PaulS

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.

I think it's a shame that people such as the preacher you mention Stopman, can only see God as a superhuman person, as opposed to the ingredients that make for a loving, compassionate and peaceful life. If more people were prepared to consider God as an unknown other than a force that points us toward these qualities, then there'd be no issue about 'other Gods'. The 'other Gods' would simply be those ideas and actions that detract from a loving, compassionate and peaceful life. I'm all for distancing ourselves from those Gods and putting love, compassion and peace (God) first.

Steve, I mean his own convictions in the sense that as George stated, as a matter of his own conscience, that he felt he could no longer participate in this forum. That's why George left - because he chose too. Ron, I never suggested that George was not respectful. Please re-read my post. Whilst I believe George would understand respectability, I, like you, believe he didn't/couldn't accept the final decision, evidenced by his voluntary departure. Like you, I don't know all that happened behind the scenes so I am not going to start making assumptions. At the end of the day George decided to sign off without an in-depth explanation as to why, as is his right and choice, albeit a shame for us left wondering. I am saddened that you think the matter came down to a win or lose situation for the Administrator. Perhaps you should discuss the matter with him. I am certain that vigorous debate is still, and will continue to be, on this forum, Unfortunately without George's input, much to our disappointment. I, as I'm sure you would and as i know Joseph would, would welcome George back in an instance. If anyone has a private line to George, may I ask them to communicate to George that many of us are disappointed that he no longer felt he could participate here, and we hope he returns.

Of course you didn't say blindly change them Steve, but you did say its time to reconsider them when we lose people over policy issues. In this instance we seem to have lost one person perhaps not so much because of policy issues, as opposed to a difference of opinion. It needs to be noted that there was no policy that saw the disengagement of George, other than his own convictions. Perhaps things could be more and that is a fair question to ask. I respect your opinion that there could be more diversity of opinion here, although I really think we are pretty well accomplished here in the diversity-allowance stakes! In any event, I don't think George's view was not tolerated because he did not agree with the powers that be, but rather that the judgement of those who are entrusted with the responsibility of keeping this site a place for respectful discussion was not properly understood and accepted by George. And I say that with the deepest respect for George because I valued his participation.

Thanks Dutch. George staying would have definitely been better than his departure, and I hope he finds his way back here someday.

Not neccessaily, Steve. The policies seem to work pretty good here from what I can tell, and there are certainly very few good, thoughtful, reasonable members resigning over policy issues. I of course am very dissapointed that George felt he couldn't continue, but I don't think that neccessarily means there are problems with the forum's policies. Just my two bob's worth.

Don, Your post reminds me of a podcast I listen to called 'Reasonable Doubts' and a segment called "God Thinks Like You", which by it's title, you may have guessed, presents a number of examples where God's mind seems to remarkably fit what different people believe. I have no proof that God does or doesn't exist. I have no idea if there is a God or if there isn't. But frankly, I don't care. What I see as 'working' in my life and others is that peace is a good thing, social justice is a good thing, relationship with friends and family are good things, and worrying about other things in life is usually a waste of time. If there is a God, I am sure that God would prefer I live a life this way rather than get any definition of God right. Cheers Paul