PaulS

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

Skyseeker, I'd definitely recommend that you talk to professionals in this area such as your Doctor and/or a psychologist. Your conditions can be helped to a degree by your own thought process, but often your brain just isn't up to it. I've heard the analogy before that with anxiety, your mind is like a car and seratonin is the brake pedal. Your mind races and races with anxiety and issues and your brake pedal is pumping and pumping, until there is nothing left to pump. That's when you need meds to help. I really hope you are onto this or will see somebody. As for an angry God - no such God exists. People who explain the actions of a violent God as 'justice', have no understanding of what true justice is. Mitigating factors play a part in every crime - and if there is a God that sees all and understands us, that God will accept you for who you are, bad bits and all. He will know the mitigating factors in your life. In my opinion, Christianity can really screw your head even of you don't suffer mental health problems! The Jesus I see in the bible is a kind person that tries to hep others, and seeks social justice. I think emulating Jesus is what Christianity is all about, not simply making yourself believe certain doctrines. The only other thing I can say is keep reminding yourself that you will get through this, everything will be alright someday. When you are feeling your worst, try to remind yourself that this is a logical, medical process. Your brain is lacking some chemical that other people's are not, and that is the only reason your brain is playing with your head so to speak. All the best Paul

Has Church simply become outdated to a degree? Have we socially and culturally evolved to a point where many of the population no longer see any benefit to be gained by committing to a regular worship service and associated committments? If so, does it matter? Has personal 'spirituality' stepped in to fill the gap previously plugged by Church? From a Christian point of view, are people simply tired of being told they are going to go to Hell and has the advent of time (+2000yrs since Jesus lived) simply lessened the message and threat of a warrior-Jesus' 2nd coming?

Abraham Joshua Heschel, a Jewish Rabbi, theologian and philosopher, who was a very close friend of MLK’s, taught that one of the tasks of religion was to “inspire awe". To quote: “Our goals should be to live life in radical amazement - to get up in the morning and look at the world in a way that takes nothing for granted. Everything is phenomenal, everything is incredible - never treat life casually. To be spiritual is to be amazed.” Just something that struck a chord with me.

Quite possibly so, Bill. I believe the statistics arrive from census data where people answering the question tick their religion as 'none', as opposed to say Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. So it is probably less a case of rising atheism and more a case of people not affiliating with a specific religion. I actually think the category "Spiritual, but not religous" could be on the rise too if such data was collected anywhere.

As I understand, the fastest growing religous group in the US is the 'NONES' - those with no religous affiliation whatsoever. I don't know the exact reasons why this is so, but I suspect the internet and our information age has a lot to do with it. When in our history before the internet were we ever exposed to, or had such access to, the resources we have today about biblical scholarship, historical Jesus, and so much science that explains so many things simply attributed before to 'God'? I see the decline in mainline churches a direct result of this information age. I see any rise in conservative Christianity as people seeking a security blanket in these times of financial crisis and insecurity, and as Wayseeker points out, for the purpose of community - fellowship and friendship with like-minded folk.

I don't know if you'll read this George, or if you have already signed off from this forum. In any event I would like to say that I think it is dissapointing that you won't be participating any more. I have found your posts useful and a pleasure to read/debate. You will be missed. I don't know the precise reason or conversations you've had that have culminated in this decision, but I would ask that you reconsider leaving - if you think something is wrong then the only way to change it is to try and change it. By leaving you have no opportunity to do so and the matter remains unresolved.

Welcome Stopman, From all the way over here in Australia, I look forward to reading more about your ideas and beliefs. I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul

I understand your lack of optimism George - there's a long road ahead. But actions like you point out above, will impact how society thinks about firearms. An Australian artist named Paul Kelly sings a lovely song called "From little things big things grow". Whilst it is a song about indigenous land rights in our country, I think it is apt for America's plight with guns. Less than 50 years ago our indigenous peoples had no entitlement to compensation to the land that was taken from them upon white settlement, and had no rights to the land whatsoever. Most of society probably thought that was logical, even fair. In 50 years the tide has turned entirely. I can only hope that the US may experience a similiar cultural and mindset change toward firearm possession.

Exactly Halinsalem. What does it mean? As a married hetero male, I feel marriage is an institution that demonstrates my committment to my partner. I don't need it to have committment, but there is 'something' about being married that perhaps helps couples through thick and thin. As far as I can tell, many gay people simply want that same right so they can feel just as much a part of society as I do. Whilst 'forcing' a change in definition might be uncomfortable for many, I don't think that is a valid reason. As Joseph says "If marriage speaks to society in general as an institution between a man and a women than perhaps we can have another word that speaks to one between a man and a man or a woman and a woman that defines the difference without the prejudices." I think it is only a matter of time before the definition of marriage comes to be the norm to include gay people. I believe the tide is against those that want 'marriage' to remain exclusively a heterosexual domain.

For me, podcasts are quite handy as 4 or 5 times a week I spend at least an hour straight in my car. Then there's also the shorter trips in between, so I find podcasts a really useful way of learning and listening.

Seeingthelight, It makes me happy to read that you chose option 2. I am certain your son, your family, and the world, are better off for it. Cheers Paul

And you too, Don. I hope the opening of The Perfect American goes well for you and your colleagues. Cheers Paul

Just sharing a link to a podcast that I have ben listening to for a few years now. It provides weekly, one-hour podcasts typically comprising of commentary concerning contemporary issues, and interviews with a diverse range of people (religious and not) concerning religous matters. In their words: "Interfaith Voices is the nation's leading public radio show about faith, ethics and spirituality. Each week we offer you analyses of the big headlines alongside lesser-told stories – those of Orthodox Jewish artists and African-American atheists, Muslim feminists and spiritual seekers. Through these stories, a rough sketch of our country’s religious landscape begins to emerge. It’s a marketplace of beliefs and ideas too complex for sound bites, and too important to ignore." http://interfaithradio.org/Home I have found their podcasts enjoyable and enlightening. Cheers Paul PS - Whilst I am it, another podcast I have found very enlightening (and humourous) is http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/

Excellent post, Don. Thankyou. One question - do you think you could choose NOT to believe in the God you do? Do you think that is a choice that would really be up to your logical mind?

In theory I think it could work well, Skyseeker, but in practice I'm not so convinced. It might reduce affairs but I wonder if at the end of the days affairs are in some ways attractive because of the 'thrill' of the chase and not so much about the 'product'. A husband or wife that needs an external affair because they're bored with one partner, would probably be just as bored with two (perhaps). I think culturally there might be too much baggage to make it work. But if a number of people were happy enough and found the relationship worked for them, then I'd see no harm. I have always thought it strange that the expectation is that we will have one and only one love for our life. I think I could love more than one person as dearly as I love my current wife, however I'm not certain relationships can stand up against that so well.

Rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism: a bishop rethinks the meaning of Scripture Spong, John Shelby. Why Christianity must change or die : a bishop speaks to believers in exile : a Spong, John Shelby. If God is Love Philip Gulley/Jim Mulholland The God We Never Knew Marcus Borg AD 381 Charles Freeman The Dark Side – How evangelical teachings corrupt love & truth Valerie Tarico Putting Away Childish Things Marcus Borg Misquoting Jesus : the story behind who changed the Bible and why. Ehrman, Bart D. Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally Marcus Borg The Greatest Show On Earth Richard Dawkins The Heart of Christianity Marcus Borg

As you probably all know by now, I think a ban on all military weaponry and repeating-action firearms would be an excellent start. It makes a statement and it removes a ton of deadly firearms from your society. It's not a solution in isolation and needs to be accompanied by cultural change, but it's a start. Massacres won't stop overnight, but they will become more difficult to execute if there are less guns and less efficent guns, available.

My two bob's worth - just start, somewhere. Display stickers on your cars - "Guns Kill Kids". Start petitions. Blog and protest against ridiculously violent films. Support the government in any move to restrict/ban military weapons. Talk about guns in your churches and schools. Schools - educate your kids that guns are weapons, not toys, not a way to solve a problem. An ad campiagn would be a brilliant idea, Dutch. Promote discussion and push it to action. Don't let it die away. I don't think there is one, prominent solution. Certainly the US is highly overrepresented in firearm homicide compared to the rest of the world. Somewhere someone mentioned that the US's right to bear arms comes from a historical background where it was neccessary - it simply isn't today. People's mindsets have to change and that can only happen if and when they are prepared to think about the issue. Certainly a massacre puts it on the agenda but some of the suggestions above will keep the issue alive and you will see change.

Skyseeker, If it works for you and doesn't harm another, I have no issue. For me, I don't accept that Jesus meant to die in any way, although he may have been aware of the risk that his preaching was attracting, and so I can't think in terms that 'the cross' was some sort of lesson. I think the whole process was a standard execution of a man that the authorities considered a rabble-rouser and a risk to stability. I think that because of what Jesus' followers thought of him, various interpretations and story-building around his execution rose up. We can take our various interpretations away from the situation and use them how we like to inspire or encourage us, but seeing something from a certain viewpoint doesn't neccessarily make it truth. In relation to eternal life, I have no problem with death destroying me. As far as I am concerned it has done so to billions and billions of others before me. It is a normal process of living. It would be nice to move into a glorious afterlife - I'm just not convinced such exists. And whilst you hope for a 'solution' some day from all of our pain, love, suffering and misery, I begrudgingly accept that any such solution is what we must strive for today, or accept the situation for what it is. One can still accept pain and misery as life experience and thus accept it. Cheers Paul Just as an aside, I thought I'd mention that I am 1/2 German myself, in that my birth-mother arrived in Australia from Germany in 1966, and in 1968 gave birth to me after falling pregnant to an Australian. I was given up for adoption and raised by an Australian family, but tracked down my birth father and mother (they aren't together) a few years ago. Maybe this explains my penchant for beer!