PaulS

I agree it is not relevant when considering what we allow people to do or not do in society. I most definitely agree that paedophillia is harmful and unacceptable. But if heterosexual or homosexual inclinations are natural, couldn't paedophillia inclinations also be natural to a minimal percentile in society?

What do you make of a situation where Jesus doesn't do the healing?

Hmmm, I don't recall saying or even hinting that this group is not for you, so I'd like it to be clear that such is your interpretation alone. As I raised previously, although you seem to take the line that you see things that you think are important quite differently than most here on the forum seem to see them, I am still not clear on where you draw that line. It seems you too don't accept everything attributed to Jesus as being of Jesus, but when others question some of this you seem to say indicate that this isn't what you think things are about. Maybe I am missing something, but to me it seems you agree with those who questions what is/isn't Jesus, but want a line drawn somewhere in the sand, when in my opinion one can't be drawn. In any event, I have enjoyed interacting with you and I hope you do see fit to return to join in discussion any time. Cheers Paul

Adultery and stealing involve deceit, harm, and a power imbalance. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has the potential to harm as any person does, however the sexual orientation itself is not a sin nor is it anything for any homosexual to be ashamed of. IMO, to categorise homosexualityas a sin using a couple of ambiguous references made by Paul, is more than dubious.

Bill, I wouldn't go to the extreme of saying that God & Jesus can be just WHATEVER we want them to be, particularly in the context of Progressive Christianity, but I certainly do agree with you that first world you mention is not an option. I think there IS a consensus view here of what people think the main thrust of Jesus' message is - to love, to have compassion, to hold each other up. I am happy that we are free to debate and question and scrutinise what is said about or attributed to Jesus. To me, none of that detracts from the picture I hold about Jesus. Does it mean I am uncertain about what 'God' actually means/is? Do I know for sure what happens after I die? Is there really a hell and a heaven in some sort of afterlife? Is even entertaining all of these thoughts just a waste of time? Perhaps I will find out one day, perhaps I won't. In the meantime I have one choice - to live. And to help me live what I consider a happier and more fulfilled life I usually bring to mind many of the messages attributed to Jesus. Not all of them of course, but many. Does this come from God? Who knows. But I don't apologise that I don't fit other people's definition of a Christian. To be honest, maybe I am even a little antagonstic towards those who want me to deny Jesus because I don't hold their view of what a Christian is. I got enough of that when I turned my back on fundamental Christianity. Whilst I think I understand what you're saying about PC perhaps not being Christian enough by definition, in that you feel it doesn't somehow focus enough on Jesus in some way, I can't say that this makes sense to me. Just what is it you want PC to be? We have to agree on what Jesus said or didn't say, according to Bill? We shouldn't disagree or dicuss what Jesus is or isn't because it's tiring? To me the 'middle ground' you wish for simply means sliding the scale in one direction till it reaches 'Bill' point. It seems to me that you want more certainty than this group provides, but not so much certainty that you feel you're back in the clutches of dogmatic fundamentalism. It seems on the scale of things you wish most of us grouped around the same point concerning God & Jesus rather than be spread out along the scale as most of us seem to be. I don't have a suitable answer to your dillemma of living in between two worlds and wanting something else. My only thoughts are don't worry about it too much and don't get hung up on it not being exactly what you want. But that of course is advice that has to fit for oneself - it works for me but I'm sure not others.

To the contrary Bill, discussing what Jesus' teachings may be and may mean is what actually attracts me to Progressive Christianity and IMO, is entirely relevant. It could be entirely valid, but I think any sensible discussion might ask how you came to that viewpoint and what indicators pointed you to that view. I'd certainly be interested in what gave you an impression of such a Jesus. So Bill, do you find ALL the teachings of Jesus as espoused by some, as accurate and appropriate? Do you accept the teachings attributed to Jesus that indicates unbelievers will suffer in an eternal Hell? Or do question some of what is attributed to Jesus and actually say yourself that you don't think Jesus said this? I'm unclear as to just when you think we should question and when we have to accept something as the truth? One last point - I think Point 1 needs to be read in context alongside Point 5 - "Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes"

It certainly is more peaceful too, Dutch. How many people have died and/or been killed in the past by others who are convinced they 'know' the truth yet others reading the same book disagree.

I think that is a wonderful approach to God/life Stopman, and makes the most sense to me in light of the message and actions attributed to Jesus, especially against the background of so much misinformation and biased storytelling from authors thousands of years ago. All of those attributes of God you highlight (love, forgiveness, mercy, truth, justice, kindness, helping others, not being deceitful, fairness) are the opposite of what a hellfire God stands for and, in my opinion, points to the way things should be in the Kingdon of God and not how some species of Christians would insist they actually are.

You must be a happy man after that close result, TT!

Yet as you mention Bill, we don't know exactly what Jesus said, so it could also be that people ask this question because they don't see it as tying in with other things attributed to/associated with Jesus. Whilst one could use such a response to brush aside a subject or close a conversation down, it is also a very relevant question to ask when some people are attributing the information to Jesus. So knowing that early Christians did put words into Jesus' mouth, I think it is all too relevant to question the validity of everything we read in the bible. This is not akin to doubting, but rather questioning. Perhaps so. I for one wasn't there two thousand years ago and the way I read the Gospels it seems the ideas surrounding Jesus grew in their exaggeration of his status, which indicates to me that perhaps Jesus' teachings were warped by later followers who didn't know Jesus or properly understand his message. A simple example being his status as God and/or God's son (as opposed to all of us being children of God). To me it certainly seems that Jesus' status was warped by later followers. Probably just like we are doing now. Cheers Paul

Welcome Monty, Great intro and I too will check out Integral Christianity. Cheers Paul

Welcome Drudge, I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul

As it's said, "don't assume as it will make an ass out of you and me"! I think I have made it clear by now that many Christians do not accept the bible as God's word. Unfortunately, some Christians take offence to that, but that can't be helped. Your expectations and generalisations that 'Christians' base what they think on the bible is not wrong, it's just that many Christians interpret the bible differently than other Christians (nothing new there hence he hundreds of different denominations of Christians). There is no pretence and one certainly can be a Christian without 'accepting' the bible. The acceptance is simply that the bible was written by people that had a particular interpretation of God - like all humans, it doesn't mean that hey had it 100% right all the time. You are entitled to disagree but fortunately you do not 'own' Christianity and your narrow view/definition has no more seniority than mine. Subsequently I will call myself a Christian even if people like you do not agree. It is a Christian way, albeit different to the Christian way you insist others follow.

I can't disagree with you more, TT. IMO, not only has the description of Jesus and his activities been written in a fashion to make it seem like he was the fulfilment of prophecy, rather than them being an accurate record of such fulfilment, but not even all the alleged prophecy of a Messiah was fulfilled by Christ.

I beg to differ. Did Jesus believe the God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter men, women, and children in acts of genocide stated on about a dozen different occasions, also think this was the identical God he was worshipping who he proclaimed as love and compassion and forgiveness? I think not, but a narrow view of the written word might indicate so. If you are only interested in the 'record' as you interpret it, then I'm not sure i have much to add to my answers. I call myself a Christian and a follower of Christ, because I use what I believe was Christ's message to us about God and ourselves, as a way to live my life. I do not think for a second that the record, written by men, is accurate in all cases, even to the extent that, I think some men have even written interpretations of God that are contrary to other biblical authors. I certainly think the bible is far, far from infallible and I especially think that it should not be read as God's word as though God has given a final word on life and living. But then, that's just me who has been on both sides of the fence - committed, born-again Christian, and agnostic atheist.

You've certainly made me stop and think there, Stopman. If it's a paedophile's natural tendency to find kids sexually attractive, then it's hard to blame them for that - but our societal evolution recognises that acting on those desires is a negative both for the victim and for society in general. However, I'm not sure whether it is a natural tendency or a mental illness. I know many paedophiles are themselves victims of paedophillia which I think points to them being disturbed rather than naturally attracted.

That all depends on what/who you think is the God that Christ embraced. If we take a literal interpretation of the New Testament we get all sorts of mixed messages about this God. Throw in the OT God and I'd say there is no clear picture of who/what God is. However one outstanding message about God that Christ seemed centred on was one of compassion towards others, social justice, and love. I think that's a God one can embrace whether Christian or other. I think if you use this theme of Christ's to bring that God into your life, and/or you use Christ as your reference point when looking for an example of how to experience this God, then one is for all intents and purposes a follower of Christ embracing the God he embraced.

You might find PC hard to strictly define Thethinker, but the 8 Points will give you an indication: http://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/

Unless of course God did not say that but rather the author/s of Exodus understood God that way so chose to write this as an expression of what they believed.

"God is not a being to be pleased, so much as God is a verb to be lived" - adapted by me from Bishop Spong's latest newsletter. I like the thought of God not as a noun, but as a 'doing' word.

Well I've been to San Fran but not to Baltimore, so that's my only reason! I wouldn't say many Australians follow your football - we have our own national game which is called Australian Rules Football, which is much tougher and more athletic than your football with all it's rest breaks and protective padding

Welcome to the forum, thethinker, i'm in Australia myself but look forward to the 49ers winning their (6th?) Superbowl (just teasing- I don't follow it). For the changes you ask about go to the top right of the page where you're name appears and choose My Settings. I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul

You do seem to agree partly Stopman, where you recognse that to act on this supposed feeling of love towards a child (presumably in a sexual way) indeed hurts the child. Subsequently such an act can only be seen as selfish because to actually love somebody would mean an intent NOT to hurt them (IMO). That said, I think I understand what you are saying - that is that the paedophile who doesn't act on his or her natural urge, isn't neccessarily being a selfish person seeking only sexual satisfaction. If that is what you are saying - I agree. In that case I would say it's not so much about what sexually excites a person but rather what they do sexually that can create the harm. There's also the urge to commit murder that probably many of us have had, but because we don't follow through on that natural urge, we're not held to account. Which is how homophobes seem to deal with the homosexual urges of gays - they expect the homosexual not to carry such urges through. Most of us here probably answer that by applying the harm test - homosexual sex between consenting adults is regarded by most of us as not harmful, so there is no need to call for the restraint of such natural inclinations.

Skyseeker, I cannot imagine for a second, a God of love committing anybody to eternal punishment. I love my children and whilst I may correctively punish them, I would never insist that they be eternally seperated from me, and tortured to boot, because they didn't listen or didn't 'get it right' in this brief life (a pin prick along the line of eternity). I myself don't believe there was prophecy per se as specific events, but I do believe prophets may have warned society of the way it was heading. To that end, Jesus' words may have been very pertinent concerning the need to turn away from hate and anger, and towards love and compassion. I feel sorry for people who truly believe that a God of compassion would not forgive. It must warp there understanding of justice and fairness, not to mention their lack of empathy.

I heard an interesting twist from a fundamentalist yesterday concerning homosexuality. He was arguing along the lines that homosexuality is just like paedophilia from the point of view that he thinks that both are natural, in that just as gays are attracted to the same sex, paedophiles are attracted to little children. The fact that homosexuality is natural is not an issue because he believes we are all born into sin and depraved, so it is no suprise that homosexuality is 'natural'. Of course he couldn't see that apart from the sexual attraction, one situation involves love and relationship, the other involves only selfish sexual satisfaction. One has a future whilst the other can only cause harm. One is consensual and the other is abuse.