PaulS

I think the option is there not to deal with those who think differently on the internet, but it's not really any different in the real world. Most christians will go to a church that suits them, or belong to a club that offers soemthing for them. Most of the time people won't deliberately put themselves in a group they don't agree with just so they can be challenged or do the challenging. Unless your sitting at your computer 24/7, I imagine you're still dealing with some people in the real world - Probably no less than those who go to their church for an hour or so who don't really have to deal with people of an alternate view for that period of time. I know I for one don't agree with other's points of view here sometimes, but I don't turn off. Similarly I occassionally find that they have some valid points of view. In the quote that Dutch provides above...."Evolutionists start with the assumption of naturalism, that natural processes explain everything that ever was, is now, and ever will be. Thus, it is not the data we are quibbling over, but an overarching theory of how to collect, interpret, and act on the data." Isn't it more of a case that the evolution simply starts with a question (where are we from) and then seeks out evidence to answer the question. Because they happen to find fossil evidence and DNA that demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that we evolved from primordial ooze and that the earth is billions of years old, is hardly a reason to say that they 'start with an assumption of naturalism". Actually to the contrary, I started with the assumption of creation and a young earth until the evidence became so overwhelming that I was forced to accept evolution.

I don't think 'virtual friends' are the same, but I see the internet being used to create communities that meet in person. I have a friend from the UK working in Australia who set up a Facebook site inviting other people who might be working in the city without friends & family from home - within a couple of months the site now has about 150 members, with 50 or so people coming together every few weeks or so. Similarly, groups of like minded individuals are starting clubs and groups on the internet which then morph into real life get togethers and meetings (car clubs, gaming groups, fishing clubs, etc). I know your point George and I agree that a virtual friend really can't replace a friend in the flesh, but I think the internet is being used more and more to 'connect' these people whom then go off in their various communties. For me personally, this forum is about the only christian community I participate in as I find attending chruch unpalatable. Whilst it might not be the same as socialising with peoplein the flesh, it's the difference between some participation and no participation.

Of course it is. Personally I think believing in a God who is love, merciful & just as the same God who would order his people to commit acts of genocide, execute non-virgins, support slavery, seek to harm and destroy homosexuals, etc etc, as crazy too. Yet so many people believe it. Why? - I think culture, family, approval by friends, security (promised an eternal heaven), fear (promised an eternal hell), not understanding an alternative, etc. I'd add another option to laugh or cry - be afraid. I'm not fear-mongering, but I think people should be very concerned when people with such beliefs are in a position of power to implement harmful changes because they align with their beliefs or worldview.

I have no doubt - I fully agree. 'Showy' wasn't the best word (as I mentioned) but I was just trying to point out that a lack of religous affiliation doesn't neccessarily lead to a loss of spirituality, so I don't neccessarily see there being a 'gap' per se (at least not in my culture in Australia). Whilst there is a decrease in religous affiliation, this doesn't neccessarily coincide with "an urge toward the spiritual" decreasing, at least from what I see and read. As Neon points out, many of these people 'connect' through means not available 20 years ago.

I certainly agree with Valent that spirituality is a dimension of human existence that can lead to resilience, but I think Collins & Clark in their above comments compliment Valent's view. Maybe Valent speaks further to 'community' arising from spirituality, but based on the above his and Collins/Clark go hand in hand, in that we're not talking about Australian's losing spirituality because less identify with a particular religion. To the contrary, I think Collins/Clark's comments make the point that Australian spirituality is simply less 'showy' (for lack of a better word) in that it is not explicitly religous and is ultimately characterized by a serious quiet reverence, a deliberate silence. It's not that such spirituality isn't passed on to younger generations, but rather people just aren't identifying with organised religion as much.

I've been having this discussion with a fundy friend of mine who is anti-homosexual (no suprises there I guess). Too often he keeps bringing beastality, paedophilia, and polygamy into the mix linking them in some biazarre way to homosexuality, whenever I raise the the point that gays don't choose to be gay, they simply are. Clearly the first two I always refute on the grounds that they're non-consensual and actually harm people against their will. Polygamy, whilst not strictly against a person's will, I do wonder if these relationships are formed out of love. I seriously doubt it. I think for the man they are formed out of the context of his religious belief (I wonder if there are any non-religous polygamists?) as they are for the women who I think, misguidely, believe they are fulfilling God's will first, and marrying out of love second.

In Australia, the 'nones' are also the 2nd largest group, but it hasn't been a dramatic shift that has somehow left a hole in community. Steadily over the last 100 years or so, the 'nones' have grown from 0.4% to 25% of the population. I haven't observed a noticeable breakdown in community and I haven't read of any such views. I suspect a wide variety of other things have filled the 'gap' so to speak, at various times and for some in an increasing manner: political activism sport other recreational activities war eastern and other foreign traditions So I think those needs that Myron mentions are still beign fulfilled (in Australia anyhow), just in groups of a reduced size rather than one big label. Perhaps in Australia the population doesn't have such an urge toward the spiritual as Searle suggests. Certainly the information below (Wikipedia) rings true for me: Although many Australians identify themselves as religious, the majority consider religion the least important aspect of their lives when compared with family, partners, work and career, leisure time and politics.[16] This is reflected in Australia's church attendance rates, which are among the lowest in the world and in continuing decline.[17][18] In explaining this phenomenon, writer and broadcaster Paul Collins said "Australians are quietly spiritual rather than explicitly religious", and famous historian Manning Clark defined Australian spirituality as "a shy hope in the heart .... understated, wary of enthusiasm, anti-authoritarian, optimistic, open to others, self-deprecating and ultimately characterized by a serious quiet reverence, a deliberate silence, an inarticulate awe and a serious distaste for glib wordiness."[19]

3. Americans are just becoming more secular like in Europe and Canada...and Australia thanks George! We don't get much credit on the world stage so don't hide our light under a bushel if you don't mind! But seriously, Jack Spong has been saying for a while that Christianity must change or die. I think this is an indication of what he is referring to. I'd like to think that another factor is that with the science of evolution, DNA, and the more common exposure of biblical scholarship, churchgoers are simply starting to realise that Christianity is losing credibility. I suspect these people don't want to lose their faith in God, but find it hard to go along with this antiquated view of God and Christianity (antiquated in the sense that this new-ish version of Christianity has started to grow old).

We've had a similiar issue in Australia, Neon. Here, we celebrate Australia Day on 26 Jan and historically it has been a celebration of the landing of the First Fleet - the first British settlers to Australia. Of course 'settlement' has become a contentious term as, like North America, there were already inhabitants of the land but they weren't capable of stemming the tide of these 'illegal immigrants'. Protests over the last couple of decades have made people recognise the injustice done to indigenous inhabitants and our national holiday has grown into a celebration of our entire country's 'Australian-ness', including our indigenous heritage. There are still some groups who oppose any sort of celebration linked to the European 'invasion' of Australia, but others recognise that in a sense "what's done is done" and current society is not to blame. Of course alot has been done to recognise that injustices were committed commencing over 220 years ago. I don't think abolishing the day outright would be balanced (our Australia Day that is) but celebrating it in an inclusive fashion, recognising the wrongs done to indigenous peoples whilst celebrating that it was the start of the great society we have ended up with, might be the most sensible option. Of course, I am not of aboriginal descent though.

If only it was so simple, Raven. I don't know where my fundy friend would fit into this though. He truly believes in the scripture being literal and that we are all sinners doomed for Hell, unless we repent and accept Jesus as Saviour. He firmly believes he has been charged by Jesus to spread the Good News and that those who refuse to listen or try to convince others not to listen are genuinely causing harm (to themselves if they won't listen, to others if they convince them they don't need Jesus, because of the consequences of Hell). To be fair, I think he means well, it's just that he's convinced of this world view and subsequently everything he does is viewed through this lens. So whilst he is often kind to others, he won't tolerate those who try to 'corrupt' others. He generally doesn't 'waste' natural resources but has a firm belief that God gave man 'dominion' over the earth (in th esense that it is ours to control) He takes care of his family but will defend them against 'evil', particularly when this means protesting against laws which he believes contributes to an unrighteous society (contrary to God's will) Compassion is demonstrated but has limits (e.g. if God thinks you should burn forever, then God must be right) Leading by example goes even further - he feels he should be convincing others that his example is what God wants of them too. Oh if it was only so easy as you suggest. At least it is for us I guess! Cheers Paul

I read it about a year ago. I found his honesty refreshing in that of course he has no idea what happens after death, if anything, none of us really do. I like Spong's stuff so it was an easy read for me, and I don't really have any doctrine I adhere to (other than I'm anti-fundy doctrine) so there wasn't anything threatening to me or my beliefs. All in all, I just found it a nice read with some interesting points (I particularly enjoyed him discussing and supporting a person's right to euthenasia). Cheers Paul

Thanks guys, Books have been added to my Wishlist for purchase as soon as I get through a few on my shelf, and that site Rivanna, has been bookmarked for further reading. Cheers Paul

Thanks for the articles, Dutch. It seems to me though that the first one has nothing to do with love. It seems to actually point toward fear of God watching you and perhaps punishing you is the evolutionary advantage. As for the second, I think it needs to be clarified that for women to live longer, that nicer personality does include picking nits and other insects from their companion's bodies Cheers Paul

Thanks Jonny, I found that doco very interesting. Cheers Paul

Welcome Eusebius, I find the historical Jesus and early Christianity interesting too. Having been raised a fundy before turning my back on it at 18, I wish I had a historical and sociological context with which to consider the bible, rather than the sole understanding of it literally being THE word of God. I find that I am catching up now and I find it all immensely interesting. Enjoy. Cheers Paul

I can appreciate the relevance of the term salvation as you suggest, it's just not my thing. I agree you wouldn't want to go into a whole thesis about the development of the canon in these 7 points - my only point about it meant to say that your Point 3 as it stands, reads to me as though we can have trust that the bible contains the WHOLE history of the development of the church and so on. As you quite correctly clarify, it is how SOME people interpreted....etc etc I agree the Golden Rule is often a common thread, and that focussing on the what divides rather than brings together can be detrimental. These are your points so as you say, it's what speaks to you. I would just feel more comfortable saying what you said in correcting me rather than saying I am a Friend of all these other religions which to me translates as though you agree with all of these other religions. You know what you mean, but others reading these points might not (if making tem public is something you plan to do). I guess my last point goes even further to yours about the bible being a man-made creation. It's very possible, indeed likely, that the picture of Jesus portrayed in the canon is indeed man-made too. I know you're not one, but I've known too many people whom by making Jesus their focus (think 'what would Jesus do') start determining doctrinal psoitions because they believe this is what Jesus is/was/said. I like your point about heeding the Spirit. I guess at the end of the day that is ALL one needs do. By all means consider a 2000 yr old book, but understand that the book and the man portrayed in the book can possibly be wrong. But of course Dave they are your points and I'm just throwing my two bobs in.

Dave, I agree in the main but have my own thoughts about a couple of your points: 1. I don't like linking the 10 commandments with God's law of love as it suggests God provided the 10 commandments, which is a popular vein of thought to some. To me, although perhaps there is some inspiration for the 10, I predominantly see them as man-made and of a culutural influence of the time. They are patriarchal in nature and one even discusses women as property - I don't think that's God's love. 2. Salvation is such a loaded word with negative memories for me. If you mean saved in the sense that Jesus as a man inspired by God tried to tell others how to life to the full and if we choose to aim for that we will benefit well, then I'm in. 3. Yes a secondary source but it would pay well to remember it is only the doctrines and writings which won the day and made it to the canon. There was much around that was perhaps guided by the Holy Spirit but which isn't reflected in the bible. 5. I'm not a proponent of all other religions because I simply don't understand all other religions. I don't know everything that Mohammad says, but understand that some writings are indeed brutal. That's why Islamic fundies kill people, much like Christian fundies relied on their religion to support slavery. I can accept that much of many other religions is of a similiar vein to Christ's messages and offers hope to many. 7. I think you saying living with Jesus as a focus is intended well, but so many people have done that in the past in ways that I would say have been misinterpreted. Aren't we simply replacing a 2000yr old text with a 2000yr old man? If you mean focus in a 'soft' way, that Jesus is an inspiration and worthy of contemplation, then yes. If you mean focus as in studying his words as thought hey are literal, then no. Please don't view those as negative, just my two bob's worth as constructive criticism from my point of view only. Cheers Paul

Having read Bart Erhman's 'Lost Christianities' and wishing to learn more about the earliest Christians (and diverse range thereof), I was wondering if anybody could recommend any particularly useful resources, particularly online ones (but not restricted to). Cheers Paul

I don't know anything about this work, but based on what you have said Neon, I don't see how it 'harms' any person. As I've mentioned a few times, there is a difference between offence and harm as far as I'm concerned. As Joseph suggests, perhaps this topic has run it course. It has for me anyhow. I agree we disagree. Cheers Paul

Padre, welcome. I have been in an aircraft before and I even used to go to church Welcome to the forum and I very much look forward to your participation. I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul

...and daughters were stoned to death outside the city gates if they weren't found to be virgins on their wedding day. Yep, power & laws can certainly be misused and abused, but I'd like to think that as society matures such laws are refined. Incidentally, I never said people were harmed by this video. Perhaps I sidetracked the post when I questioned what this seemingly US concern about Freedom of Speech overriding other rights, meant. I think I clearly understand your feelings Neon, and I have no doubt that our cultures and the historical development of our nations affects how we view this matter.

Neon, Jesus didn't say we should jail paedophiles or rapists either. I simply can't imagine jesus standling idly by whilst somebody is raped or beaten and repeating the mantra "forgive them God for they don't know what they do". I find it hard to imagine that such aJesus would just stand by. I don't want to get into a debate about whether the bible argues for or against Freedom of Speech (like most bible interpretations, I think boths cases could be made), but I do think you would agree that theBible is filled with examples of how standing against the oppressors is a righteous, holy and godly thing to do. Where freedom of speech violates social responsibilities and encourages or directs harm, discrimination, racism, homophobia, or even sexism, I would say there is a place for somebody to stand up and say, "Hey, we don't accept that in this community. You are free to have your opinion as long as it doesn't hurt somebody else." And that's the distinction I want to be clear on. I'm not arguing concerning 'hurt feelings', I'm arguing against speech that causes harm to people, either physically, mentally, or financially. Just where the line is drawn as to what constitutes harm may be difficult, but that's no reason not to try and confront it.

But in a representative democracy aren't you doing exactly that - giving reponsibility to your elected representatives to make laws on your behalf? Or only some laws?

I think that's debatable. I know I've both read and listened to arguments against such, but at short notice this is all I could come up with: If Paul had frequently imaged Jesus' death in terms of temple sacrifice and the Day of Atonement elsewhere, or if he had elaborated this idea in Romans, seeking an alternative interpretation of his teaching would be a waste of time. But this is emphatically not the case. Apart from one passage in Romans, 3:21-26, there would be no grounds for attributing this thinking to him. The impression that he taught this idea frequently grows out of traditional interpretations of this one passage and then reading other passages in light of this interpretation. But none of the other verses would by themselves lead to this doctrine if interpreters did not bring it to them. They can be understood more naturally and plausibly in another way. The case for Paul's teaching the doctrine of the atonement actually rests, not on this whole passage, but on one part of one verse, Romans 3:25. Interpreting this one clause involves decisions on some very technical matters, but since I cannot deal with those, I will describe the issue in more general terms. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3354

I was more making the point that most of us do actually take restricting Freedom of Speech in our stride daily with our clubs, churches, organizations and websites. We don't seem to bat an eyelid about restricting this 'fundamental human right' when we see restricting it making sense for our purposes.