PaulS

Welcome, Gunny. Don't know much about CIM myself (if by that you mean Course In Miracles), but if it gives you peace and helps you feel comfortable in your own skin, without harming others, then I wish you well. I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul

Welcome Deb, It's a brave New World, although not all that new, just either ignored or buried. I hope you enjoy the path. Cheers Paul

I suppose that is one conclusion, George, but perhaps it's more the case of simply not finding sexual attraction in a person you actually know the 'cons' about. Many of us don't fall in love with people we know extensive history about, including childhood behaviours and family connections.

I have, George, which was actually what was on my mind when I last posted. Thanks though.

I'm not convinced that incest between siblings as a taboo, is actually intuitive. I think it is more likely conditioned into us and because there are other options, it usually doesn't enter into the equation. If there wasn't others around in a community then there may well be a need to teach teenagers to keep their hands off their siblings, if you didn't want that type of behaviour. Further to my point about intuition being affected by conditioning, I have seen many wildlife videos where newborn animals don't even try to flee from predators. There is simply no intuition there that their life is in jeopardy. However of course, that 'intuition' is developed later and most likely from observing others of their type fleeing in the face of danger. Really, what exactly is intuition? It is an understanding without conscious reasoning. But I drive my car without conscious reasoning - yet it is clearly a conditioning that gave me the ability to drive the car and recognise the dangers associated with same. I can't think of anything that I would clearly call an intuitive response, that can't be explained by conditioning.

True, George. Clearly they didn't have a Pope, or grand Cathedrals, or organised politics, etc etc. Personally, I am convinced that humankind has distorted much good that could have come out of Christianity. I do find it fascinating to learn about the many different 'types' of Christianity that existed in the early centuries. Nothing is as black and white as we're often taught, is it.

I wonder if you can have intuition without conditioning? What would you reference your intuition against otherwise?

I agree that Christianity cannot be independent of Jesus. Yet. Currently being a Christian means to follow Jesus (at least to some extent). Maybe one day it will simply mean to follow The Way (as exampled by Jesus and numerous others). Perhaps eventually the focus will be less on the one person, and more on what his and other examples have taught us. I too understand the followers of The Way to have been Jews in the synagogue. Nonetheless, they well could have been Jews who did believe that the Messiah and/or actual Son Of God had visited the earth to sacrifice himself for humankind as an atonement. I just think that Spong (perhaps Borg) have jumped a few steps if either thinks that being called a follower of The Way, conclusively means something different to what we regard as traditional Christianity (Son of God, atoning sacrifice, ressurection, etc). Cheers Paul

I think I have solved the whole homophobic issue. From the article Romansh quoted - "This year, Inbar's team found that exposure to disgusting smells can amplify negative attitudes toward gay men in both liberals and conservatives". That's it - We just need to get gay people to smell nicer! Actually, most gay men I have met seem to be better groomed and smell nicer than me already. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

I'm not so certain that a genetic component to morality is so clear. We might think it is clear right now, but clearly 'our' morality is differrent to other cultures in the past. Some cultures thought nothing of human sacrifice, rape, child abuse, torture, etc. If it is genetic, why does their morality seem so different?

Personally I think there will be a place for PC for as long as there are people who cannot embrace conservative religious beliefs as being the only way to God.

I do think both history and myth can provide insights. I don't have any issue with 'truth' not neccessarily being historically accurate. As I have referenced before, it's like that story about the Indian storyteller who starts off with "Now, I don't know if this actually happened, but I know it is true". In this case I was just trying to clarify that there isn't neccessarily anything controversial about early christians being called Followers of the Way. It seems, for all we know, they could have been the 'type' of Christians that I think Spong eludes to them not being.

Raven, I'm not suggesting government wander into churches making demands, I just don't see why government (representative of the people) cannot remove special conditions that as a society we offer to churches, if those churches aren't willing to abide by society's expectations. I don't think we're there yet, but I think the concept is fair and reasonable all the same. I think that if gay people choose to have a church wedding, they should be entitled to one, but only if they are part of that church community in the first place, or are accepted by that church community to marry there. Clearly, just to bowl into a church demanding to be provided a wedding ceremony would not serve any proper purpose other than antagonism. I don't think any govt should legislate to 'force' gay marriage onto any church or group that doesn't want it, but I do think that they should legislate to allow gay marriage immediately. Then those who aren't bigoted against gays can step up to the mark and offer church weddings to gay people, if that is what's sought. I disagree with you though that church's have a 'right' to teach racism, or any other kind of digusting behaviour, in my book. If church's want to exist in our society, they should do so in accordance with societal expectations. Whilst society let's such churches get away with teaching bigotry, discrimination, etc, such churches will continue to do so. I know it's a dramatic example, but we don't let churches commit human sacrifice even of willing members, and we don't let churches practice other practices with willing members such as polygamy. Why not, if that is their desire as a church community? Because we as a society reject it. Hopefully when we as a society reject such churches discriminating against gays, perhaps then they will reconsider their ways. Unlikely I know, but I wonder how long America might have been kept waiting for the South to come to its senses and recognise the human dignity of slaves? I mentioned it before, another dramatic example, but 150 yrs on from a war that was fought over some people's belief that it was God's will for them to have slaves, the majority of society understand such a concept to be utterly ridiculous. The change in their beliefs was well and truly forced, but 150yrs on and we don't look like returning to such ridiculous beliefs. I personally think it's time to end the bigotry against gays and I think the governments of the world should be leading the way. Just my two bob's worth. Cheers Paul

Yep. From what I can tell, it implemented this policy in the 50's when the parents of an asian student there, threatened a law suit because their son had become engaged to a white girl. It got dropped in the 90's when it became accidentally nationally exposed after a campaigning George Bush spoke there. McCain went to town on Bush for accepting the support of this university. The dating policy got brought up and the school crumbled under national pressure. Interestingly, in 1983 the US Supreme Court upheld the IRS's punitive revocation, after a 13yr battle, of the university's tax exemption because of its discrimatory dating policy. So it seems as early as 1970 the IRS revoked the university's tax exempt status (I'm not sure of the detail so I stand to be corrected) because of its discrimination. I wonder where else the IRS may be doing this? Anyone know of examples for homophobic discrimination? Notwithstanding the First Amendment’s freedom of religion guarantee, in 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s punitive revocation -- following a 13-year battle -- of the university’s tax exemption because of its “discriminatory” dating policy. The university’s recent reversal places the fundamentalist school in the company of other minority religious communities apparently compelled by judicial rulings, politics, IRS policies, or cultural hegemony to abandon religious beliefs and practices in order to conform with the dominant American culture.

Thanks Steve & George, My understanding is, that whilst Spong seems to take the side that 'followers of the Way' means something other than Jesus worship and a lot of what goes with fundamental christianity these days, that distinction can't really be drawn. In fact, those that followed the 'Way' of Jesus may well have done so because they believed he was either the incarnation of God or was the closest thing possible to being like God, and indeed may well have thought of Jesus' death as an atoning sacrfice, for all we know. Paul

I am aware of the separation between church & state, but can't say I'm convinced it's entirely right. I mean, in a democracy, the State is representative of the people, and basically the people have decided that racism is wrong. So subsequently there is no place in such a society for a church that practices racism. That's where I think the 'rights' thing maybe oversteps the mark. I agree that forcing a church that doesn't want to marry gays, to marry gays, is only going to cause antagonism. Certainly withholding a church's tax-free status if it doesn't want to particpate in the greater society, is a fair and reasonable thing to do. Undoubtedly, some churches would feel a degree of pride and revel in the 'persecution' of not having a tax exempt status. But I am certain that time is against them in any event. To the statement "You can't force someone who wants to keep living in the medieval era into modernity" - well, your Civil War did put an end to slavery. Of course I'm not suggesting war and/or violence, but I think there is a place for government (representative of the people) to force change as much as they can.

I don't think you are missing anything, Steve. Maybe people are a little shocked when killing and harm is so personalised as in this experiment, but really killing is what we, in our various tribes, seem to have done since we could. The instinct to defend/strengthen our tribe seems to have been with us since the begninning of tribes.

I don't think it should be a church's choice whether whether to marry gays or not. Why do we let religion get away with that, when we'd all scream blue murder if a church refused to marry a black and a white person, or two blacks (or two whites for that matter), or refused to marry an autistic couple, etc. Why is discriminating against gay people allowed? A church/religion can hide behind any 'religous belief' in that case, to discriminate. As Dutch mentions, licensing is an issue for govt. So if churches want to be allowed to marry people legally, they should have to comply with the laws of the state or be refused the opportunity. IMO. I would accept that somebody should perhaps be a member of that church before getting married there, otherwise I don't quite see the significance for the couple and it might otherwise leave room open for antagonism (a gay couple getting married in the most fundy church to make a political point).

Perhaps there's hope yet that America (and other countries) will follow Denmark today: DENMARK'S parliament has approved a law allowing same-sex couples to get married in formal church weddings instead of the short blessing ceremonies the state's Lutheran Church currently offers. MPs voted 85-24 today to change Denmark's marriage laws. The law takes effect June 15 and will put Denmark on par with countries such as Iceland and Sweden that allow full wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. In 1989, Denmark became the first country to allow the registration of gay partnerships. Since 1997 gay couples in Denmark can be wed in special blessing ceremonies at the end of regular church service.

I wonder if a 'higher purpose' somehow taps into our evolutionary 'survival mode'? If we think it's for a higher purpose, we must think it is for the better, which must mean it somehow aids our survival.

Apolgetics at work. The human race is usually identified as mankind and it is pretty clear most times when the bible is including both sexes and when it is specifying males vs females. For example, there's no hesitancy to single out the 'less intelligent' females when it comes to the purity code and menstruating women needing to comply, being one example. I find it humurous that many literal bible-readers often accuse others of 'cafe-christianity' - i.e. picking the parts of the bible that suits there arguments, when in fact it seems to be the literalists that do the cherrypicking, choosing to ignore blatantly obvious meanings in order to twist and manipulate the text to suit their theology. Anyway, what did Jesus ever say against homosexuality? You'd think if it was really that important (as a taboo), the human incarnation of God may have least made a passing comment concerning it!

Today I am home from work for my 3rd day straight, crook with the flu. At least between naps I get to practice my recently bought ukulele, catch up on posts here and on the Tony House Blog that I enjoy immensley, and play a little scrabble on my iPhone. Now, am I a nerd or what!

Well put, Dutch.

Romansh/George, I like the way the Indian storyteller says it in the tale - "Now I don’t know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true." Paul

In a recent newsletter, Bishop Spong says: The Christian Church was formed well after the death of Jesus, indeed some 50 to 60 years afterward. At the beginning of their life and history, the followers of Jesus continued to be what they had always been, members of the synagogues. Christianity began as a movement within the synagogue. They called themselves not“Christians” but “The Followers of the Way.” Jesus certainly did not found the church, despite the ecclesiastical propaganda of the ages. I am just wondering what evidence may be known to make this assertion that early christians called themselves 'Followers of hte Way'? I have heard it discussed before by Marcus Borg, and it sounds right to me, but I am unaware if there is some documentation or other well-known archeological evidence to substantiate this? Cheers Paul