OT: Food for Thought

WhistlingGypsy · Post by **WhistlingGypsy** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:35 pm

I thought long and hard about posting this but felt I had to share it. It is certainly a very powerful and moving message.

http://168.143.173.209/IWGnet.swf

hillfolk22 · Post by **hillfolk22** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 3:43 pm

Oh my how beautiful!!!!

You got me a bit teary-eyed with that one.

Thanks for posting it!!!

Laura

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:22 am

I thought long and hard about posting this one, too. I do want to share my reaction on it.

First off, I wasn't expecting an "Interview with God." Food for thought could also have been a webpage saying something like "One child in four goes hungry in the USA (and how much are we spending on air raids in Afghanistan?)". That's a powerful and moving message, too.

As for the Interview with God, I didn't like it. It's not that I am offended or anything. It's not even that I think what it said was wrong, but it was a bit too cutesy: "People live thinking they'll never die. They die thinking they've never lived."

Mostly what bothered me was the underlying view of God. Here is someone separate from us, whom we have to interview. It is all along the "Kind and slightly sad old man with a big white beard and a friendly smile" lines. "What surprises you most about your children?" they ask and then God tells us. They're probably things we need to hear, but I don't like to think that God is surprised at human action: He understands why and how we do what we do. I see God as immediate and present, present in everything. There is no gulf there that needs to be gapped by an "interview."

One last thing: Goregeous pictures, but only of nature and animals. No people. Nothing to do with what people do everyday to feed their families. What's the message there?

_________________
/bloomfield

[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2002-03-13 10:26 ]

JessieK · Post by **JessieK** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 10:12 am

People all have their reactions. My first reaction, when I saw the word God, was to be angry at the one who posted it and feel like I should leave the board again, but then I watched it anyway. I think many of the messages were beuatiful, and I think of God as fiction, so for me there were nice messages imbedded in a ficticious context. I do think it was inappropriate for the board, but that's only because God is a bad word to me. If it had been a creature from another planet making observations, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. That's interesting. I loved the photography, actually.

Jessie

Mack.Hoover · Post by **Mack.Hoover** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 11:03 am

Thanks Gerry! A beautiful view of God.
My only suggestion is that you mention the subject.
I would certainly follow the link knowing it was about God!
ICL
Mack

WhistlingGypsy · Post by **WhistlingGypsy** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 11:55 am

My only suggestion is that you mention the subject.
I would certainly follow the link knowing it was about God!

Thanks Mack...in hindsight that would have been better....The email that I rec'd it on had the other title.

This post certainly wasn't meant to offend or upset anyone. I presume we are all adults here and can either get something from this or just disregard it. As for appropriatness to the board it is no more or less appropriate than 'Male Jokes' , 'Towers of Light' or pictures of someones favourite cat (I don't like cats by the way)....

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:01 pm

On 2002-03-13 12:55, WhistlingGypsy wrote:

This post certainly wasn't meant to offend or upset anyone. I presume we are all adults here and can either get something from this or just disregard it. As for appropriatness to the board it is no more or less appropriate than 'Male Jokes' , 'Towers of Light' or pictures of someones favourite cat (I don't like cats by the way)....

This is a discussion board, right? If you don't want something discussed, then don't post it. And if we're "all" adults here, then surely you can also live with the fact that different people will have different views.

Out of curiosity, what where you thinking "long and hard" about before you posted it?

Best,
_________________
/bloomfield

[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2002-03-13 13:01 ]

WhistlingGypsy · Post by **WhistlingGypsy** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:15 pm

This is a discussion board, right?

Right!

If you don't want something discussed, then don't post it.

Where did I say that I didn't want it discussed.

And if we're "all" adults here, then surely you can also live with the fact that different people will have different views.

I don't have a problem with that either Bloomfield. I'm not sure what you are reading into my post but I was mainly refering to the 'appropriatness' of the posting. Sorry if I was unclear.

Out of curiosity, what where you thinking "long and hard" about before you posted it?

Because whenever one brings up anything that is spiritual or religious it invariably makes people uncomfortable for some strange reason. I just didn't want to start any controversy, but in the end felt it was worth it to post it.

Jeferson · Post by **Jeferson** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:29 pm

Is there room for OT posts? I think so. I've enjoyed learning a bit about the people on this board when reading about Greg's new baby, Jessie's lost and found cat, etc. I hope everyone feels welcome enough to post such events and lists them as OT.

What do they say about politics, sex, and religion, though? Here's where things get interesting, as these are where some pretty strong (and unbending) feelings lie. No one will win any of the arguments that may arise on these topics, and things can get hot and heavy in a hurry ( especially with the sex

).

My personal choice is to neither post nor respond to such topics. As a Christian Canadian Monk( well, two out of three ain't bad), I find it's safer to limit my public discussions on such matters. Privately, well, don't get me started.

Am I saying that others shouldn't post on such topics? No. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I DO think that in my case postings would only be done after careful consideration and with the realization that it's being put out there in the face of potential challenges. If it's OK to post it, it's OK to agree and disagree.

Jef

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:34 pm

On 2002-03-13 13:15, WhistlingGypsy wrote:
If you don't want something discussed, then don't post it.
Where did I say that I didn't want it discussed.

Maybe I misunderstood your remark that people "can either get something from this or just disregard it."

Out of curiosity, what where you thinking "long and hard" about before you posted it?
Because whenever one brings up anything that is spiritual or religious it invariably makes people uncomfortable for some strange reason. I just didn't want to start any controversy, but in the end felt it was worth it to post it.

I think this means that you were thinking about how "appropriate" your post was. Is it really no more or less approriate that male jokes, towers of light, or cat pictures? I am not sure, simply because religion is a singularly loaded subject, more so even than silly sexual stereotypes. That's why also don't think that it is "strange" that people react in an emotional way to spiritual and religious posts. If they are like me, than they have been accosted by too many characters on streetcorners or in subways pushing their views in my face with a maniacal gleam in their eyes.

Also, a little bit of controversy is good, especially if it is as amicable and open as our little exchange right now, Gerry.

Feadan · Post by **Feadan** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:35 pm

I'm with Bloomfield on this one. Way too cutsie and simplistic.

Bloomfield wrote:

Mostly what bothered me was the underlying view of God. Here is someone separate from us, whom we have to interview. It is all along the "Kind and slightly sad old man with a big white beard and a friendly smile" lines. "What surprises you most about your children?" they ask and then God tells us. They're probably things we need to hear, but I don't like to think that God is surprised at human action: He understands why and how we do what we do. I see God as immediate and present, present in everything. There is no gulf there that needs to be gapped by an "interview."

One last thing: Goregeous pictures, but only of nature and animals. No people. Nothing to do with what people do everyday to feed their families. What's the message there?

I couldn't agree more. I have to confess that I was galled by the bit that said "That they lose their health to make money... and then lose their money to restore health." There are plenty out there who, as a song aptly puts it, "work life out just to keep life in". Somehow I don't think a single parent working two jobs to keep home and feed the kids would find that B.S. very profound. The IWG author seems to speak from a naive simplistic perspective of this world and God. Not surprising from someone who thinks Jesus must have looked like a European (if the website image is an indication). In all I found it about as deep and moving as a Hallmark greeting card.

And that music was sooooo cliché. I kept waiting for the voice to say "Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy"

David

---------
Dear Lord, please save me from your followers.

[ This Message was edited by: Feadan on 2002-03-13 14:15 ]

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:46 pm

On 2002-03-13 13:29, Jeferson wrote:
As a Christian Canadian Monk( well, two out of three ain't bad), I find it's safer to limit my public discussions on such matters. Privately, well, don't get me started.

How interesting that you are a monk!
Can we draw you out a bit here, and convince you to disregard the maxime of "si tacuisses"? I like it that this discussion is going toward the message of the "Interview with God" again (thanks David). Will you tell us what sort of image of God it painted in your view? I know that there are plenty of people on this board interested in these questions.

WyoBadger · Post by **WyoBadger** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:48 pm

Interesting...

I have to go with Bloomfield's opinion on this, too. There are some nice thoughts expressed, but I get very uncomfortable when people put words in God's mouth. I have a book called "God's Little Devotion Book For Leaders." Trouble is, there's an author on the title page, and it isn't God. I occasionally say something pretty cool and insightful, but I would never, NEVER have the gall to attribute my words to God, unless He actually spoke personally to me, or unless I was quoting the Bible, which I frequently do.

Also, it's a pretty unbalanced picture of God. There's much more to Him than a kind old man. According to the Bible, God IS kind, concerned and involved. He's also the creator, the avenger of wrongs, the one who loves us enough to give up everything else.

Finally, Jessie, do you mind explaining (either on the board, or e-mail me) what you meant by "God is a bad word to me." I'm not offended or anything, that just seems like a very sad thing to say. I hope you aren't blaming God for something someone did in His name...People have done some pretty un-Christlike things in the name of Christianity. And please don't be offended by my asking.

Peace-Tom

[ This Message was edited by: WyoBadger on 2002-03-13 13:51 ]

Jeferson · Post by **Jeferson** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 1:14 pm

Hold on there. When I said, "As a Christian Canadian Monk( well, two out of three ain't bad)," I meant that the first two are true and the last isn't! My wife suggested that I make this abundantly clear.

I shudder to think what things would look like on a philosophy or theology board. Can you imagine...

Jef

Otter · Post by **Otter** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 1:30 pm

[quote]
Tom wrote:
People have done some pretty un-Christlike things in the name of Christianity.
[quote]

No kidding! look at the israel and palestinian atrocities.

"God" has many names. Each one of us knows how to address Him or Her in our own personal ways.
So no need to be offended.

On the other hand, about these male jokes..
...Just kidding !

Otter

[ This Message was edited by: Otter on 2002-03-13 14:33 ]