PaulS

Rhino, I'd like to share a story I once read that went something like this: A woman was bathing her two young boys when she was suddenly overcome by the fear that if these boys didn't grow up to accept that Jesus died for them on the cross, then they would be condemned to an eternal Hell. The woman cried out to God to take her instead, let her go to Hell instead of her two boys and instead guarantee them life in Heaven. God answered "How much more do you think my love for you is, that if you are prepared to go to an eternal Hell for your children, how much more protective would I be of my children". It resonated with me mainly because I have kids, and to see them in pain or suffering very much makes you realise how you would do anything to relieve them. If I was given the choice between them suffering or me suffering, I would choose me every time. Maybe you feel like that about somebody in your life? The point is, us sinful, lowdown, hopeless humans often have enough love to sacrifice ourselves for others and to take the pain of others, and I don't imagine any of us would like to see somebody suffer billions and billions of years of torment, especially our children and loved ones. How much more must God be prepared to love, sacrifice, and suffer for all eternity rather than see us in pain if that is the case! Such a God, prepared to allow their child to spend an eternity suffering, would not be fit to be a parent, let alone a God.

Rhino, Just as an aside, today I said goodbye to my father-in-law of sixteen years, a true compassionate soul. Whilst he never believed what evangelical Christianity said he needed too in order to escape an eternal torture, he would be the last person I would ever expect to see punished by a Hell-believing God. There is no justice in such a place. That's why I can't accept it as a truth. Cheers Paul

Most children say to their parents at some time or another - "I wish you were dead", "I hate you", "I wish I wasn't your child", etc. I doubt that ever stops that parent from loving their child!

Welcome Ron, Your story and life experience is a lovely one. I hope you enjoy participating here and look forward to hearing more of your life experience and how you see things. Cheers Paul

It is a feature, but there is a time limit. You only have a little while to edit your post by clicking on Edit in the bottom right hand corner of your post.

Rhino, It is most accurate to say that truly we do not know. How possibly can anybody knows what happens to our consciousness when our body ceases to function? What I personally base a non-belief in Hell on is what to me, seems the absolute ridiculousness of such a concept. Of course, that didn't immediately help me when I was in a place that I sense you are in now. What did help was my continuing questioning and weighing up of the concept of Hell against that of a loving, compassionate, father. It just doesn't fit no matter how cold and harsh fundamentalists want to be about the subject. What also helped was reading and learning that views on God evolved throughout the bible. This to me demonstrated that at best the bible is made up of varying views of God as particular individuals interpreted God to be, at those times. Hell itself, when the word is translated properly, doesn't even come into Israel's culture until about 100BCE. It simply wasn't on the radar until around Jesus' time, and that's thanks to the Greeks who introduced this line of thinking. If there was a test for heaven/hell, I am certain it would be based upon a person's heart and not their doctrinal beliefs, regardless of what fundies will tell you. You have a good heart and compassion, Rhino. How could God do anything but love you. Cheers Paul

I don't know if the heart can't be trusted, Rhino. I think most of us can trust our hearts when we genuinely listen to them and act accordingly. Of course many of us find reasons to block out and ignore what our hearts are telling us. From what I've seen, most fundies are just as guilty of cherry-picking or 'cafe Christianity', as they accuse others of being. They tend to ignore certain instructions of Jesus such as not to divorce, let the dead bury their own dead, and the fact that Jesus said he did not come to change one jot or tittle of Judaistic law. Literal bible study IS idolatry in my opinion. The book has taken precedence over the heart. For example, what parent anywhere would wish eternal pain and suffering for their children? None I know yet people interpret the bibl this way and then call it truth! Why not listen to their hearts as parents instead? Keep on reading and learning. You might actually find it is only fear that keeps many fundies so 'committed' to their God! That's not a relationship - that's child abuse!

I know that fear well, Rhino. I have been there before. What helped me (apart from this forum) was reading the likes of Spong, Bart Erhman, Marcus Borg, Phil Gulley, and learning a different way to view Jesus and the bible. There is no hell, and there is no God that would send a single precious child of his to such a place. There isn't even an understanding of hell until the Greeks introduced such thinking maybe a 100 years before Jesus. It's a man-made creation, you have nothing to fear.

You're right, Joseph. I don't understand the big deal in changing or expanding the legal scope of marriage to include gays. Clearly it is an issue to many there in the US (and many here in Australia too to be fair), but as a heterosexual who has been married for over 16 years, I have no concern with gays sharing the tradition. But I don't think 'not offending' heteros who feel strongly against gay marriage is a valid reason for not including gays. This is not meant to sound melodramatic, but hundreds of years ago your country was torn apart by war because many people believed it was their right to keep slaves. The weren't to keen on allowing certain people equal rights either. Them being uncomfortable with the change certainly didn't stop its progress. I think gay marriage is in a similar position. Whilst gays represent less than 5% of the community, most polls I see show a majority of the population (albeit slim) supporting gay marriage. When 5% of the community are supported by 55% of society, I think it indicates a groundswell of awareness raising that will eventually see gay marriage accepted by society.

Rhino, It seems like your conscience is waking up to itself and leading you away from Fundamental untruths. No God of love is going to send you to an eternal Hell just because you don't follow 'the rules' the fundies tell you you have too. I mean really, would you treat your beloved child like that? No, of course not. Unfortunately many fundies don't even understand the collection of books they are quoting from. They seem to think the completed bible just dropped down from heaven one day and whallah, there be the Word of God. When in fact the bible is generations and generations of people trying to understand the world and how it works. Personally, I think sometimes some of the various authors hit on some universal truths, and sometimes they are racist, sexist, fear-mongers. After all, they ate just human beings trying to understand life. I encourage you to read and learn about the composition of the bible, about when it was declared THE word of God, and most importantly, listen to your heart for the truth, not men! Once I was lost, then I was saved, but I questioned the price, and now I am free! Cheers Paul

Men used to (and still do in parts of the world) marry child brides, but that definition of marriage has changed. Marriage is a man made procedure that demonstrates a commitment to go through life as a recognised union. Expanding that definition to legally include gays does nothing, IMO, to lessen what the word means for heterosexuals. I just don't understand what the big deal is in evolving and expanding the legal scope of the word.

I would disagree, Joseph, but that's no suprise I'm sure. A civl union is NOT a marriage. A 'domestic partners' arrangement is NOT a marriage. If it WAS, then we wouldn't need a different word to 'marriage'. Would you accept only being allowed to engage in a civil union with the love of your life? Gay people who love their respective soul mates simply want to be allowed to marry in the same fashion that you were able to do to express your love & lifelong committment to your partner. What is cheating, hurtful, demeaning & degrading is the exclusive hetero club saying to the homosexual "You are not worthy". That's all it is. It's heteros simply saying to gays "this is our right, not yours". If this means changing the 'definition' of the word marriage, I am more than happy to. I think it would heal many wounds and help many people who are troubled as it is with their homosexuality because of the issues heteros make of it. My marriage isn't threatened by it, nor is the institution of marriage, so all I can see is upside.

There always seems a stark reality check when I hear fundamentalists interpret the above sentence to be loaded with their entire theology (all are dirty sinners, all are born condemned, all must repent and accept Jesus as Lord so as to avoid eternal suffering). What then of people who have never heard of Jesus, little children who have not asked God's forgiveness for their wretched birthright, what even of people living after Jesus but pre John's writing (around 100 CE)? Answers range from "we don't know" to "we just have to have faith in God". But clearly in those circumstances the fundamentalist belief in Jesus being the ONLY way seems to have huge holes. Like Joseph says, IF Jesus did say this then much has been lost in translation if we take the literalist's view.

Now France has made gay marriage legal also. I think this link makes some very good points about 'letting go' of our current exclusivity about marriage belonging only to heterosexuals: http://www.philipgulley.org/Secure%20Sermons/Letting%20Go%20and%20Holding%20On%20(2).pdf If that link doesn't work, try this (and pick the sermon titled "Letting Go & Holding On 2): http://www.philipgulley.org/GRACETALK.htm

Jack Spong has been promising a book on John for some time now, which shouldn't be far away. Thanks for sharing, Joseph.

Joseph, I reckon I have a bit of an idea but would you care to expand here or elsewhere what you take away from John? Cheers Paul

Roy, for me personally, the issue isn't whether or not to convert anyone, but to seek the truth. I think a better question might be, if Spong's ideas and explanations are correct, then what does this mean for the common Christian understanding that everyone's life is useless & that they must believe the are a miserable creature doomed for an eternal Hell who needs to believe certain things to escape such a fate.

I'm not really sure how either party 'prefers' one or the other. Perhaps conservatives are a little more inclined to revel in John, whereas perhaps Progressives value the synoptics a little higher for their relative biographical nature of Jesus, as opposed to John with its strong theological bent.

For those interested, New Zealand's parliament last night passed the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 77-44, thus legalising gay marriage there. Unfortunately our Australian Prime Minister has come out (no pun intended) immediately to say she won't be putting forward such laws here.

No doubt it won't be easy, but it is the only way for change to happen. It's not going to change from the outside.

Alamar, Just for your info, I think the bed/soul weighing story you are referring to is an urban myth based upon a doctors research in 1907 where he concluded the soul weighed 21 gms. But his study was riddled with errors and holds no credit. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/236-how-much-does-the-soul-weigh.html I'm not saying that to discredit your beliefs, I just don't like urban myths being credited as fact . In your case you say it is proof. Unfortunately it is not. Disclaimer - I'm happy to be corrected but I can find no facts to verify your claim. Cheers Paul

John, Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy participating here. I think it's great your conservative friend is sharing Spong's thoughts. I know it's not your friends intention but perhaps more conservatives will start to question their narrow view of Christianity. In answer to your question, I don't think 'belief' in God matters in the slightest. It might sound cliche but I think it's not whether one believes in a God or not that matters, but how one lives their life. There can be both believers and non-believers who are kind and considerate people, just as there are Christians who are nasty, judgemental, exclusivists. Cheers Paul

Biblical literalists can perform miracles when harmonising diverse cultural attitudes spanning more than a thousand years. It's just that their explanations defy logic in my opinion.

Yes, more in the meaning that I am not a Theist. To me, agnostic still leaves room for theism, which I definitely don't believe. But I do leave the door open for some "unmoved mover" of sorts.

I'm not sure, Eric. Maybe some like to retain a connection to their roots as traditional Christianity is probably where most PCs come from. Personally, I would encourage the use of the word Christianity to help others trapped in fundamental Christianity to understand there are other definitions of Christian rather than the narrow, exclusive one promoted by fundamentalism.