinds of Christianity we can be in reaction too.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-69905660809399723772009-09-15T15:50:55.279-04:002009-09-15T15:50:55.279-04:00OK, you got me. My last comment was about the orig...OK, you got me. My last comment was about the original rhetorical device, not the underlying point. I think the comments have taken a life of their own. <br /><br />To the point, should the campaign slogan be applied to majority-UU-approved political ideas, I guess that would depend on if the political idea supports inclusion/rejects exclusion and oppression. So, applying it to support of pro-choice positions would be inappropriate.The Dancin' Hippiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03970560661129709624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-51311144778799516742009-09-15T15:31:31.344-04:002009-09-15T15:31:31.344-04:00Well, the original topic was technically the appli...Well, the original topic was technically the application of the "Standing on the Side of Love" campaign to a growing number of social issues and the evangelical thing was only an illustration.<br /><br />I do see your point, though, that people of other faiths might well simply ignore "Standing on the side of love." In one sense, that might mean it isn't doing any harm. In another, that might mean that we're only talking to ourselves anyway, so we might want to think about a campaign that people outside of UUism might be more likely to feel kinship with.Chalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-92188083056596450382009-09-15T15:20:54.512-04:002009-09-15T15:20:54.512-04:00Why are Evangelicals being lumped into one big gro...Why are Evangelicals being lumped into one big group along with all Christians? Why are all sorts of assumptions about what it means to be a Christian and exactly what Christians believe being made?<br /><br />Back to the original point of the blog post, what would I think if Evangelicals started saying what God believed and drawing line of who is righteous and who isn't? I wouldn't really care. Each of us in on our own path. If this is the truth that an Evangelical has found, who am I to say otherwise. If the Evangelical wants to have an open and respectful discussion, I should be open to that and actually listen to what they have to say, just as he/she should listen to what I say. A free and responsible search for the truth should be limited to members of a UU Congregation.The Dancin' Hippiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03970560661129709624noreply@blogger.com