|
| |
|
Friday, April 04, 2003 |
|
|
This morning, I continue my trek into the "Commuity Starter Kit", which apparently takes some configuration tricks to get it working in a deployed site.
10:47:53 AM 
|
|
|
"Exit polls of those leaving the church have found that the major reasons that bring about this decrease in numbers is not because of theological or belief issues. Rather it is about how people are being asked to belong to and participate in the community that is the deciding factor for them. So much of what we DO in church is so foreign to such a large part of our society. How many of our non churched friends would regularly gather with a group of people to sing for 30 minutes and listen to someone give a 20minute (plus) monologue?!? Many of us who have been brought up in this environment have come to love singing and listening, but not too many of the young people I work with in the warehouse at wishlist would get off on it! "
Another reason to be a bit more intentional about seeking out multiple points of dialogue. The Church service format, in its typical form (described above) is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and alternate points of engagement are taking place, almost despite ourselves. People will find engaging modes of dialogue, and these will become the major paradigm for theological and spirtual engagement, not the "Church service" model. The exchange of a wide range of ideas, concerns, and issues is taking place much more rapidly, easily, and freely, in the online world than in the traditional "Church Worship Service". If this is so, what does this say about "Worship"? If it is not engaging the theological imagination, and "alternative" means such as Online Theological Community are becoming much more successful in engaging the seeker, then the "Worship Service" as it exists should decrease, so that true worship might increase.
10:44:48 AM
|
|
"But the Geneva Conventions demand protection for civilians even if they are intermingled with military personnel, and the use of cluster bombs in these villages, even if aimed at military targets, thus crosses the boundaries of international law. "
Things we don't here, but have to know are happening (or do we?) When I hear people say "That's war", my blood boils. If those areas were THEIR home, they'd have a different perspective. It is unpatriotic to place grief for these people over some theoretical plan that supposedly justifies all this. "Saddam is to blame for all this", and so we justify certain murder (or , excuse me, Collateral Damage) of all of "his victims" by "doing the job" of dropping the bomb. It's his fault, you see. Try justifying a policeman shooting and killing both the hostage and the hostage taker with several sprays of bullets, in order to "get the job done in the most cost effective, quickest way possible, before the hostage taker kills others. I don't think that would fly as a unilateral , quick strike. Something more surgical and something that holds the life of the innocent hostage in higher regard; as if they were "our own family". Do unter others as you would have them do unto you. Is the US following this teaching? Oh, I forgot; we can't. That's war.
9:54:14 AM
|
|
|
this one via The Gutless Pacifist listed under his LeftBar Articles List
Good stuff.
How hard is it to "imagine" how opposed the overwhelming majority of people in this country would be to war if it were required to be fought on OUR soil, and kill OUR CIVILIANS, and wreck OUR "way of life" for the sake of some imagined retributive justice. Who really thinks that any of this will "teach them Arabs that we won't stand for it". Yeah, I'm sure that's what they're thinking.
Berry offers this, among other things: Recent American wars, having been both “foreign” and “limited,” have been fought under the assumption that little or no personal sacrifice is required. In “foreign” wars, we do not directly experience the damage that we inflict upon the enemy.
Along the same theme: Here is the other question that I have been leading toward, one that the predicament of modern warfare forces upon us: How many deaths of other people’s children by bombing or starvation are we willing to accept in order that we may be free, affluent, and (supposedly) at peace? To that question I answer: None. Please, no children. Don’t kill any children for my benefit.
Amen, Wendell
9:36:23 AM
|
|
| |
