HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Wild Church founder Victo...

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 05:39 PM

Wild Church founder Victoria Loorz finds resurrection on Easter and Earth Day

From the article:

Easter and Earth Day arrive on successive days this year, and some churches are welcoming the coupling.
Among them are the 100 or so churches that are part of the Wild Church Network, a loose circle of Christian congregations that meet outdoors as a way of fostering a deeper relationship with God through nature.
The three-year-old network was founded by Victoria Loorz,a graduate of the evangelical nondenominational Fuller Theological Seminary and an environmental activist. Loorz, 57, now leads Echoes Church in Bellingham, Wash., which this year will host an Easter Walk starting at Bellingham City Hall and ending at the Maritime Heritage Park.....

The Wild Church Network has grown rapidly. Why do you think that is?
It’s happening organically. People are unsettled with something in the environmental movement. I come from an environmental activist background, and I know that burns people out when they don’t have that direct experience (of the sacred). The natural world is not a collection of objects but a communion of subjects.


To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2019/04/19/wild-church-founder-victoria-loorz-finds-resurrection-on-easter-and-earth-day/

43 replies, 1106 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wild Church founder Victoria Loorz finds resurrection on Easter and Earth Day (Original post)
guillaumeb Apr 2019 OP
MineralMan Apr 2019 #1
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #2
trotsky Apr 2019 #3
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #6
trotsky Apr 2019 #13
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #15
trotsky Apr 2019 #16
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #18
trotsky Apr 2019 #20
MineralMan Apr 2019 #4
Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #5
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #7
Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #8
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #9
Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #10
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #11
Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #12
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #14
trotsky Apr 2019 #17
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #19
trotsky Apr 2019 #21
Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #22
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #23
Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #24
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #25
marylandblue Apr 2019 #26
guillaumeb Apr 2019 #27
marylandblue Apr 2019 #28
guillaumeb May 2019 #34
trotsky May 2019 #29
MineralMan May 2019 #30
trotsky May 2019 #31
MineralMan May 2019 #32
guillaumeb May 2019 #35
Voltaire2 May 2019 #33
guillaumeb May 2019 #36
Voltaire2 May 2019 #37
guillaumeb May 2019 #38
Voltaire2 May 2019 #39
guillaumeb May 2019 #40
Voltaire2 May 2019 #41
guillaumeb May 2019 #42
Voltaire2 May 2019 #43

Response to guillaumeb (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 07:02 PM

1. Oh, boy...stretching credulity in search of being meaningful.

Gives them something to do, I suppose...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 08:34 PM

2. Expanding our understanding.

But if you prefer limitations....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 07:34 AM

3. "but if you prefer limitations"

Why do you always make snide attacks like that, g? There is no reason to do that.

Be a better Christian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 04:09 PM

6. And is this a snide attack?

stretching credulity in search of being meaningful.


If not, please tell me how it is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 29, 2019, 07:43 AM

13. #1, there you go again with "eye for an eye" justice. So Christian of you.

#2, no, it wasn't an attack on you, it was a commentary on the article you posted. That seemed pretty clear to me. But you had to go and make it personal. Is that what Jesus would want you to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 29, 2019, 04:55 PM

15. Was your response a snide attack, or an open attack?

So judgmental.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 07:48 AM

16. This is about your attack, g.

Clearly you recognize your behavior is indefensible, so you continue to lash out.

Sad.

Why can't you show people how good Christians are supposed to behave?

Why is it so difficult for you to be nice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #16)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 12:25 PM

18. No, it started with your attempt to misframe.

And it is this constant attempt to misframe that is a huge obstacle to actual dialogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 03:39 PM

20. No, it didn't.

It started with YOUR misframing of MineralMan's post.

No one is falling for your dirty tricks, g. Start acting like you think a Christian should. Or perhaps you already are, and that's the problem. You're certainly acting like some other Christians I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 08:13 AM

4. Oh, really?

Expanding something, perhaps, but not necessarily that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 12:01 PM

5. The excerpted paragraph appears to claim that your environmentalism will fail without jesus.

"People are unsettled with something in the environmental movement. I come from an environmental activist background, and I know that burns people out when they don’t have that direct experience (of the sacred)."

That is a load of horseshit.

You want to be an environmentally aware christian, hey that's great. But don't go blowing your horn that your path is the only way. Oh wait, these are evangelicals, that is what they do by definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 04:10 PM

7. She is obviously speaking of those, and to those,

who seek the divine. Nowhere did she claim that her way is the only way, or the best way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 05:18 PM

8. No it isn't obvious at all that she was referring

only to those who are “seeking the divine”.

I guess she was speaking in tongues or something. Your excerpted paragraph I quoted refers only to “people” in the environmental movement. Where does she restrict “people” to “people seeking the divine”?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 08:14 PM

9. Only those seeking the divine would feel the lack.

So no, she did not expressly state which people she referred to, but I am certain that the vast majority of those reading it understand her point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 08:46 PM

10. She explicitly claims that people without

the experience of the sacred will “burn out”. This is not a case of biblical nonsense where you get to make up any nonsense you choose and claim that as the true meaning. It is an article reporting what this person said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 09:09 PM

11. What she said was:

It’s happening organically. People are unsettled with something in the environmental movement. I come from an environmental activist background, and I know that burns people out when they don’t have that direct experience (of the sacred). The natural world is not a collection of objects but a communion of subjects.


Did she say "all people", or "every person"? No, she did not. So you are assuming that she meant all people. Not all people speak as if they are being interviewed by a lawyer.

My view is that you looked for evidence of something and are certain that you found it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 27, 2019, 07:03 AM

12. The set is people in the environmental movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 29, 2019, 04:52 PM

14. The word "people" means many things.

Again, I feel that you are looking for something that is not there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 07:59 AM

17. Perhaps instead of dismissing what others are trying to tell you, you should listen instead.

Or just keep attacking, whatever. You get to show us what being a Christian is all about, g. And so far, you've shown everyone quite the example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 12:28 PM

19. When others attempt to insert a meaning into a statement,

that is not dialogue. The idiomatic use of the word "people" to refer to some but not all is well known by all of us.

My view is that the poster is trying to create an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #19)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 03:40 PM

21. Listen.

Try it. Or just shit on people. Whatever, g. You choose to be the Christian you want to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #19)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 03:42 PM

22. Please provide any evidence at all that Victoria Loorz meant to restrict

"people" to "people who seek the divine" in the paragraph in the text you linked to.

I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 04:10 PM

23. You made an assertion.

With no evidence but your own assumption.

And that summarizes this sub-thread very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #23)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 05:29 PM

24. er, no, the paragraph you posted in your op is clearly talking about people in the environmental

movement. That is not disputable, at least not honestly disputable. You asserted a further restriction "seeking the divine". Please provide some evidence to support that assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #24)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 06:22 PM

25. You made an assertion based on what you claim is her intent.

And based on your insistence that she must have intended your own reading. The word people is often used to refer to some people. Perhaps you are not aware of that.

Here is an example:

People tell me that...….

This phase does not imply all people, or every person. it is a general statement that implies more than one person.

So again, your assertion is unsubstantiated and needs no refutation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #25)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 08:20 PM

26. Much like when people say "everybody" and you object

that it's really just a small number of posters on DU and accuse them of misunderstanding their own idiom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #26)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 08:43 PM

27. No, when it is a small number it seems obvious to mention it.

But people might disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 30, 2019, 08:52 PM

28. Thereby selectively claiming something is an idiom when it suits your purpose

and denying something is an idiom when it does not suit your purpose.

I hear the Attorney General position may be opening up. Main qualification is selective reading skills. No law license or experience required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #28)

Wed May 1, 2019, 07:16 PM

34. An entire subthread devoted to diversion.

As to selective reading, this sub-thread was started by a selective reader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #27)

Wed May 1, 2019, 07:43 AM

29. "OK for me, not for thee."

How Christian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #29)

Wed May 1, 2019, 08:22 AM

30. It's the Gott mit uns effect, perhaps.

It's very popular among authoritarians, I understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #30)

Wed May 1, 2019, 08:30 AM

31. Indeed.

"Altruistic Evil" is what one author called it. Being convinced that whatever you are doing is for the greater good of your religion, and that even if you are aware of your behavior being inappropriate, you do it anyway because you have faith your god approves, and besides your victims probably deserve it because they post links on the Internet about the Catholic sex abuse scandals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #31)

Wed May 1, 2019, 08:36 AM

32. Non-believers are fair game for everyone, it seems.

We are the ultimate "others." There are relatively few of us, so we're a safe group to attack. Or so some believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #30)

Wed May 1, 2019, 07:16 PM

35. Among Chinese authoritarians as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #25)

Wed May 1, 2019, 04:06 PM

33. here is the phrase in question

"People are unsettled with something in the environmental movement. I come from an environmental activist background, and I know that burns people out when they don’t have that direct experience (of the sacred). "


"that burns people out".' That' refers to the environmental movement. 'People' refers to people in the environmental movement.
This is my evidence for my assertion that she, in her use of the term 'people' in the sentence containing the phrase 'that burns people out' is clearly referring to 'people in the environmental movement'.

Now please provide your evidence that she is referring only to people who "seek the divine". Where does she state that? Where does she imply that?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #33)

Wed May 1, 2019, 07:18 PM

36. This is evidence of your own interpretation of her use of an idiom.

And you misread my further comment as the comment of the Wild Church founder.

Mis-framing and obvious misreading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #36)

Thu May 2, 2019, 09:39 AM

37. Please provide your evidence

that she was referring ‘seekers of the divine”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #37)

Thu May 2, 2019, 11:01 AM

38. Reread my response.

I made that interpretation, not her.

And that argues for the correctness of my observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #38)

Thu May 2, 2019, 02:37 PM

39. please provide the evidence that supports your interpretation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #39)

Thu May 2, 2019, 04:44 PM

40. There is none for your own.

Do you understand that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #40)

Thu May 2, 2019, 05:22 PM

41. actually there is and I posted it.

The paragraph in question was not complex or obscure. Please post your evidence that she meant "people seeking the divine" in that paragraph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #41)

Thu May 2, 2019, 06:02 PM

42. No, you posted your own idiosyncratic interpretation

of what the word people means to the author in that context.

And you insist that your view is the only correct one.

And you persist in confusing my opinion with that of the subject of the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #42)

Fri May 3, 2019, 06:26 AM

43. Ok let's try this one more time.

“BabaG’s ice cream store is so popular that people line up and wait for hours to buy it.”

In that sentence what does the word ‘people’ mean?

A) all humans in the universe.
B) the subset of all humans who have chosen to visit the store and wait for hours to purchase BabaG’s ice cream.
C) any human in the vicinity of BabaG’s ice cream store.
D) people with green hair waiting to purchase BabaG’s ice cream.
E) anything at all, and all answers are equally valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread