> Date sent: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 15:31:35 -0600 (CST)
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "Grace J. Duerksen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: some Bible quotes
> Originally to: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Jesus and Paul were either mad or perfectly sane and according to
> > most history not from the Bible they were sane.
> > Some people who hear the voice of God are in mental institutions.
> > Most aren't and a perfectly sane.
> > Paul wasen't sexist it's just that some people who claim to be
> > Christians and Christians who have received incorrect teaching or are
> > confused about what Paul said like to justify mistreatment of women
> > by quoting these verses.
> > There is no excuse for mistreatment or degredation of women nor does
> > the Bible advocat such.
> > What the Bible does say is that men are supposed to be ultimately
> > responsible in families and in general leadership. Unfortunately
> > most men either don't accept or live up to this. Also a lot of men
> > misuse and abuse this position of responsibility.
> > In this case I do not blame women for exerting their rights and
> > demanding equal rights and seeking a higher place in society. Nor is
> > it surprising.
> > The Bible says we are to love our wives as we love ourselves and when
> > prioritising things God comes first then ones wife after that not
> > necessarily in this order children, job, other people and church.
> > Finally self.
> > Paul was never a tax collector.
> > He originally started out as one of the most hard out people in
> > Judaism. He was so passionate about his faith that he did his utmost
> > to eradicate Christians whereever he could find them. The only thing
> > that could stop him was a direct confrontation with Jesus Christ.
> > After this he bacame as passionate about Jesus as he had been about
> > Judaism.
> > The Bible does not advocate homophobia. It does condemn
> > homosexuality but there is no excuse in the Bible for some of the
> > things that so called "Christians" have done to homosexuals.
> > We are commanded to love our enemies. This does not mean tolerate
> > but LOVE. Unfortunately some Christians have a hard time with this,
> > I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.
> > And you should take Christianity seriously because its more than a
> > matter of life and death.
> > I take Religion about as seriously as Politics too. Because I also
> > dislike Religion. It is stifling and boring. Christianity is not a
> > religion it is a relationship. Unfortunately some denominations and
> > other groups have made it one.
> > I don't mean to be hard or to preach because ultimately what you do
> > with the truth of Jesus Christ is your decision:)
> >
> > Cameron Waddel
>
> paul didn't ever meet jesus in person. jesus was killed before they had a
> chance to meet....but moving on, yes, the bible does say to love our
> enemies...but does this apply in the context that you quoted it? i would
> venture to say that homosexuals are not our enemies, but rather the
> christians who ostrasize and condemn them.
>
>
Paul did meet Jesus in person. Acts 9 relates the meeting Paul had
with Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus AFTER Jesus' death.
Homosexuals are the enemies of Christians in that those who are not
for God are against Him, there is no fence-sitting. And in relation
to Jesus statement in one of his prayers in John that those who hate
Him will hate His followers also.
I agree that homosexuals are not our enemies in the context of being
people who are our enemies in life, they may be but that is not
necassarily because they are homosexuals. I could not say that my
enemies are my enemies for a particular collective reason.
Actually the overriding commandment that covers love of homosexuals
is the one to "love our neighbours as ourselves", this would actually
be more appropriate but what I have previously said also still holds.
This commandment is more appropriate because I seriously doubt that
most of the "Christians" who mistreat homosexuals (and other minority
groups e.g. ethnic groups) would like to be treated in the same way.:)
Cameron Waddel
AIT E-MAIL : CHCSN1/CAMEROWA
INTERNET E-MAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
President - AITCU (Auckland Institute of Technology Christian Union)
Known as JAWS (Jesus At Wellesley St)
Affiliated to TSCF (Tertiary Students Christian
Fellowship)
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 5 21:57:51 1996
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:57:49 -0700 (MST)
From: Don Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Can committed environmentalists embrace technology?
Dear EcoFem members,
It gives me great pleasure to forward this announcement of a seminar
with the author, John McClellan, of an eloquent and provocative article
calling for the most ardent environmentalists to embrace technology.
don roper
_____________________________________________________
Announcing a one week virtual seminar, NONDUAL ECOLOGY
by John McClellan
A discussion of the controversial article "Nondual Ecology,"
published in Tricycle, a Buddhist Review, Winter, 1993.
>From Helen Tworkov, Editor, Tricycle
"In Nondual Ecology, John McClellan confronts the sentimentality that
has infused much of the discussion of the environment among both
Buddhists and environmentalists and asks us to accept that reality is
as perfect today as it has ever been."
The seminar starts Monday, November 18, 1996.
with the author, John McClellan, on line.
John McClellan is an author, photographer, and often teaches in the
graduate program of Environmental Leadership at the Naropa Institute in
Boulder, Colorado. The Naropa Institute, founded in the early
'seventies by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, is a center for contemplative
studies with a strong Buddhist orientation.
This article raised a good deal of discussion among Buddhists and deep
ecologists as well as others concerned with our relationship to the
environment we live in. The article was translated into German,
appearing as "Nicht-duale Okologie", in the Lotusblatter. Still a
lively and controversial piece, it continues to be used in Deep
Ecology courses at Naropa Institute, and is the basis for a book
currently under construction by the author.
Copies of the paper are available at
http://csf.colorado.edu/sol
and can also be obtained by sending [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the message
get nondual-ecology mcclellan.96
John McClellan will be joined by
Mark McCaffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Wilding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
who have participated extensively in earlier discussions of the paper
at Naropa.
If you would like to participate or listen to the interesting
discussion of this important article, please send the message
sub nondual-ecology Yourfirstname Yourlastname
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Attached below is information, written by John McClellan,
about the article and the surrounding controversy,
------ About "NonDual Ecology" from John McClellan--------
A storm of critical letters poured in following publication. It is
fair to say the article was greeted with howls of protest. I'm still
not sure why people seem to feel so strongly that one should not
present a view of this kind. They seem to feel a vision of the
ultimate harmony and equilibrium of the background landscape, set in
the profound time frame of evolution, saps one's resolve to struggle
for improvements and justice in the immediate foreground of the world
we live in today. The basis for social action, it would seem, can only
be indignation and displeasure. Well, we'll leave this discussion for
the seminar to come.
At the same time, many people loved the piece, and wrote me warm and
supportive letters, to the effect they were happy to see such a vision
at last in print. Even though this point of view is not politically
acceptable in today's climate of environmental despair, they felt it
is important and good to set the foundation on which our relationship
to nature is constructed. This relationship we build includes the
"natural environment" on this planet, the natural physical and
spiritual world of this universe beyond that, and the true nature of
all Being beyond and within all of this. It is essential that we set
it on a true and reliable foundation.
I am presenting some of the published letters now
http://csf.colorado.edu/sol so that our discussion can get off to a
good start, with many of the issues pro and con already sized up,
seized, stuffed, and set on the table before us. Hopefully we will
not need to rehash all this anew, but will be able to move on from
here into new territory together.
I do not intend to spend my time defending my piece against attack,
but rather trying with all of you to deepen this area of
understanding, and see if we can discover a way to discuss this
delicate and sensitive matter in a way that is acceptable to the
sensitivities of our current age, and useful at the same time. The
purpose is not to arouse controversy and clamor, but to do
something good here, something helpful for ourselves, we sentient
beings of this age who are struggling to understand this confusing
and painful world we live in. Ultimately, we need to find a sort
of "land ethic", and a code of behavior, which will show us how to
live in a good way on this planet as it goes through the incredible
transformations we see happening around us today.
John McClellan
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 6 08:56:57 1996
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 07:56:47 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Lori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ecofeminism
I joined this list about a 45 days ago (mostly a lurker)...in the midst of
the controversial debating going on...(and on)...and it was not exactly what
I thought this list would bring to me...and so I used my delete button quite
a bit....not that I don't feel that good discussion isn't meaningful...it's
just that I see a world out there that is needing our help...our natural
resources being destroyed every second. I feel that our energy could be
directed in a more positive way...
I am inspired by Terry Tempest Williams, from her book, An Unspoken Hunger,
she quotes Marilynne Robinson (Mother Country):
"My greatest hope, which is a very slender one, is that we will at last find
the courage to make ourselves rational and morally autonomous adults, secure
enough in the faith that life is good and to be preserved, to recognize the
grosser forms of evil and name them and confront them. Who will do it for us?"
Terry Tempest Williams responds-
"We must do it for ourselves.
As women wedded to wilderness, we must realize that we do carry the wild
card, that our individual voices matter and our collective voice can shatter
the status quo that for too long has legislated on behalf of power and far
too little on behalf of life. We can flood Congress with our wild cards
(imagine hundreds of thousands of brightly colored cards covering the desks
of our representatives), demanding that women's issues be recognized as
health issues, as environmental issues, as issues centered around a quality
of life that touches all of us, deeply. This is the kind of politics we must
be engaged in--nothing marginal, nothing peripheral, nothing inessential,
not anymore."
Well, this is what ecofeminism embodies for me- anyone out there have any
comments? Thank you for getting through the long posting :-)
-Lori
At 10:42 AM 11/5/96 -0500, you wrote:
>ecofeminism...to refocus the subject...does anyone have any thoughts as
>to Irigaray's relationship to eco-feminism?
>
>dp
>
>
>
