I don't often feel moved to get into the dialogue but the question "do we need religion and what for?" called me to respond. There is so much that anyone of us, individually and collectively, do not know or understand. What we call religion tries to give us a way to related to the unknowable. It, also, tries to give us guidelines and/or standards that makes our attempts of relating to other 'beings' more just and 'humain '. It seems to me at any given moment and circumstance anyone of us could become a murderer, robber, or what have you. I believe that as a collective group we have have become better. "An eye for an eye" seems barbaric to us now but was a great advance of human behavior when it was invented. Religion gives a vechicle with which to invent new standards. It gives us some stability during times of change. Indeed, we are in times of unpresidented change. I do not begin to understand what my great grandchildren understand about the world they are learning in. I know that I have great admiration for my grandchildren for the love and effort they put every day into raising these precious souls. As an 83 year old great grandmother I hold them in the Light everday. I have faith that they like my generation will be loving and pursuvere in creating the "red line" even though they may never know my poetry. As a Quaker I think I have found my place to aide and participate in discovery of new forms of 'religion'. Peace and grace to all, Jann Barr On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:16 PM, <facilitationfla@aol.com> wrote:

Do we need to have religion? What for?

-----Original Message----- From: steve har <stevehar11201@gmail.com> To: dialogue <dialogue@wedgeblade.net> Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 3:29 pm Subject: [Dialogue] Can Christianity, Religion Be Saved? By Whom in the Next Generation?

Considering

Ross Douthat;s Conservative "culture war" question about liberals: [NYTimes}] "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" in which he?asserted that manifestations of liberal Christianity, like the Episcopal Church, are facing imminent death.

---and---

Randy Williams Asks a Q about survival of Christian movements and institutions The question could perhaps be taken to yet another level by asking, "Can religion be saved?" Or perhaps even more relevant, using our language and concerns from the 60s and 70s, is the question, "Can movemental Christianity survive and thrive, without the institutional church?"

---- James Wiegel's question aout what past models might be useful Perhaps, though, the question is wrong. Maybe the question is, how are we as a human species, going to generate a level of courage, wisdom, care and creativity that is more than adequate to meet the challenges of this new century?

The Ecumenical Institute tried for the local congregation, the Institute of Cultural Affairs tried for the local community. Gloria Steinem and many others tried for empowered women, ---- David Fitch asserts that in national gridlock, the only place to move is in the localis and suggests local churches get over their own ideology.https://docs.google.com/document/d/14tq6zJYgj-AtqWvpK_50G2X_09thefMc2OfB5Abj...

It might be the only place to move in the twilight of 2 eliteshttp://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/17/twilight_of_the_elites_chris_hayes

Where is a place to stand again, and who is going to stand there? Sounds like it is time to dust off Sarte's paper on cultural revolution in CS1.

Another question: who would lead this in the next generation? _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing listDialogue@lists.wedgeblade.nethttp://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

-- Jann Barr, Scheduler Live Oak Friends Meeting ph: 832 863 8705

Quite Profound, me thinks; also looking for a scientific study that indicates that compassionate people are created without superstitution.

From Sarasota Humanist Society

The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation. We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life. We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities. We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state. We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding. We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance. We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves. We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity. We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species. We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest. We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence. We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity. We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences. We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion. We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences. We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos. We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking. We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others. We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality. We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings. -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Grow <nangrow@verizon.net> To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Wed, Jul 18, 2012 8:21 pm Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Can Christianity, Religion Be Saved? By Whom in the Next Generation? Thank you, Jann, from a similar thinking 83 year old. Nan Grow ----- Original Message ----- From: Jann Barr To: Colleague Dialogue Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Can Christianity, Religion Be Saved? By Whom in the Next Generation? I don't often feel moved to get into the dialogue but the question "do we need religion and what for?" called me to respond. There is so much that anyone of us, individually and collectively, do not know or understand. What we call religion tries to give us a way to related to the unknowable. It, also, tries to give us guidelines and/or standards that makes our attempts of relating to other 'beings' more just and 'humain '. It seems to me at any given moment and circumstance anyone of us could become a murderer, robber, or what have you. I believe that as a collective group we have have become better. "An eye for an eye" seems barbaric to us now but was a great advance of human behavior when it was invented. Religion gives a vechicle with which to invent new standards. It gives us some stability during times of change. Indeed, we are in times of unpresidented change. I do not begin to understand what my great grandchildren understand about the world they are learning in. I know that I have great admiration for my grandchildren for the love and effort they put every day into raising these precious souls. As an 83 year old great grandmother I hold them in the Light everday. I have faith that they like my generation will be loving and pursuvere in creating the "red line" even though they may never know my poetry. As a Quaker I think I have found my place to aide and participate in discovery of new forms of 'religion'. Peace and grace to all, Jann Barr On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:16 PM, <facilitationfla@aol.com> wrote: Do we need to have religion? What for? -----Original Message----- From: steve har <stevehar11201@gmail.com> To: dialogue <dialogue@wedgeblade.net> Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 3:29 pm Subject: [Dialogue] Can Christianity, Religion Be Saved? By Whom in the Next Generation? Considering Ross Douthat;s Conservative "culture war" question about liberals: [NYTimes}] "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" in which he?asserted that manifestations of liberal Christianity, like the Episcopal Church, are facing imminent death. ---and--- Randy Williams Asks a Q about survival of Christian movements and institutions The question could perhaps be taken to yet another level by asking, "Can religion be saved?" Or perhaps even more relevant, using our language and concerns from the 60s and 70s, is the question, "Can movemental Christianity survive and thrive, without the institutional church?" ---- James Wiegel's question aout what past models might be useful Perhaps, though, the question is wrong. Maybe the question is, how are we as a human species, going to generate a level of courage, wisdom, care and creativity that is more than adequate to meet the challenges of this new century? The Ecumenical Institute tried for the local congregation, the Institute of Cultural Affairs tried for the local community. Gloria Steinem and many others tried for empowered women, ---- David Fitch asserts that in national gridlock, the only place to move is in the localis and suggests local churches get over their own ideology. https://docs.google.com/document/d/14tq6zJYgj-AtqWvpK_50G2X_09thefMc2OfB5Abj... It might be the only place to move in the twilight of 2 elites http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/17/twilight_of_the_elites_chris_hayes Where is a place to stand again, and who is going to stand there? Sounds like it is time to dust off Sarte's paper on cultural revolution in CS1. Another question: who would lead this in the next generation? _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net -- Jann Barr, Scheduler Live Oak Friends Meeting ph: 832 863 8705 _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net