PaulS

I wonder what peoples' thoughts are concerning whether our society has developed for the better. I know there are the practical aspects that we generally consider for the better, such as better health care, longer life spans, running water, electric blankets, microwave popcorn, and so on. But at the crux of it, are we better off than ancient tribespeople? Sure they might have died before they were 30, but what's so bad about that? Life may have been 'tougher', but I don't imagine they saw it as so - life was just what is was, probably in the same way that future generations will look back on us and wonder how we ever lived without flying cars and tele-transporters. Don't get me wrong, I'm not promoting a 'go-back-to-the-land' philosophy. There is of course the enviromental considerations that go with a vastly more populated planet. Millions of people simply couldn't wask their clothes in mountain streams, deficate in the bush, kill local wildlife to survive, or else the planet would be totally ruined (if not now, in the future at some point with continued population growth). But why is living longer and physically healthier considered 'improvement'. Surely even to the religous fundamentalist, this is only delaying the onset of heaven. And although we may live longer, are we happier or more satisfied that our earlier-dying ancestors? Even if we are, so what? Just a thought that has come acorss my mind recently as I have been reading a bit about Australia's first indigenous people and also the Amazon's Piraha people who frankly, to me, all seemed quite happy with their lives without the type of government and society we now find ourselves living in.

I thought I'd look into just what atonemnt theories are out there. I didn't realsie there is and have been so many. Here's a quick list from the link http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm Major theories of the atonement are listed below in chronological order: The Ransom Theory (God deceitfully pays off Satan with a bribe) Introduced by Origen in the third century CE. The Satisfaction Theory (Jesus appeases God by being a ritual human sacrifice) Introduced by Anselem, in the late 11th century CE. The Moral Theory: (Jesus' death is an example for the rest of humanity to emulate) Introduced by Abelard in the 12th century CE. The Acceptance Theory (Atonement comes from the arbitrary choice of God) Introduced by Scotus circa 1300 CE. The Penal (a.k.a. Penal-Substitution) Theory (God's mercy replaces his wrath after the infinite sacrifice of Jesus) Introduced by Reformation theologians circa 1520 CE. Christus Victor Theory: Jesus voluntarily allowed himself to be executed. This defeated the power of evil and released humanity from its sin. Being written Narrative Christus Victor Theory: Being written Non-violent atonement theories: Recent theories primarily by African-American and feminist theologians Being written Beliefs of some very liberal Christians and post-Christians

I ran the Pinker talk past my fundy friend who often tells me that the world is getting more and more violent, suffering more and more crime, etc. Funnily enough, he now seems to have adopted the theory that in the end days the world will actually be more peaceful before Jesus comes again. Seems you're damned if you do or damned if you don't! Anybody heard of this theory that the world will be perhaps at peace when Jesus comes to wreak havoc?

FWIW, my favourite theory is that there was no atonement. Jesus was a passionate man, in love with his God, railing against the existing system of domination and control. Some people were threatened by that, so they killed him. The end. I don't think he was resurrected in any sense other than the memory of him lives on (although potential distorted some 2000 years later. That said, I don't know what happens after we die so I couldn't say if the person of Jesus exists in some way, shape or form. I've never seen or heard him anyway.

I hope that was a pleasant suprise, Dutch. Sounds like a great day.

Thanks, Dutch. I found your sermon very interesting. Cheers Paul

Thanks, Brian. It's an interesting thought. I'm not arguing with what you say, I'm just interested in how you see things. I've read/heard similiar to what you are saying about rejecting God after death and have always wondered who would ever do that. I would have thought, if anything, that anyone who was to die and be in God's presence looking back on what they rejected, they would then be welcoming God with open arms, rather than continuing to reject him/her/it. It does make me question though what the relevance may be of rejecting the God of your understanding. What would your understanding have to do with it - either you're rejecting God or your not aren't you? I can't see how one's understanding of God would come into play, particularly if that understanding of God isn't the correct one. Cheers Paul

Just thought I'd share this link to a little piece by an organisation in Australia which campaigns for a variety of social justice issues. It goes for less than 2 minutes. Like the US, gay marriage is still a legal no-no here in Oz, but I'm certain it's status is soon to change. I like how this little clip portrays the naturalness and normality of being gay. Unlike the wicked, peadophile, sex-mad image so often portrayed by homophobes. https://www.getup.or...watch-the-video

Brent, It just seems like so much gobbledydook to me, but this isn't a 'debate the Urantia Papers thread' so I won't debate the point. That said, I have not looked into the papers like you, and I respect that they mean a lot to you personally. However in relation to this thread (actually probably more in relation to my brief hijacking it concerning concepts of God rather than just the Divine Feminine - sorry Yvonne), it strikes me that even the UP's still come up with a concept that is familiar to human beings, i.e creation of offspring via parental figures. Sure there's the mystery of not knowing just exactly how the Father & the Son created the Master Spirits, but still there's that familiar human connotation that they 'created' something in a way unknown but somehow familiar to us at the same time.

Neither would horses presumably. Spong's point is that everyone who believes in God imagines that God as something they can relate to. I think his point is that he thinks a picture of what/who God is, is beyond our imagination. In the animists case it is the objects and reality around them. In the horses case, well, maybe one day we'll find out.

Brent, At first glance, the fact that the Seven Master Spirts are offspring of the Paradise Trinity, suggests that the Paradise Trinity must have some sort of gender orientation to in fact prodcue offspring. I presume that won't be the case, so I wonder if you could explain how you or the UP might explain the process of the Pardise Trinity creating offspring, i.e. just how did it/they produce offspring? Cheers Paul

George, I think his point was more that horses, like Animists, would still imagine God in a form they are familiar with - whether it be an old man on a throne, a caring mother cuddling creation, a horse, or rocks, trees etc. Of cousre it makes sense that we can't imagine God as anything other than what we are familiar with - we can't imagine what we don't know I guess. Cheers Paul

Perhaps God is feminine - I can type vagina on this thread but cannot spell the word 'p e n i s' without resorting to processing trickery!

Disclaimer - I am male. Whilst we generally assign people a gender based on the physiology of their genitals, I would say that many of the 'qualities' generally assigned to either sex can be seen in either male or female simulatenously. We can have women who are strong leaders, who are more physical than many men, who perhaps enjoy more 'male' associated lines of work, yet of course they are still a woman. Similarly we have men (i.e. human beings who have a p&nis instead of a vagina) who display or better fit those roles we more traditionally associate with women - stay at home Dads, men who maybe sew or knit, men who are as gentle and caring as the most gentle and caring woman. I guess when people are talking about the Divine Feminine as God they are considering the mothering traits of God, the child-raising/child-care side of God, etc. God as a man usually pertains to God being strong, a defender of his children, a King and General of his people, etc. It would seem to me that a lot of people today talk about God as having traits from both sides of the fence. Doesn't even the NT say that in Christ there is no male or female? So perhaps God is simply genderless - neither divinely male nor divinely female. Perhaps entertaining notions of gender help people relate to such a God though and makes it more meaningful to them - much like Bishop Spong's analogy of if ever horses think of God, they probably think of a God who looks like a horse. Cheers Paul

Yvonne, What a shame those young people walked out and refused to even consider what the speaker had to say. Just change their dress sense and I wonder if it would have looked exactly the same as when some people started speaking against slavery all those years ago. Cheers Paul

Brian, What do you mean by possibly entering Heaven maimed? Could you describe what you believe Heaven to be/entail? I still don't quite understand just how you understand a soul after death rejecting God. To you, is this a conscious decision on the part of the person to continue to reject God and live...well, how? Cheers Paul

Brian, Could you please elaborate on your statement- "For those who cannot stand being in God's presence they most likely will experience Him as Hell.......What makes the experience Hellish stems from the reality that the souls who reject Him may be 100% aware that they can change and accept Him. But in the life beyond the Veil there is no denial of the truth. They see fully what they cannot accept. And so they refuse to draw near to Him for doing so would be the worst possible choice for them to make. Neither God nor anyone else has condemned them to this consequence they choose it freely, because they spent their lives choosing it freely here and now." I wonder what sort of soul you think might stand before this God of Unconditional love, which of neccessity gives itself away freely, yet refuse to draw near to Him/it? I'm not debating with you, but rather am simply interested in your theology. Cheers Paul

Today involves helping my in-laws with a 'clean out' (too much stuff behind the shed being kept for 'someday'). Followed by some fishing from the bridge near where we live, with my sons and another family, whilst our wives go for a 'power-walk' (which should really be called a power-talk'). But they will expectantly return with a coffee which makes up for their absence. Then a BBQ lunch down the beach before returning home in the afternoon for an evening of pleasant friendship with the same family, who are staying the night. Not sure how I'll feel about going to work in the morning!

In the news in my State today: EXORCISTS who say depression and schizophrenia are demons that can be cast out, are treating children as young as two for possession, a claim the Australian Medical Association has dismissed as unscientific and potentially harmful. Perth-based Set Right is a non-denominational Christian ministry. Their Leader, known as ‘Apostle’ Michelle Pecoult, says they’ve seen a “massive rise” in possessions, and now exorcise four or five people a day. She said people find them online and through psychic fairs and they also visit schools and prisons. The Set Right website notes that depression is a "common low ranking demon" while schizophrenia is "another demon we have met often and evicted". "We've removed schizophrenia. People have been healed of it… God is greater than any medical doctor, he’s greater than me. We’ve seen absolute physical healing… and people in a major state of depression,” Ms Pecoult said.

Guapo, How would I know where those 7.6 million children are after they are dead - nobody does, including you. If, what I think you are getting at, they are somehow in a better place, so that justifies their painful and miserable death here on earth, then I'll just quietly shake my head and leave it at that I think. As for studying the outside cultures, I don't need to learn anything about another culture that seemingly justifies the slaughter of children and animals. It is an ancient, racist view that suited the Israelites for their time. Thankfully we've generally left those sorts of views behind as we've evolved as a species. Cheers Paul

My take on the orginal post was that Yvonne was asking about faith healing in the context that she couldn't believe that God would heal some and not others, amongst other points. In that context I think the likes of Neon and I are saying that in our opinion God simply isn't healing some and not others (such as the amputee). I, and I think Neon, hold the view that faith healing accredited to a God choosing to use his/her power when they see fit, isn't credible in our view. However if, as I think Dutch is relating, the question is have some people been healed through faith healings, then I'd hazard a guess that most here agree - they have. It can and does happen, but just what is the mechansim - A God answering prayers selectively, or something we don't properly understand having that affect on those who recieve/seek the healing? IMO, I think perhaps the human mind and body has some ability to heal itself, even if it is 'tricked' into doing so by using 'faith', but it would seem that there are restrictions (whatever the healing mechanism is) in that there isn't a single report of a person being healed to the extent of regrowing a limb. It would seem that faith healing through God or through the power of one's own mind, has restrictions. To me, those restrictions rule out the likelihood of God playing a part in the healing (unless by God we are talking about the power of one's own mind & body). Cheers Paul

Thanks for clarifying that Joseph. That would seem to make sense of the point I think I was missing. I don't doubt that people are healed at some faith healings, I just doubt that they are healed by some external force because they have faith. I think more than likely a belief that somehow faith will result in them being healed, has more power than what we understand. But of course, not enough power to heal amputations, etc. Cheers Paul

Dutch, Can you elaborate a little more - I don't quite understand. What is aimless about the arm? If people are to argue the merits of faith healing and espouse that God effected the healing, why would it be unreasonable to ask that if that really was the case (God affecting the healing) then why don't we see God healing amputees? I agree that one's own faith may result in one's own healing - I mean we see that in scientific experiements involving placebos. But when the claims extend to the healing being 'caused' by God, God being a distinct enitity that chooses to use its power to affect a healing, then surely the amputee-healing proposal is a fair one? Paul

I think Mr Wigglesworth's quote is a bit hollow. It seems common for fundamental Christians to use this phrase "nothing's impossible for God" without demonstrating anything like it. I mean it would seem impossible for this type of God to stop the 7.6million children in the world who die every year from malnutrition, poverty, curable disease, etc. It would seem impossible for this type of God to help everyone "see the light" as less than 1/3 of the world are Christian (and the third that are may argue amongst themselves as to who is a proper Christian or not). And as Neon points out, it would seem impossible for a God who can heal sore backs, stiff necks, limps etc, to physically heal an amputee. Just one single documented case of somebody's arm growing back would seem such an excellent way for God to demonstrate that nothing is impossible for him/her/it.