PaulS

ParSal, Like you, I would like there to be an afterlife, some continued existence of my self on some identifiable level (and those whom I love), however I don't expect that to be the case. We die each night when we fall asleep, and I expect that this is what 'the end' will feel like. Subsequently, I don't fear death as I believe I simply won't know that I'm dead, once I am. As mentioned earlier in this thread, death certainly seems harder on the survivors who are clearly still alive with functioning brains that recall memories of the lost loved one. That hurts. I believe this is where the notion of an afterlife comes from - our desire not to see an 'end' to our identity (or that of our loved ones). I acknowledge that some claim out of body experiences and other strange happenings such as outlined by Nancy above. I too have experienced 'something' which I cannot explain which does leave the door slightly ajar concerning an afterlife of some type. But even then, that doesn't scare me. I figure that if there is something on the 'other side', it will be to our benefit somehow - a natural part of living and dying. I also take some reassurance somehow, that millions & billions of people have died before me. It (dying) has happened, without any doubt, to every single person that has lived on this planet prior to the year 1850 (I'm being generous just in case there is some 162yr old hidden in some mountain village somewhere in the world!). It is natural and therefore something we are meant to go through, for whatever reason. What I do know is that I have this life now. To borrow a quote from the movie The Shawshank Redemption - "Get busy living, or get busy dying". It's our choice. Why dwell on the fact that we're going to die. We are anyway and there's nothing we can do about it. So do what you can to enjoy your life now. Cheers Paul

Hello AnnieG, I'm just across the way from your home country, in Western Australia. I similarly grew up fundy until about 18 when I simply could no longer 'believe'. I went a different path for the next 20 years or so and had nothing to do with what I left behind. Only in the last few years did I learn about Progressive Christianity and I have found this forum both immensely comforting and educational. I hope it offers you what you seek. I look forward to your participation. Cheers Paul

It's not so much a thing I have learned but rather a thing that I have come to accept - that none of us really have any idea if God really does exist or if so, in what form. That's the truth of the matter, and if my eternal soul's wellbeing rested on a particular correct belief as opposed to the cazillion other correct beliefs out there, then there is something seriously wrong with the system! This acceptance has allowed me to move on and investigate, to read widely and consider other people's views, and to not fear learning new truths.

I see shame as an emotion that yields a social benefit, but that's usually when the one feeling the shame recognises why s/he feels shame and implements corrective actions. I don't think feeling ashamed of somebody else's behaviour falls into that category. I don't see how me feeling ashamed of somebody else's actions yields a social benefit. Like many, I have used that phrase that I feel ashamed 'for' somebody else when what it probably is, is that I find their behaviour embarrassing because I perceive that they may be somehow seen as representing me, in some way. In this case, I could feel embarrassed for the poster of the picture and comment concerned, if I was American and felt that their behaviour may be construed as represenative of all Americans, myself included. But then what Joseph raised seems very apt to me. That is 'why' feel ashamed of or for somebody else's actions? Their view has absolutely nothing to do with me, and if somebody felt that it did, well that's their business. I don't think it should bother me in the slightest. I might have a view that it would be nicer for all concerned if the 'offending' party didn't behave in that particular way, but that's just my opinion. It would seem a lot healthier for me if I simply observed their comment, recognised that such isn't how I would act, and moved on.

Even further, Neon - why are there only books attributed to only a few of the very special and chosen disciples? Why don't we have gospels attributed to Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas (well, maybe we do), Simon the Zealot, and Judas (son of James not Iscariot)?

Maybe it's easier to 'believe' in something rather than live it out?

Norm, That would still leave room for having dreams but not recalling them, wouldn't it? I think it is possible and indeed reasonable that we might dream without 'knowing' we've dreamed. I know I have done things/experienced things in my life that I have no recall of. Admittedly, the lack of recall might be several years on, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility that I could dream tonight, but not remember I had dreamt by the time I awoke. So then the question would be did I dream or not! Cheers Paul

Whatever it is, it does seem to be an 'American thing', Neon. Maybe 'obsession' is not the right word, but compare the US's gun ownership ratio of 40% (as reported by Joseph) , to that of Australia's and New Zealand - 5% each. Why such a huge imbalance? What is it in our cultures that sees such a strong emphasis on the right to bear arms for Americans, yet no Aussies or Kiwis even carry concealed firearms (exluding law enforcement). Is it because the US had to fight for independence from England and it all stems from there? All three were countries which were 'invaded' by europeans and which fought and drove off indigenous peoples (NZ less so) and used firearms for hunting, yet for some reason the US certainly has outpaced the othe two in the gun stakes.

Just an aside, I know that I dream heaps more if I eat/drink dairy before bed. I've played with it and it works. Load up on some cheese and crackers and a few glasses of milk, and I am guaranteed some substantial dreaming. Either it's a chemical thing or my 'soul' just loves dairy!

Welcome Terry. I have a sister who is a missionary in Mexico City however she is very much of the fundy variety. She 'knows' God's will and His 'plan', so I don't think she'd be what you are looking for. Bit of a shame really, as she is moderately active politically, teachs English at UNAM, and has twin 11yr old boys! On the face of it she has similiar interest to you. I wouldn't know what church they participate in. I hope you enjoy the forum. Cheers Paul

I think just like the drug issue, banning assault weapons in isolation is not going to work. However making it illegal to manufacture/import/sell such weapons, combined with removing as many existing assault weapons from the population as possible, combined with better laws for regulating the sale of firearms and amunition, combined with education/societal attitudes towards violence, combined with a desire to not return violence for violence, all of these controls and more, might just move society toward a slightly safer place. I just can't imagine Jesus keeping an AK47 under his bed.

That'll be enough of that, Norm. Soon you'll have the whole world coming together and sharing their love and fellowship, irrespective of religous labels

I am very much enjoying the Olympics, although I do question whether there is something ironic about me sitting on the lounge (couch), glass of red wine in hand, wathcing those who have so much more committment to exercise

Welcome Ray, I hope you enjoy participating here. I am glad that you try to keep an open mind (other than the stances you personally will not waiver from) and I hope you might be open to much of the information offered in so many worthwhile threads here. Cheers Paul (Australia)

Yes, thanks Norm. This thread has been an interesting read. Christian Atheist is defined in Wikipedia and from there I take this paragraph: "Jesus, although not seen as divine, is still a central feature of Christian atheism. Most Christian atheists think of Jesus as a wise and good man, accepting his moral teachings but rejecting the idea of his divinity. Hamilton said that to the Christian atheist, Jesus is not really the foundation of faith; instead he is a "place to be, a standpoint".[4] Christian atheists look to Jesus as an example of what a Christian should be, but they do not see him as a god. Hamilton wrote that following Jesus means being "alongside the neighbor, being for him",[4] and that to follow Jesus means to be human, to help other humans, and to further mankind". I see my association with christianity as being a follower of Jesus, not in the sense that I believe everything that Jesus believed or stand by everything that Jesus said, but rather that there is much to be gained from his wisdom, particularly when it comes to his message of compassion, love, and being a 'full' person. That's enough for me. Yes Jesus seemed to believe in God as a person (Abba Father), which would be an absolutely normal expectation considering the culture he grew up in. Could he be wrong - Yes. Does it matter - No. Keeping Jesus in mind often, is enough for me to consider myself a Christian, but obviously there are numerous other takes on what defines a Christian as Christian. Frankly, for me, I don't really worry about that. Cheers Paul

I use to own 4 firearms as a result of growing up associated with farming and vermin control (rabbits, kangaroos, foxes etc). I haven't used these for years so decided to give them away (other than one rifle which has sentimental value - not in any sick way but because it was my father's ). Funnily enough, my fundamental christian friend strongly encouraged me to keep them all as I would be needing them in the end times!!! You gotta laugh. I have always wondered why in the US there are so many who feel the need to arm up to protect their family or themselves. That just doesn't happen in Australia (yes, there are some who argue for it but they are by far a monority) and it would seem even more so according to Paul in NZ. So what is the driving factor here? Is America really that violent and deadly a place that so many need to arm themselves for defence (when compared to say Australia or NZ anyway), or is it a mindset/fantasy that people are at such risk?

G'day John, I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul

In Australia we have quite strict gun licensing rules whereby you may only possess a gun with a licence, after having undergone a police check as well as justifying why you should own one or several firearms (usually reasons are you are in a gun club or you wish to shoot vermin such as rabbits, foxes etc in which case you need a letter from a sizeable landowner permitting you to do so there). Per capita we suffer a lot less firearms tragedies than the US, although we are not totally exempt. To me, the US does seem to have an absurd reputation concerning guns and ownership, which sets it apart from the rest of the western world. Whilst guns don't kill people, only people kill people, I see no justification for weaponry such as assault rifles, machine guns, etc. If that's your hobby then I think you can give it up for the greater good of society. Incidentally, when Australia suffered one of the worst single-handed massacres in 1996 (35 dead, 23 wounded) our government at the time banned all semi-auto firearms and compensated owners for handing them in. This included pump action shotguns, although other repeating rifles, such as a 12-round lever action Winchester that I own, still remain legal. But I also agree with Joseph because I do believe it's an attitudanal thing rather than the availability of a particular weapon. Why do these people want to cause such harm and is the culture responsible? I do believe that if you remove firearms, these types of people will just come up with some other way to commit mass murder, ways that may actually be more horrendous (think 9/11 and Oklahoma bombing). Perhaps, like Australia, a step forward might be to remove certain weapons from the public, compensate for their loss, and introduce licensing. I think it is reasonable to possess a firearm if you're an active club member and/or genuinely shoot on farmland, but not to possess for self-defence or carrying around on your person. Oh that's another thing - firearms owners here must secure their firearms in a certain type of secure cabinet which is secured to a brick wall from the inside (so it can't be stolen).

Yes, congrats Yvonne. Hope things are going better today. I'm off to bed now after a hard day's work building a new coop and run for my six chooks.

Sorry LWYRICK, I haven't read any of his works (just didn't want you to feel lonely here ). Cheers Paul

Nice song, Dutch. I listened to the clip on youtube. I have a habit of playing Johnny Cash's Ring of Fire everytime we drive off from a stop on a journey. This tends to deter the family from requesting toilet stops!

If I had to, I would label myself as an atheist christian. I am atheist in that I don't believe in a theistic God, and I am christian in that I believe the main thrust of Jesus' teachings have value and are worth trying to follow. If other christians don't like me self-labelling as that, well I guess it's just bad luck for them. Nobody owns the definition of christian, there is no trademark or copyright, so I can be a christian as I want, and they can dislike it or disagree, as they see fit. I guess it's easier because I am not attached to any sort of 'club' (church) which has doctrines or creeds which may pressure me into adhering to the majority view (other than TCPC, which I am comfortable with). Norm, as you ask in the OP, is this evolution possible in the Christian world? - well I think we are seeing a lot more of it currently. Many Christians are moving away from a 'father christmas in the sky' view of God. Many have embraced 'God' as spirit rather than a bearded father-figure sitting on a throne somewhere. You ask "Is it enough to emulate the words and actions of Jesus?" I say yes, other Chirstians say no. You ask if "those words command a belief in the supernatural deity as an a priori position to hold in order to claim the mantle of Christianity?". I say no, other christians say yes. "Should the Bible be the sole (infallible?) source of knowledge on the subject?" Again, I say no, other Christians will kill for this. Ask me again in two thousand years, and I might offer different answers Cheers Paul

G'day Nino, and welcome. I don't think we can take everything in the bible that is alluded to as the teachings of Jesus, as a given. In fact I think much of it can be put down to other people's interpretations and influences affecting how they viewed Jesus and his teachings. Similarly, I don't think that one has to believe everything that Jesus perhaps might have. Jesus may have believed in a personal God, but if he lived today he might be influenced differently by today's cultures (of course, he may not too). Perhaps Jesus did really believe in a personal God, but you don't have too. I think many Christians get caught up in this all or nothing approach to Jesus and the bible, whereas I believe there is lots of wriggle room to allow for external influences, even those on Jesus. Jesus the man had a monumental impact on humanity. Many will say that was because he was God incarnate and therefore we have to adhere to all of his teachings (whether accurately reported in the bible or not). That doesn't fit for me, but also it doesn't take away from, what is for me, the indisuptable fact that the main thrust of Jesus' teachings were about caring for one's fellow man and not to worry about tomorrow, as everything is okay (that's not to say don't take responsibility for your tomorrow, but rather not to worry about it). The rest will take care of itself. Cheers Paul

Welcome Eclectic, I hope you enjoy. Cheers Paul