PaulS

True, it didn't Steve. And women agreeing to theology that says they have a role to play in serving God albeit a different role to men, doesn't make that theology any less patriarchal or outdated. I'm just suggesting that the term sexism is more about women being discriminated against unwillingly. But happy to be wrong if that term should be used to describe a system where women don't think they're being discriminated against or prejudiced. This theology does stereotype women so perhaps sexism is the appropriate term.

Hi Amy, Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul

I hear what you're saying and I myself think such a line of thinking (not a woman's role to preach or a woman is less in a marriage than a man) is outdated and patriarchal, I have difficulty phrasing it as sexism in the general sense, when in the main the people being discriminated against agree with the discrimination.

I'm not sure if sexism is the right term though as there are just as many women that believe in/support complimentarianism as men. These women don't feel discriminated against but rather that they are serving God how He wants.

I found one that ends with that phrase in the last paragraph - 10 Nov 2011 "Facing the political realities of institutional church life in the launch of reclaiming the bible for a non-religious world". In fact, if you search that phrase on Spong's members site there are several articles which include it, but I couldn't find one that starts with it sorry. Cheers Paul

Divinejoy, I am very pleased that this forum can give you the support you deserve. The label 'Christian' does have its connotations, both good and bad, but it is only a label and not a rigid definition (much to the dispair of many fundamentalists). I think how people view God is most likey shaped by their experiences, knowledge, culture and upbringing. So for me it is no suprise that there are many varied ways that people look toward God/s. To me the important thing is what people do with their beliefs. Certainly if they cause no harm, then I have no issue. But even better, if their beliefs affect good in the world, then cudos to them. I myself have found so much information and dialogue here that has helped me better understand myself and my fundamental, literalist, Christian upbringing which went by the wayside when I entered the workforce (policing, at the time) and re-evaluated what I had held as unquestionable beliefs. I hope this forum serves you well. Cheers Paul

I don't hear God personally, and I do lean toward such thinking as being outdated. But of course how can one argue with somebody who does say they hear God? I'm not in their head so I can't say they're wrong. The fact that God seems to tell people different things, which often are in contradiction, does lead me to believe that it isn't really some God talking but rather human thought processes attributing such to a God. I don't think there would be a consolidated PC view on this. PC is more an ongoing conversation rather than a bunch of set factors. I think hearing God is consistent with PC, as is believing that Gd doesn't directly speak to people. These at just my thoughts and aren't author active when it comes to PC.

It's certainly interesting to see the evolution of God laid out like this, or more to the point the evolution of man's thinking about God.

Often I find life is busy & hectic, the kids are always fighting, my wife and I exchange terse words because we're both a bit stressed and under the pump, and thoughts of us all packing up and running away in a camper van are not far from my mind. But then I have spaces like I am am having now. I've closed out some important work, we've recently been simply appreciating friends, the kids seem a whole lot nicer at present, and life in general is feeling more fulfilling. I like this space.

Glad to hear all that, Stopman. Well, not that you're having a lot of trouble , but that you are managing this condition. I look forward to getting to know you more too. Cheers Paul

Daniel, I too think the bible contains traces of historocity, although I don't think the miracles of Jesus are in that category. I certainly think the writers of the OT were, in the main, heavily influenced by this view of God as a King, as Sovereign, in the way that they understood Kings to be - authoritarian rulers, to be obeyed not to be questioned, harsh but just, etc. I too think there are many 'truths' contained in the bible, although like you I don't see it as inerrant. Noah's flood is, to me, most likely a tribal tale that grew and grew until it got documented in it's current form, and there the tale stayed. I don't know of any evidence to support that most people all around the globe at that time wrote about a great flood, as I have often heard quoted, but I am aware that there are some cultures that recount some version of a flood story. I see no harm in the interpretation of the Noah story that you take from it, but I think it is just that, your take on it and of course there are others that draw a different inspiration. Some people I know seem to draw security from the story - i.e. they think they are 'protected' by God because they aren't in the camp of the rabble that deserve drowning. Much of my philosophy of the bible and how people interpret it can be summed up from a line in Ben Harper's song Burn One Down where he sings "Your choice is who you choose to be, and if your causin' no harm then you're alright with me".

My thoughts lie more toward the bible being a product of certain people and cultures, they way they thought at the time. I think that Adam & Eve is more a way of acknowledging that life isn't perfect and attempts to explain why, albeit built on other myths floating around the region at the time. Similarly, I doubt very much that Noah has anything to do with an actual person, but rather a concept and a mythological way of explaining perhaps at first a very real flood, but by the time it came into writing I think the verbally handed story had developed over generations to explain again why life isn't pefect and to perhaps justify God's existence. I think the changing God we see throughout the ages of the bible is a direct reflection of the changing and developing cultures.

"What we would describe as true to us individually in our beliefs/convictions is subject to change over the span of our lives". It most certainly is Randall, and many here are living proof. Like others, at 18 years of age I was convinced, absolutely unshakeable, that Jesus was the paternal son of God, that we all needed to 'accept' Him to be saved from eternal pain and suffering, and that although God was made of love, this attribute actually went hand-in-hand with so called 'justice' and Him sentencing his sweet children to eternal torment. I lived and breathed these thoughts and didn't think anything strange of them. It's just they way things were. 27 years on and my beliefs couldn't be further from the above. Life experiences and education changed my views completely. So I don't ever rule out them changing again if new experiences and new education turn me towards new beliefs. Subsequently, I remind myself continuously that people are a product of their upbringing, their experiences, their learnings, and sometimes their choices.

Stopman, I can only imagine that suffering schizophrenia must be a heavy burden to bear. I hope you are seeing a mental health professional and taking appropriate medication. Your post could be interpreted as having a suicidal edge to it - are you feeling like killing yourself? Forgive me if I seem blunt, but I have just undergone a couple of days training in suicide first-aid (how to identify people thinking about committing suicide, what questions to ask them, and how to help them in the short term) and they say to ask people outright if they are feeling suicidal. If you are, there are people who can help and I would be happy to assist you if need be. Even if you're not in that place, I do still hope you have somebody to talk to and help you with this problem. Feel free to personal-message me anytime. Cheers Paul

For me it's more a case of there not being that kind of a God - one that made anaimals for food and one that creates handicapped humans. For me, a loving God creating something and loving it immensely, but is happy to see us execute it and eat it, just doesn't make sense. To me, that picture of God totally overlooks the harm and terror caused to the animal by making it our food choice. To say God cares about animals, but at the same time is pleased to see them farmed (albeit eithically), executed and eaten, just doesn't add up to me. But rather than saying God does want us to kill and eat the animals he created so lovingly, I tend to think that God doesn't exist in that fashion. I don't know if you've ever killed an animal Stopman but in myopinion, unless they are totally blindsided, they know what's coming and the others standing around watching know that they're next. That doesn't seem loving or harmless to me. Animals have feelings and families too. I agree that we should end needless suffering to animals, and if I could be a vegetarian I would probably argue to end all slaughter of animals for food too. But I dont believe this because I think there is a God that wants or requires that, but because I have empathy for other sentient beings (but I acknowledge my empathy still lacks a lot if I am prepared to kill and eat these sentient beings).

Some people refer to soul or spirit as an entity, as something that might live on after they die. I currently take the view that my spirit is the software that gives my hardware meaning. My hardware allows thoughts and feelings to form, and experiencing these is what I consider 'spirituality'. I don't think my spirit will live on, but that's just me. So I agree with you Johnny that the way we see and experience 'life' in general can be our spirituality. For me it is. The everyday things we do can simply be tasks, or they can be moments of awe and wonder, but I don't think there's anything wrong with them just being tasks at times either. Without doubt, the earth on which we live is amazing. So much around us even in suburbia is amazing. The whole experience of life can simply be amazing, joyful and wonderous. Similarly it can be painful, hurtful and lonely. Yet it is still all an experience which we can appreciate as just that - an experience. That experience is our spirituality I think. Some people find inspiration in other people (such as Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc) and associated documents, some find inspiration just from watching a bird fly. I like to think of all of our experiences contributing to what some would call our 'spirituality' with spirituality being consider th eexperience and not something that is seperate to our existence in some way.

There is nothing to fear from learning about what makes others tick. As Joseph suggests, this learning can promote understanding. However, it seems many are afraid of letting their children think for themselves and want them to understand only one religion. I'm all for a push to educate our children in a broader context concerning religions. I'll be doing so with my kids.

There's two issues for me in your question, Stopman. Firstly, it's hard for me to imagine a God who loves animals just as much as humans, yet is happy for us to kill these animals for food. Surely by killing the animal you are causing some harm? The animal would have family too, wouldn't it? As you pointed out they have feelings so I don't think they would feel too happy about having to die just because you choose to eat them. If we imagine raising humans for food we are disgusted but not when we consider doing the same to other animals. So as for a God that loves them just as much as us, I can't see how that works. However, I detest cruelty to animals because I have some empathy. Cruelty is unnecessary and is a choice. Strangely enough I'm still prepared to let an animal be slaughtered for my desires, but I would like such slaughter to be as harmless as possible (I think this is hypocritical but I still do it because I like meat!). So I'm not sure it's a rights issue but I would like to see needless suffering taken out of the equation simply because I want to treat th animals reasonably well.

Well I'm all for stopping any cruelty to animals, but I don't think I can extend that to a 'right' not to be eaten.

A very civil and considerate discussion Steve, with both sides preparing to listen to each other - in fact even to scale down the definition of 'sides' and agree on some common ground. Thanks for the intro not just for this topic, but for the podcast 'On Being' in general. Looks like it might be very inteersting and one I will listen to more of by the looks of it.

Minsocal, my sincerest apologies. Names were never my strong point and I am sorry I have stuffed yours up on occasions.

My sincerest apologies, minsocal.

Welcome Pablo, I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul

Agreed - hence why I am trying to undersatnd it. I understand this. Of course allowing paedophils to ACT on their sexual orientation (if that is what it is) is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I was trying to discuss the 'naturalness' (or not) of such a sexual orientation. What line are you drawing Steve - the line that paedophillic sexual orinetations are not natural, or the line that has been drawn and identified and agreed to so many times here - that paedophillic actions are not acceptable or permissible exactly beacsue they harm the other party?

I'm sorry for you that you feel that way Steve. At no point did I ever pretend, allude to, or state that I have expertise on this matter. In fact, I am asking questions, not providing answers.