Progressive Christianity Vs. Literalistic Christianity

[Jutan]

When I first hear of this site, I was actually quite angry. I was thinking "Here is another one of those offshoot movements taking people away from the truth of God". But, instead of being arrogant and ignorant, I decided to find out what this was all about! So I was hoping to ask a few questions and have them answered in a logical and reasonable way. I have no come here swearing and condemning people to hell. I have come to learn. So please educate me!

 

My first question is this: What is the absolute standard of truth that one must follow? There must be a right and wrong.

We all know (or I hope so) that intercourse with children is evil and abhorent. And that sex between two consenting adults, one male & female, is right. By right, I'm not saying you believe that it is the only right method, but that it is one right method. So if we have a scale of right and wrong, where is the line between the two? I believe the Bible is a relevant text and is God-breathed. God has said homosexuality is wrong. So I trust in the authority of the Bible. So if you believe that homosexuality is right then you must believe that the Bible is not an authority on morality. So by what authority are other sexual acts wrong?

[des]

Jutan, the way I look at it, I am really interested in Jesus-- the teachings, the life,etc. and may not be a Christian as you might define it. But I think you could ask away about this and get different things and sometimes different things from the same person (me esp.). But anyway, in my view "loving your neighbor

as yourself" is a pretty good code to live by-- and exceedingly difficult.

 

But for the most part, I don't see the Bible as a very good moral guide. Esp. in the Hebrew Bible there are acts of unspeakable moral outrage, even committed by God. For instance, one of God's first acts (supposedly) was to wipe away all of humankind and most of the animals on Earth thru a major flood. After the flood, God says basically he won't do this any more. So did all those people and animals need to die? In another questionable act, God (supposedly) unleashes the plagues on Egypt. Are all Egyptians bad? DO all of them deserve to have their first born killed? If a human did this it would be punishable as a human rights offense or be terrorism. The Isrealites also engage in genocide (For instance, Joshua and his army killed not only soldiers but also old people, women, children, and animals). (There is an interesting moral experiment where someone asked current Isreali children if this was a good thing or not. Most of them thoguht it was when the original names were kept but when the names were changed to be Chinese, the children thought the incident was evil.) This may be one of the problems in the Middle East with all these people taking on the literal truth of their respective scripture without questions.

 

In various places the Bible condones slavery (tells slaves to be good and tells masters to be "nice" to their slaves), we would not consider that a defensable position today. OTOH, it says nothign about kiddie porn, which I think we would agree to be an evil. The Bible is also fairly silent about the raping and pilaging of the Earth. So does that mean it is ok? (According to some fundamentalists, it appears to).

 

The Hebrew Bible defines many acts to be bad or punishable by death in many cases, including wearing two different fabrics, eating certain foods, having intercourse with a woman during her cycle, children being disrepectful of their parents, etc etc. The fact that homosexuality in on the list doesn't impress me much.

 

The other time that homosexuality is mentioned is in Paul. Paul also condemns the place of women in the church and that sort of thing. So I don't know what I think of Paul. (There is some of Paul that wasn't actually written by him so...) Then again Paul says wonderful things like "there is no Jew nor Greek".

 

The other thing I would say is that even *if* you believed that homosexuality is a sin, which I don't,

then why is this sin so important compared to other sins? I heard a guy on BookTV Sunday and he says, he just doesn't know about the morality today what the problem is, so he looked at homosexuality and finally

settles on the UN. For some reason this supposed sin is over all other sins and is blamed for the destruction of marriages and families. (I think straight couples do very well at ruining their own marriages thank you.)

There appears to be a fear there that is over and above the actual nos of homosexuals or anything else.

That's why I think it is homophobia more than really worrying about sin. (I'm not saying for you, just in general.)

 

Something that most of us believe is that the Bible was written by *people*. Not God. These people have their own culture, history, and in some cases a motivation. Matthew, for instance, was persecuted as a Christian.

 

Ok, so where does that leave morality? Well I think that morality is something of a universal thing. It is in most religions, including pagan and non-theistic ones. Atheists can be profoundly moral people. Perhaps it is written in our DNA in some way. Do all people have this sense, not exactly? The reason I get into the spiritual aspects at all is not for morality but for transcendence-- the experience of being out of the day to day and typical.

 

 

--des

[MOW]

Des pretty much summed my position on this subject but I'll add my 2 cents.

I'll use an example I recently used on another thread . In the Gospel of Matthew and Mark, when Jesus is crucified between the two thieves they both revile him. In the Gospel of Luke one thief reviles him and the other asks to be remembered when he comes into his kingdom. The Gospel of John doesn't record the two thieves saying anything.

 

These can't all be "true", but to me that is irrelevant. I pretty much subscribe to the "two source theory". The writers of Matthew and Luke used the Q source and the Gospel of Mark to construct their Gospels. That doesn't mean that the narrative is a lie. These stories convey universal truths.

 

Myth can sometimes be more important to our inner lives then so called reality anyway. Mythological beings like, The Other Wise Man, The Little Drummer Boy, Amahl and the Night Visitors, Oedipus Rex etc. have more to offer then some "real" events: like Nicole Ritchie driving the wrong way on an expressway, or Paris Hilton throwing up on stage. The latter two events may be true and actual events but they have little relevance to our lives.

 

I happen to be a musician. One piece of music that I feel is "divinely inspired " is the Well Tempered Clavier of J. S. Bach. It consists of 24 preludes and fugues written in all major and minor keys. Bach did this not once but twice thus making 48 peludes and fugues. However musical scholars have determined that one of the fugues in book one probably was not written by Bach at all. I think its the one in e minor in book one.

The point is we don't throw the whole Well Tempered Clavier in the trash because of one or two discrepancies . I think this can apply to the 66 books of Bible as well

 

MOW

[JosephM]

My first question is this: What is the absolute standard of truth that one must follow? There must be a right and wrong.

 

Only in your mind is there a 'right' and 'wrong' which has been defined for you by society in general. There is no standard that one MUST follow. You have choices and you have consequences.

 

 

We all know (or I hope so) that intercourse with children is evil and abhorent. And that sex between two consenting adults, one male & female, is right. By right, I'm not saying you believe that it is the only right method, but that it is one right method. So if we have a scale of right and wrong, where is the line between the two? I believe the Bible is a relevant text and is God-breathed. God has said homosexuality is wrong. So I trust in the authority of the Bible. So if you believe that homosexuality is right then you must believe that the Bible is not an authority on morality. So by what authority are other sexual acts wrong?

 

We all know no such thing. Maybe the majority but not ALL. If one is seeking peace, love and joy then certain things are not expedient to that purpose. It is for you to determine what is wise and what is not wise in the divine order of things according to the purpose of that which you have choosen and seek.

 

JM

[DCJ]

Ok, so where does that leave morality? Well I think that morality is something of a universal thing. It is in most religions, including pagan and non-theistic ones. Atheists can be profoundly moral people. Perhaps it is written in our DNA in some way.

From a Christian perspective, people almost universally have a sense of morality because they are created in the image of God and "have the law written on their hearts." I say "almost universally" because a miniscule fraction of the population apparently doesn't have these moral sensibilities. They're called sociopaths, and they get thrown in jail by our legal system.

 

If morality was simply part of our genetic makeup, there would be no real imperative to honor it. It would be descriptive, not prescriptive. A person would be free to alter their genes, like creating a designer baby. Indeed, the aforementioned sociopath could be considered an evolutionary next-step, having freed himself from his genetic "defect" to live life truly autonomous.

 

For morality to be an imperitive, it must be imposed on us from without, not be a part of our makeup. Its source must also transcend society and culture since those are not above moral judgment. We of course call this standard, God.

 

Sure, atheists may live very moral lives, but it's in spite of their worldview, not because of it. Their story is that humans are evolutionary accidents, coming from nothing and returning to nothing, not ultimately accountable to anyone. The atheist can't explain why his moral decisions have any significance. He may talk about genetic self-interest, but selfishness isn't how one thinks about morality at all. Or maybe being virtuous just feels good, so he does it. But there's no real reason to abide by it, and it still doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things anyway. The moral athiest actually confirms the Christian worldview.

 

Only in your mind is there a 'right' and 'wrong' which has been defined for you by society in general. There is no standard that one MUST follow. You have choices and you have consequences. . . If one is seeking peace, love and joy then certain things are not expedient to that purpose. It is for you to determine what is wise and what is not wise in the divine order of things according to the purpose of that which you have choosen and seek.

Joseph, you seem to be arguing for an almost hedonistic interpretation of morality. If I read you right, we should maximize "peace, love, and joy" and minimize deleterious "consequences." But this prohibits any moral judgment. What if I find peace and joy in torturing babies, and I know that I won't get caught? Or what about a brutal despot who is immune from reprisal? There's something deficient in your explanation of morality. In fact, there is no morality, only power plays. Jungle law. Please correct me if I misread you.

[Realspiritik]

"Only in your mind is there a 'right' and 'wrong' which has been defined for you by society in general. There is no standard that one MUST follow. You have choices and you have consequences."

 

We all know no such thing. Maybe the majority but not ALL. If one is seeking peace, love and joy then certain things are not expedient to that purpose. It is for you to determine what is wise and what is not wise in the divine order of things according to the purpose of that which you have choosen and seek.

 

JM

 

Joseph, I'm not sure whether you view yourself as an Existentialist; or whether you've read and absorbed the so-called channelled teachings of Neale Donald Walsch ("Conversations With God") and others who heavily promote the idea that God's love is so unconditional that no "Wrong Choices" exist; or whether you've come to this understanding on your own; but, man, I've gotta tell you, there most certainly are right and wrong choices, and there absolutely does exist a standard which one MUST follow. This standard is the moral code of God and of all God's angels. Since you are one of God's angels, you're hardwired at the quantum angelic level and at the human DNA level to seek out that moral code and live by it. When you make choices your own soul thinks are right, your brain and your body receive the benefit of neurotransmitters like oxytocin and vasopressin (two biochemicals essential to mental and spiritual health). When you make choices your own soul does NOT like (for instance, if you stupidly decide that pedophilia is a good thing) then your brain and your body do NOT get the good biochemicals, and eventually you will get sick.

 

It is not for you to determine what is wise. It is for you to remember what is wise. It is for you to listen to your own soul, since your own soul understands and remembers what your conscious mind has forgotten. This is the Kingdom Within.

 

There is not a single circumstance in which pedophilia would considered "right" by God. Pedophilia is always -- always -- a psychological by-product of narcissism and sociopathy (barring a spike, tumour, or virus punching through one very tiny part of your diencephalon). It has no place in the life of anyone who wants to be his or her best self.

 

Love Jen

[Realspiritik]

From a Christian perspective, people almost universally have a sense of morality because they are created in the image of God and "have the law written on their hearts." I say "almost universally" because a miniscule fraction of the population apparently doesn't have these moral sensibilities. They're called sociopaths, and they get thrown in jail by our legal system.

 

DCJ, I really appreciated your above post. But I do have to wonder if you and I are watching the same news programs. The people who get thrown in jail are typically those with anti-social disorders, addictions, and psychotic illnesses. They haven't got a conscience (or much of one), but they also haven't got Ivy League degrees and powerful friends, either. When they get angry, they act out in public ways. Thus they get caught.

 

Sociopaths with impressive credentials and highly-placed friends, on the other hand, are often extremely "successful", and are frequently found in boardrooms and executive offices. Almost none of them make it to jail. And they're making sociopathic decisions that affect millions of people around the world.

 

Your cheerful thought for the day.

 

Love Jen

[des]

I don't think that was quite DCJ's point, Jenn. I think it was just that morality wasn't really based

on being a Christian or not.

 

As many of us know many people in prison these

days are not sociopaths but drug addicts as you point out. They tend to be the most poor and least

enfrancised.

 

Many years ago, my mom visited prisoners for her church (which at that time was the Christian

Science church--alas), even then my mom used to tell of her experiences and how most of the guys

seemed to be good people, who had gotten into drugs basically. All were poor, most were minority,

and all were uneducated.

 

A few years ago, I taught reading to kids at a charter high school. This high school took mostly kids

who were drop outs of other high schools. Many of them were in the juvenile justice system. They

were 90% not bad kids. Most of them couldn't read. I can see right now in my current job in a "barrio"

type school (I teach reading there too), that a lot of these kids are either going to be in trouble or are

already in trouble. The girls have very high rates of getting pregnant. The boys get into frequent fights,

they get into gang activity. Last year one kid helped in putting a small pipe bomb (not very big apparently,

as it did no damage) in a hallway. Honestly he was a very sweet kid, who got

permantely expelled. Average reading level of my students: 3rd grade. Some of them have attitudes

it's true. I think I would have an attitude if I read at that level.

 

They need to pick up these kids faster with their reading problems. There is no way many of these kids

can make a living, so they turn to selling drugs. I'm not condoning or excusing it. But i think we have

a serious problem in our society when we have this underclass that just is not getting what they need

to make it in life.

 

The good news: if we can get them before 10th grade, work like heck with them, they are open enough to work with us, and their disability or problems with reading aren't too severe and they stay in the class, and don't take welding or weights, instead we can make a lot of progress with them. That's a lot of ifs of course.

 

 

--des

[Realspiritik]

The good news: if we can get them before 10th grade, work like heck with them, they are open enough to work with us, and their disability or problems with reading aren't too severe and they stay in the class, and don't take welding or weights, instead we can make a lot of progress with them. That's a lot of ifs of course.

--des

 

Yup. Totally agree with you. Jesus didn't say "loving your neighbour as yourself" would be tear-free or sweat-free. Congratulations to you for helping these important young people with your time, energy, and talent. God bless.

 

Love Jen

[flowperson]

Hi Guys:

 

I totally agree with you both. I'm just hazarding a guess here...but might the answer be more federal support for education and less money for guns and bombs ? Just a wild stab into the darkness you understand.

 

flow....

[des]

Flow, what a wild idea. Crazy really. There used to be a bumper sticker about something about

funding the military thru bake sales. I think that's an idea.

 

There are two reading teachers in our school with 650 kids

in special ed (I'm guessing 90% have reading problems). I don't know how many we have

in English as a second language but I'm guessing high. Anyway, we did the stats on it, and we

should actually have 25 reading teachers, not two. We are able to work intensively with the kids

and actually remediate these disabilties but it would be better to do this when the kids are younger,

before many of them have failed so much and gotten turned off. They are making an effort. But

it is with not enough funding anyway. I have to take special training which I use preparation time

but they don't pay us, so the support for this is sort of minimal. If they really could support it, it

is a great program, because we have seen amazing things with some of the kids.

 

The problem is that we are getting them awfully late. No it wouldn't be easy anyway. And it seems

too little as well. You always here conservatives saying we can't just throw money at the problem.

(Of course they *don't* say this about the military.) But here is an example of a program that

is a solid thing, is based on research, gets results, and needs much more funding!

 

 

--des

 

Hi Guys:

 

I totally agree with you both. I'm just hazarding a guess here...but might the answer be more federal support for education and less money for guns and bombs ? Just a wild stab into the darkness you understand.

 

flow....

[flowperson]

Hi des:

 

Since both of my wives (consecutive not simultaneous) were teachers I am very familiar with what you're up against. You're all heros. I should have also added that we need more federal funding for public health care infrastructure since that's the smartest way to catch problems with young children that necessitates special ed teachers later on.

 

My 2nd taught at a secondary school on the west side of Chicago near Garfield park in the 80's, and most of her classes (home ec) had normal students mainstreamed with special needs teens, about 50-50. Needless to say some days were a nightmare for her.

 

Here in Nevada, teachers have to spend about $1,200 from their own pockets to fulfill their elementary students' supplies needs each year. Just disgraceful if you ask me, especially with the cash flow to the government here. But these sorts of things ARE NEVER the real issues in political campaigns, and they are critical to all of society's futures. When elected, the boys and girls we vote for seem to forget what's important and what they promised.

 

Sometimes you could get the idea that there are dark forces out there who are bent on and totally dedicated to destroy the future of humanity in America. But few of the people running the show seem to give a damn. Sorry for being such a cynical old twerp, but I tend to say what I feel...but then again I am part Italian and I value education.

 

flow....

[des]

I've heard the average out of pocket costs for teachers is about $450 a year. Let me assure you

I spend well over that. We are not given kleenex, paper, pencils, chalk, etc. We do get books though.

 

 

I saw a bumper sticker the other day, "Give no child a dime". (That, of course, is a play on "No

Child Left Behind", Bush's "gift" to education. Because of this, schools now waste enormous amts

of time and energy on totally silly school remediation strategies in their desperation. One teacher

I know had to do "mission statements" with her kindergartners. :-o The idea is by 2014, I think, 100%

of students, including those with visible retardation (no I am not making this up) and English language

learners will have to score at a certain level showing they meet grade standards. Fortunately this bill

is up again in this congress.

 

--des

[Cynthia]

I call it "no child let ahead". Much agreement with all said - especially the hero part!!!

[BrotherRog]

When I first hear of this site, I was actually quite angry. I was thinking "Here is another one of those offshoot movements taking people away from the truth of God". But, instead of being arrogant and ignorant, I decided to find out what this was all about! So I was hoping to ask a few questions and have them answered in a logical and reasonable way. I have no come here swearing and condemning people to hell. I have come to learn. So please educate me!

 

My first question is this: What is the absolute standard of truth that one must follow? There must be a right and wrong.

We all know (or I hope so) that intercourse with children is evil and abhorent. And that sex between two consenting adults, one male & female, is right. By right, I'm not saying you believe that it is the only right method, but that it is one right method. So if we have a scale of right and wrong, where is the line between the two? I believe the Bible is a relevant text and is God-breathed. God has said homosexuality is wrong. So I trust in the authority of the Bible. So if you believe that homosexuality is right then you must believe that the Bible is not an authority on morality. So by what authority are other sexual acts wrong?

Jutan,

 

1. Kudos to you for seeking some insight before becoming fearful, angry, and condeming us and our way of being Christian!

 

2. What do YOU think the absolute standard of truth is? If you say "the Bible", then do you mean that you read it literally and think that it all applies to everyone including Gentiles? Is wearing clothing that contains mixed fibers/materials wrong? Is it wrong for a consenting adult male and female to have sex while she is menstrating? Is it wrong for a consenting adutlt male and female to give each other sexual pleasure orally? Is it wrong to eat shellfish or pork? Is it wrong for straight adults to have consenting sex if they aren't married (you didn't mention that factor in your remarks above).

 

3. My best answer to that question is Jesus' admonitions to embrace the shema (to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind; and to love our neighbor as ourselves); and to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us. That said, we all fall short of the mark and God's preferences for us from time to time so we do need to be constantly prayerful to seek God's nudging/wooing in our lives as well as to seek forgiveness for when we miss the mark (whether we're aware of our doing it or not).

 

4. I agree with you that an adult having sex with a child is never right. That said, in Jesus' day people often got married between the ages of 15-18 - esp. younger females to older males. So, the notion that a 21 year old male having sex with a 16 year old female would not have been offensive in those times in that culture - heck, the average lifespan was only about 40 years of age at that time! Moreover, I can make a distinction between a 38 year old male having sex with a 16 year old female and a 21 year old male having sex with a 17-18 year old female; and moreover, what 16 or 17 year old straight male would likely complain about having sex with a consenting 21 year old female? - there seem to be degrees of wrongness. So, to some extent, things are a bit fuzzy and relative (indeed a case could be made that Jesus' ethics were a form of principled ethical relativism).

 

5. Moreover, in Jesus' day (and according to the Bible), women were regarded as property of males (fathers then husbands) - would you say that this is "right"? I'd say it certainly is NOT.

 

6. In Jesus' day, divorce was arguably "wronger" then than it is now; i.e. back then, if a man left a woman, she'd be considered damaged goods and have to resort to begging for survival - yet these days, in our culture, women are far more financially liberated and secure and few men would consider a non-virgin as being "damaged goods".

 

7. No where in the Bible are the words "homosexuality or homosexual" used. Granted, they sadly are found in the NIV version of the Bible (a version with a conservative bias), but those words are not to be found in the ancient Hebrew or Greek texts. Yes, there are a few prohibitions for men and women not to engage in "unnatural" lying down with one another relations but it is factually false to assert the the Bible actually uses the words homosexual or homosexuality. There are already threads on this message board which speak in length about the Bible and homosexuality and I'd refer you to those so you can obtain a more nuanced understanding of what's involved with this matter - it isn't as simple and clear cut as you may currently think it to be. (e.g. see the thread called Homosexuality, currently on pg. 14 of the Debate section: http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10)

 

I offer these words for you to ponder and I'm curious about how you'll respond.

 

Peace in Christ, brotherrog

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

If it was recognized that men should not sleep with each other in the sexual way, and so has been recorded in many ancient societies and even by people like myself today. And if I'm not the only one to see a problem with the creative reproductive functions of individuals, so we can view and understand how we are to particpate socially, then why is it so hard for others to grasp right from wrong?

 

After all, if the command of GOD was to go forth and multiply, then that command cannot be accomplished in same sex relations, not if monogamy is the purpose of a man and a woman being married. The two opposite genders comming together to be completed as one called family.

 

The solution is simple.

 

We can tollerate, and name or labell everything and that is our job. We can include everyone and make contracts or covenant to bring all together to one - GOD.

 

Question can you define a marriage according to what I think GOD would also define a marriage...

 

Question can you define a civil union according to the laws created by people...

 

I like this mathmatical equation.

 

Good - GOD = 0

 

I prefer

 

People + Jesus = GOD A path to heaven... True and Pure Love Peace

[des]

Well I see no problem with your argument if you think the Bible was meant to be taken

literally. Or if you think that a decree to go out and multiply should literally be

given to all ages. After all, we have too many people right now, esp. in the

third world. Obviously homosexuality makes little sense from a procreative

sense. But this all presupposes that homosexuality is a choice like wearing

a certain type of clothing or something. If it is ingrained in a real way, which

I think it is, then giving it up is not really an option. Groups claiming to "cure

homosexuality' are lyers. Most of the people are either short fixed, celebate,

or perhaps actually bi and not really gay. Study after study, shows brain differences

and homosexual preferences showing up very early-- perhaps as early as 5 or so.

Fundamentalists have no problem disregarding all this science, but I have

a problem disregarding this.

 

The Bible also forbids wearing two fabrics, sentences people who don't respect

their parents to death, tells people to beat their children with sticks, and says

slavery is fine (just be nice to your slave). It also condones the actions of

Joshua who killed women, children, old people, and animals in his genecidal war.

Almost nobody supports these things today, saying things like "look what the Bible

says about your wool and polyester garment". :-)

 

Why is homosexuality, if it were a sin, which I don't buy, over and above other

sins? I think Western culture has a big sexuality hang-up which they should grow

out of.

 

Also do you know two gays who love each other? I don't think this situation really

existed (or if it did was quite underground) in Biblical times. I don't think we want

a whole bunch more people, as even in the first world all these kids mean more

carbon burning.

 

BTW, I think you make the implication that all cultures everywhere view homosexual

relations as wrong. This is clearly not the case. There are some societies that actual

revered homosexuals, for instance some native cultures. They knew they were different.

 

 

--des

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

Hi Des,

 

Ahhh, the Shaman, the berdache... The medicine man, the great power but not the Chief or Tribal Leader who was usually married.

 

Need I add more?

 

I see you think the number of humans on Earth has exceeded our ability to co-exist. But instead of finding a way to help your neighbor you have made a choice?

 

As we all have the free will to make choices, I think there are some choices that we learn about that disarm our intentions, in the name of Jesus the line was drawn, may I ask why are you still holding onto your stones?

 

Maybe you were sleeping through the conversation...

[des]

 

>I see you think the number of humans on Earth has exceeded our ability to co-exist. But instead of finding a way to help your neighbor you have made a choice?

 

I feel attacked. Is that intentional??

 

 

>As we all have the free will to make choices, I think there are some choices that we learn about that disarm our intentions, in the name of Jesus the line was drawn, may I ask why are you still holding onto your stones?

 

I think I have been very careful to question your position without attacking you personally in

any way. Nor have I attacked your motivations in any way. I have stated that sometimes people

are fearful of homosexuals but I have been very careful to say you weren't.

Show me any evidence where I have attacked you personally in any way. OTOH, it seems you

are doing this with me.

 

"why are you still holding stones" (implies I am shooting them, and not just engaging in a

mellow internet discussion, which is as far from flaming as it can be. I do not flame anybody).

"you were sleeping thru the conversation" implies I am the one not listening (and that perhaps

you are rather than me).

"But instead of finding a way to help your neighbor you have made a choice?" Implies that I

am not helpful or caring toward others.

 

GWB, since this has deterioted into a personal attack, I'll ignore the attacker. Seems the most civil thing.

 

 

--des

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

Des, You were not attacked.

 

A civilized discusion or debate allows the other person a chance to explain or defend their position, if you still disagree after both sides have had a chance to say their peace then you should probably ignore each other.

 

I don't think you're being fair or civilized if you don't take a moment and consider what I have to write and what I really meant.

 

There has been a lot of negative energy posted on the internet lately, and I seem to be attracting extreme emotional responses out of people probably due to the Christmas stress, some holiday wishes and gifts are not being given or received due to misunderstandings and a lack of communication.

 

Here is what you wrote as your last post, as you interpreted what you quoted from me:

 

 

>I see you think the number of humans on Earth has exceeded our ability to co-exist. But instead of finding a way to help your neighbor you have made a choice?

 

I feel attacked. Is that intentional?? [No, I'm not trying to attack you, I have no intention to do that I hardly even know you, at least I don't think I know you?]

 

 

>As we all have the free will to make choices, I think there are some choices that we learn about that disarm our intentions, in the name of Jesus the line was drawn, may I ask why are you still holding onto your stones?

 

I think I have been very careful to question your position without attacking you personally in

any way. Nor have I attacked your motivations in any way. I have stated that sometimes people

are fearful of homosexuals but I have been very careful to say you weren't.

Show me any evidence where I have attacked you personally in any way. OTOH, it seems you

are doing this with me. [No, I'm not attacking you, the conversation turned to population growth, and I was saying that the line drawn in the sand by Jesus was about who should die... Who has the right to decide if a person should live or die? Life and being heard is the most important and fundemental truth that we can embrace. I had a vision of Jesus talking to you and you standing before Jesus arms to your sides, mouth agape, and still you haven't dropped your stones. - Look at your emotional response and see that I was correct. You would ignore me, which is the same as to kill me or stop me from living or participating or posting. See the spiritual aspect of what I had seen, through my vision of you and your writings. Indeed I was hoping that you would drop your stones. I must say I did expect this reaction, and was hoping you would think twice before responding in this manner. I'm sorry I was right.]

 

"why are you still holding stones" (implies I am shooting them, and not just engaging in a

mellow internet discussion, which is as far from flaming as it can be. I do not flame anybody). [i see you not only didn't drop your stones you took aim and fired hitting me right between my eyes.]

 

"you were sleeping thru the conversation" implies I am the one not listening (and that perhaps

you are rather than me). [i assure you I am quite awake, and fully understand what I was writing, I love everyone, and I offer my best wishes to you and your family, especially at this time of the year, please have a very Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year...]

 

"But instead of finding a way to help your neighbor you have made a choice?" Implies that I

am not helpful or caring toward others. [No, I wrote that to expose your choice that there are people in this world that deserve to die... You seem to have impressed me with a pro-choice comment and I am a pro-life type of person. I respect you as a person and I want the best for you, I would encourage my children to live their lives to the fullest and that they honor the lives of their children. The miracle of life is so precious to me, I prefer to live a long and full life. I can think of cases where people were killed and they were innocent.]

 

GWB, since this has deterioted into a personal attack, I'll ignore the attacker. Seems the most civil thing. [Nope, this was not a personal attack, I wanted to encourage a discussion about life and the miracle of life and how homosexuality does not fulfill my beliefs. I know we can't change the way things are today, but I would hope in the future things could be different. The journey humanity is on has the ability to take us in one of two directions. Peace or War... I prefer peace and if you would like to see real examples of a personal attack on me, or society and just how scary some people can be, I'll be glad to offer some real examples of real attacks.]

 

Trust your own eyes and see for yourself...

 

 

 

 

--des

[Rayosun]

What ever happened to Jutan ?

"I have not come here swearing and condemning people to hell. I have come to learn. So please educate me!

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

des,

 

Are you friends with DanceLover?

 

Follow this link below:

 

http://www.writingup.com/thegreatwhitebuff...all_at_one_time

 

This issue of homosexuality and getting in trouble for my heterosexual beliefs didn't just start. The problem started in other places as I excersiced my right to speak freely about the issue.

 

You do agree with the 1st amendment about the right to free speech?

[JosephM]

 

Only in your mind is there a 'right' and 'wrong' which has been defined for you by society in general. There is no standard that one MUST follow. You have choices and you have consequences. . . If one is seeking peace, love and joy then certain things are not expedient to that purpose. It is for you to determine what is wise and what is not wise in the divine order of things according to the purpose of that which you have choosen and seek.

 

 

Joseph, you seem to be arguing for an almost hedonistic interpretation of morality. If I read you right, we should maximize "peace, love, and joy" and minimize deleterious "consequences." But this prohibits any moral judgment. What if I find peace and joy in torturing babies, and I know that I won't get caught? Or what about a brutal despot who is immune from reprisal? There's something deficient in your explanation of morality. In fact, there is no morality, only power plays. Jungle law. Please correct me if I misread you.

 

DCJ,

 

Sorry, I been been away for 3 months...

 

Actually not arguing for anything. Just answering the question from my perspective. Hedonism is .. the Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses. I am not advocating that view. I am merely saying that moral judgements are a product of society and time. Society determines "right" or "wrong" regardless of the source they use. Instead of thinking "right" or "wrong" one needs only to have a greater awareness of peace, love and joy. Doing so, actions need not be judgemental but rather will fall in place in accordance with purpose. (peace, love and joy for all)

 

jm

[JosephM]

Joseph, I'm not sure whether you view yourself as an Existentialist; or whether you've read and absorbed the so-called channelled teachings of Neale Donald Walsch ("Conversations With God") and others who heavily promote the idea that God's love is so unconditional that no "Wrong Choices" exist; or whether you've come to this understanding on your own; but, man, I've gotta tell you, there most certainly are right and wrong choices, and there absolutely does exist a standard which one MUST follow. This standard is the moral code of God and of all God's angels. Since you are one of God's angels, you're hardwired at the quantum angelic level and at the human DNA level to seek out that moral code and live by it. When you make choices your own soul thinks are right, your brain and your body receive the benefit of neurotransmitters like oxytocin and vasopressin (two biochemicals essential to mental and spiritual health). When you make choices your own soul does NOT like (for instance, if you stupidly decide that pedophilia is a good thing) then your brain and your body do NOT get the good biochemicals, and eventually you will get sick.

 

It is not for you to determine what is wise. It is for you to remember what is wise. It is for you to listen to your own soul, since your own soul understands and remembers what your conscious mind has forgotten. This is the Kingdom Within.

 

There is not a single circumstance in which pedophilia would considered "right" by God. Pedophilia is always -- always -- a psychological by-product of narcissism and sociopathy (barring a spike, tumour, or virus punching through one very tiny part of your diencephalon). It has no place in the life of anyone who wants to be his or her best self.

 

Love Jen

 

Greetings Jen,

 

No, I do not view myself as an Existentialist. Also have not read the teachings you reference.

 

'Right' or 'Wrong' choices and 'Standards' seem to me to be a product of the minds of men/women. "Wise", I can acknowledge as a meaningful word when related to purpose yet I will leave it there and please excuse me for not sharing your beliefs on the words "right" and "wrong". My statements were only a view for others to consider in regards to the question. This view comes from watching the workings of the mind rather than channeled teachings.

 

Love,

JM

[Bobd]

I have a problem with the concept of right and wrong. I read in Genesis that gods (elohim) said not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These elohim are gods not God. Sometimes the scholars of organized religion translate elohim as singular and sometimes they translate it as plural. In the strict gramatical sense, the word is plural, so knowing a little about Hebrew, I always see it as plural and I ask myself, "why should the scholars have the right to consider it singular sometimes and sometimes plural? Are they constructing their own image of god when they do this?

 

Getting back to the issue of right and wrong, it is an issue that evolves from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Words like righteous and wickedness, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, right and wrong, guilty and innocent, and sin all evolve from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our jousting back and forth about it for the past several thousand years doesn't seem to lead to any kind of a prescription that works for everyone. We have groups of active adversaries, often at war with each other in spite of our futile search to separate good from evil. It is also reflected in the above conversations which at times seem to lead to some self righteous bickering and accusations with no real solution to our relationship problems being proposed. Wouldn't be better if we could stop eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and replaced it with the tree of chaos and harmony? Wouldn't it be better if we did not think of anyone as good or evil, but instead think of developing relationships, both on a micro and macro level, that bring harmony instead of chaos? Perhaps taking a lesson from Jesus about loving your enemies and praying for those that persecute you may be a good place to start.

 

BobD