PaulS

Don, I think the world would make for a better place if we all just said "I can't be sure - God may be this...but I can't be sure. God may be that.... but I can't be sure". This allows room for people to have their beliefs/security systems, whilst not being offended/upset by other people's beliefs/security systems. But that of course doesn't lend itself to certainty, which I think most people like. Paul

Yes, to de-mystify the bible, to understand it better with the cultural context and times in which various bits were written, is key IMO. Of course, this will likely lead to de-canonisation so to speak as people slowly learn not to worship the bible.

I think 'obstacle' is an excellent replacement word for sin. Alcohol for instance may be a terrible sin (obstacle) if it rules your life, causes family breakdown, etc, as it limits your life. For another though, drinking isn't a sin because it presents no obstacle - in fact it may even better compliment their life (social aspects, taste, etc). Nice one, Chado.

..and with Hell not even existing prior to the latter centuries before common era, nor were we the only ones.

Norm, Do you think we'd stand a better chance of 'de-canonizing' the bible than educating people about it? Personally, I don't think so, subsequently I don't even entertain the idea. I would like to see people come to a different understanding of its 'status' rather than use it as the full and final 'word' of God. Cheers Paul

Welcome Chado, I hope this site can also be a community of sorts and that you enjoy sharing and learning here. Cheers Paul

Rhino, I think it's healthy, until it's not. What I mean to say, if playing the evil guy in games or trying to understand psychopaths contributes positively to your life, then I have no issue with it. That positivity may just be plain old fun and escapism and/or enjoying role playing, as perhaps is the case with your game examples. Should it contribute negatively to your life (make you unhappy, make you a nastier person, etc) then perhaps it is not so healthy. I too am fascinated as to how other people think and for a period of time as a police officer I worked in a unit that often had the opportunity to 'think' like the criminal (I worked in covert operations - surveillance and intelligence gathering) for 6 years. But there is a difference between 'thinking' like somebody else and actually 'being' like somebody else. Clearly you are not a psychopath just because how they think interests you, unless you become a psychopath. Clearly at that point such behaviour is harmful (and not just to you! ). I don't know you well at all, but maybe your interest in psychopaths and others with mental illness explains your life choice as a mental health nurse. Many people don't choose to go down this career path which contributes so positively to society, perhaps because for whatever reason they just don't have the 'internal wiring' that interests them enough in this area. But for you, and others, thankfully you do. Cheers Paul

I wonder if there's something hardwired in humans that generally has them enjoying violence? Are violent shoot 'em up games the Colosseums and gladiators of the 21st century perhaps?

Migdalin, What are your thoughts concerning words being attributed to Jesus in the NT where he quotes, calls up, and relates to OT teachings? Paul

Gardener, Who's current views of the Bible are you using? Certainly not mine. I view the Bible as a compilation of documents, considered by certain men in the past to be the authorative compilation representative of Christian teachings (in their opinion), which points to how the authors of the documents in their various times, understood God within the various social and political contexts of their various days. There are many that view the Bible in what could be considered an idolatrous way, but this isn't the only view out there. In this information age many more people are becoming familiar with biblical scholarship and are now looking at the bible in a different way. A way that personally I think is better, but that's just my opinion of course. Rather than 'de-canonisation', I would like to see the bible maintained as a valuable reference to mankind's evolving spirituality, with valuable guidance and lessons to be learned from both Testaments, but of course without the baggage of it being the authorative and final word of God. Like you, I don't believe that the authors of the various documents contained within ever imagined them being compiled into a single book considered by many to be the one and only truth. Again I say, education is the key.

Canonisation is actually the Catholic practice of making a deceased person a saint, but I'm gathering you are referring to the 'list of authorised documents' called the canon. I don't think the process itself is idolatry, but I do think for some the bible has definitely become an idol.

Another alternative is education. Teach people to recognise that the OT is a collection of writings written from the perspective of particular people during particular cultures and societal mindsets. It's how those people saw God, wrongly or rightly. If nothing else, maybe it'll come to be useful for Christians to recognise humanities evolving spiritual nature.

Why stop at computer games Rhino? What about sports like boxing where one deliberately tries to hurt another person? Or watching a movie where you hope for the good guy to get revenge by killing the baddie? My point of view is that 'sin' is not a category that can be strictly defined. One man's sin may be another man's pleasure. A recovering alcoholic might not be able to have a drink but his neighbour can have a glass or two of wine with no concern. To me sin is something that you do which contributes negatively to your life and/or sometimes others. Playing a shoot-em-up game doesn't make me want to murder, but maybe for another it desensitises them to violence. I don't think there is a one size fits all. You just have to decide whether it contributes positively or negatively to your life, and perhaps how it may affect others.

I take the view that the OT has inspiration and messages to offer people, as well as the nasties that reflect different cultures in different times. As I don't take the bible to be a literal account of God communicating with man, I don't have to worry about 'compatibility'. I take out of it what makes sense in today's world.

For me, the Bible and Jesus makes so much more sense when I read the likes of Borg. Understanding the bible from the point of view of the various cultures and times it was variously written during, makes it so much easier to 'listen to' and appreciate without the baggage that fundamental literalism brings to the table.

"The most beautiful flowers grow when surrounded by s h i t " - Paul Smedley

I've just finished reading (via audiobook ) this wonderful book by Borg. His scholarly approach in returning Christian language to the context in which it was written, as opposed to today's 'traditional' understanding (which has actually only existed for the last several hundred years), is illuminating. Borg backs up with academic excellence, that the focus on Jesus has become about being 'saved' from eternal suffering and not what Jesus stood for or what early followers believed, that Jesus was about saving us in THIS life. Borg analytically discusses, with excellent referencing to the Old Testament and external sources, the proper contextual meaning of biblical words such as , salvation, redemption, believing, faith, mercy, righteousness, and repentance. It's probably no surprise that Borg believes these words are largely being used out of their biblical context and being misused to say something they were never meant to. Borg's way of explaining Jesus makes complete sense to me, as opposed to the conservative and fundamental view I was indoctrinated with from birth, which left me either questioning or having to deny my instincts.

Just enjoyed a fabulous Mother's Day - every year my wife's mother's family gather for a barbecue in the bush (where they grew up before a bushfire destroyed their logging town and home 60 or so years ago). This year was the 50th anniversary of this gathering and there were 97 family members present! A great day.

There are also books quoted within the bible, which presumably people referred to at that time or why else mention them, that we have no modern knowledge of. Have a look at this Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

Many Christians aren't aware of the translation differences and/or aren't familiar with the vast differences in understanding between Sheol and the common Christian understanding of the 'lake of fire' Hell. Such a Hell did not exist in the minds of God's chosen people until 100 or so years before Jesus. The introduction of Greek ideas to Jewish culture saw this sort of Hell developed very late in the OT.

...and very good thoughts I think, Joseph. It also may interest some that Hell never even cracks a mention in "God's Word" until about 100yrs before Jesus' existence. Quite unusual if Hell is a physical and/or infinite existence?

Also worth thinking about is that if God is everywhere then God would also be present in any Hell that some Christians believe in. That seems contradictory because some Christians say others can't go to Heaven because God can't be in the presence of sin. If God can't be in the presence of sin, then he can't be everywhere (if one believes in sin being some class of action different to non-sin actions).

I simply view 'sin' as that which contributes negatively to life. Generally speaking, i think other people's 'sin' is their business unless it harms the community. As you point out, lying can be for good or bad. If its for good, then I have no problem with it. If it is done with malicious intent, then it isn't good. As I don't believe in a judgemental God, any reference to wilful sin to me simply has the application of applying to this life in a negative sense.

Welcome Gardener, Well, at least you have your health! I love gardening too, particularly trying to be productive with vegetables and the like. I hope you enjoy sharing and participating here. Cheers Paul

Rhino, Just be aware that Spong doesn't always respond. I know I have sent a couple of questions in the past but haven't received a response. I imagine he gets inundated with questions. The only answers I see from him is the one he posts as a Q&A at the bottom of his weekly newsletter (I subscribe at $10/quarter). Cheers Paul