PaulS

I don't disagree with your take on doing what makes sense to you, but I don't see that model as truly fitting what we call 'representative democracy'. If I voted for you believing you would represent how I wanted government to govern, and then you up and chose not to govern that way, you have betrayed my vote and you are not representative of me. Now I know that gets tricky with lots of little bits and pieces (you can't please verybody 100% of the time), but essentially if you were elected by the majority on a platform of banning abortion, then to be true to democracy, I would expect you to ban abortion. When I go to a doctor, I pay for a service. I expert a level of expertise. When I vote for a politician, I vote for what they say they stand for and so before I vote, I determine whether they generally reflect my views or not. If they don't I don't vote for them.

If 99% of your community wanted a certain law, but 1% didn't so you choose not to implement that law, are you really representing your community? Isn't that what democracy is meant to be?

I don't think it's me ascribing those properties, just the commonly agreed definition. I recognize that human language has limitations but generally we try to agree on the meanings of words so that we can all come from the same place when discussing things. The definition I provided was a psychology definition. But I am happy to ascribe neither good nor evil to people's views as there is no final word. Maybe 'adiaphorous' is a more appropriate term.

I am curious too - how do you see democracy as the 'worst form' of government when compared to most others. There must be at least one form of government you consider 'better' than democracy if you think democracy is the 'worst'. Can you share a better form of government, in your opinion?

I'm not sure that is very practical or even possible in a society. I think somebody is always going to feel 'wronged' the the government of the day. So we do the best we can, and rule in accordnace with the majority, hopefully mindful that just because the majority wants it doesn't mean it is the best thing overall. But isn't 'roughshod' just an emotive way of saying we disagree? In a democracy, shouldn't a government have the right to enact the majority of it's societies desires. Surely that's what 'representative if the people' means? But really, I guess that's just one of the limitations of an imperfect form of government (not that any other forms of government are any more perfect). Yeah, I must admit, I do still struggle with the no free will concept. Not because I don't agree that we have no free will (we are all entirely a product of our genetics and our experiences) but rather it's application and meaning to life. But, I'll leave that to another thread.

Seems a bit dramatic. I see nihilism defined as "the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy". Now, I don't think because every single person cannot agree on every single point that they are nihilists. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree, precisely because there is no final word on the matter. Both are right, and both are wrong, it's just perspective. That doesn't mean one or the other won't fight to have their perspective recognized, but that's what I see as part and parcel of our evolution. Will we ever overcome disagreements, our alternate views - who knows.

Yes, indeed. I guess that's another question - what is 'right'? As we see from our experiences, what different people think is 'right' is often different. Who is the final arbitrator? To me, it seems there is no 'final word' and we just muddle through it best we can. Of course some may say 'God', but that's really just another version of 'right'. I'm reminded of Winston Churchill's quote: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."

Every single person? What if the majority elect a government that promises to ban abortion? Clearly not everybody is going to be happy with that decision but if the majority by far want that to be a law in their society, isn't that democracy in action? (By the way, I support abortion and a woman's right to choose). Great book and yes, Peugeot is a good example of how communal 'thinking' is what makes something exist. If we don't 'play by the rules' then that 'thing' will no longer exist. And others fighting against racists, or anti-abortionists, is also part of the universe unfolding? It seems to me that recognizing it is the universe unfolding doesn't really help with the matter, unless we are prepared to sit back and let whatever happen, happen, because that is the universe unfolding (but then is the sitting back part of the universe's unfolding also?).

I saw the below meme today and thought that maybe it was a fair cop. But then I wondered about the bit of 'infiltrating government' and whilst I don't like religion and government mixing, if Democracy is truly representative of the people, and the majority of those people hold certain religious views (whether others find them agreeable or not), is that not democracy in action? But then I had another thought - if a Democratic society voted to strongly uphold racism, or maybe even extinguish another race, or some other cause that many might not agree with, is it justified simply because it falls under the banner of 'Democracy'. What makes democratic views 'right'?

To be fair, there are also a lot of words around how to kill others, what not to do, and what to do with adulterous wives! Oh, and how God's not going to be nice to you if you don't obey what they say God wants.

Funnily enough, I suffered anxiety and was close to suicidal because I couldn't believe the things that this version of Christianity said that I must! For me, so many Christian beliefs about sin, Jesus, and God just make no sense when looking at biblical scholarship and history compared to these sorts of versions of Christianity. Progressive Christianity helped me to better understand that Christianity isn't about an 'in group' and an 'out group', of chosen vs condemned. Mankind in general is not wicked, and somebody saying they 'accept' Jesus makes them no more righteous than the next person. We are all humans doing our best to get by and sometimes it can be really tough. But I fully agree that anybody suffering anxiety or feeling suicidal should talk about it. In Australia we offer LifeLine - 13 11 14.

Hi Kygal, If I'm doing this right, I've successfully shifted your introductory post from the "What Am I Doing Today" thread into its own post under the Introduction section. You can post in here, you just have to start a new topic (which I've now done for you). Welcome to the Forum! You sound like you're going through quite an upheaval with some of your beliefs. I think it's sad that politics and religion seem hell bent on making sure everybody sees the world the same way 'they' do. The world would be a much better place if we all just took a giant chill pill and let others live their lives as they wish. Alas, that doesn't always make for a cohesive society, which is a challenge in itself. For me, I'm happy enough with the principle that if your beliefs are doing no harm to others, then you're more than welcome to have them. I hope you get something out of the forum and enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul

Hi Kygal, this may help - the Progressive Christianity.org site linked to this forum has a directory of PC Churches and organisations you can search for by State. You seem to be in Florida and there are 33 or more listed for that state. Good luck in your search. https://progressivechristianity.org/global-network/ Cheers Paul

Personally I don't think there is any 'just' when it comes to 'obeying' the bible. We see through countless denominations and versions of Christianity, that the bible is anything but close to being clear when it comes to understanding and interpretation. What I think these people actually mean is that others should understand God's will the way 'they' understand God's will. For me I think that Christianity (the religion) has relied on painting a dark picture of humanity, when in fact I don't think Jesus' message was anywhere near this. To em it seems that Jesus was always trying to see the good in people, not the bad. He was trying to convince them that God was there with them at that very moment. A god example was how he railed against Church leaders who told others they were the only ones who could be the intermediary with God. I just look at it this way - would Jesus prefer everyone going around condemning everyone else as evil, as a 'demon', or would he prefer people who demonstrated love and kindness to everyone. I suspect the latter. Very wise. It reminds me of preachers saying one has to have 'faith' when one starts to doubt and question what they have been told is the truth. In those cases faith is used as an excuse, as a defense to probing and seeking a better understanding. It's much easier to fit into a club if you just go along with what the rest of the club is comfortable with. Thankfully, Progressive Christianity has many brave people who have challenged this status quo and so we see Christianity moving in new directions. Conservatives will struggle with the change, but it is inevitable. The world has moved on.

Well if you see Nike using it, just remember it was invented here first! Could be a good little fundraiser for our site!

I'm not sure I can answer that other than to say "I live it". I mean, reality is such a broad topic. Are you asking how do we deal with the reality about what we now know concerning biblical scholarship, or other parts of our reality?

Welcome to the Forum, Bible123. I hope you enjoy participating here and find the site of value. Cheers Paul

Yes, the definitions they are applying are certainly a biased interpretation and not what is properly understood by the terms.

Like I said, I don't know where you get your definitions from. Here's a proper definition for you that shows you that the true meaning of sexual and sexuality is not about sex acts alone like you portray. You are simply wrong: sexual /ˈsɛkʃʊəl,ˈsɛksjʊəl/ Learn to pronounce adjective 1. relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals Desiring to abuse a child is NOT a lifestyle. It is a sex act and it is a crime. It's like calling rape a lifestyle. Again, you are simply making up you're own definitions based on your bias. Homosexual love between two consenting people is nothing like pedophilia - this is a very common error in many Christians' mindset. No, they are not. Again, you are just making up your own definitions. Transgender people are people whose gender identity is different from the gender they were thought to be at birth. Hetero or homo sexuality pertains to the gender that people are sexually attracted to. Please, refer to a dictionary to better understand definitions rather than your personal bias. So you're saying heterosexuals as a defined ethnic group (that is, they are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) is a lie? I'm afraid this is crazy talk to me. You are off on a tangent my friend. I hope you come to better understand the issue one day.

Welcome to the Forum, Randy. I hope you enjoy participating in current threads here and also enjoy the wealth of information contained in past conversation threads. Cheers Paul

I think you would benefit by asking yourself....why wasn't Jesus required for more than 160,000 years of any God/human relationship?

I don't know where you get your definitions from, but heterosexuality (or homosexuality for that matter) has nothing to do with being committed as a sexual lifestyle but rather gay people are simply attracted to people of the opposite (and heteros to the same) sex. It is who they are, it is not a choice. They can be no more committed to a sexual lifestyle than you are committed to breathing air. It is just part of them living. And if you understood what civil rights were you'd realize the gaps in your argument. Civil rights - guarantees of equal social opportunities and equal protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other personal characteristics. So you'll find that most of your heterosexual civil rights came about already, due to heteros being the majority group. Minorities, such as blacks, women and gays are still trying to gain certain civil rights pertaining to them because of bigots who don't think their lives should be treated equal as others. It's not hard really - treat everybody the same whatever their ethnicity, whatever their sex, and whatever their sexuality. Love your neighbor as yourself, as somebody once said. I think you're 'truth' is a little messed up.

Gay people don't 'pursue' being gay, they simply are gay. Do heteros pursue a heterosexual lifestyle, or do they just live, like gay people just live?

Personally, I don't think this was ever Jesus' belief but rather these are words put on his lips by later authors (and we know John was written some 50-70 years after Jesus died). I think Jesus might have been pushing for people to repent because he thought the coming of the Kingdom of God was imminent, perhaps he even thought that he was the Son of Man who God would use to initiate the Kingdom, but I doubt Jesus ever thought he was to be a human sacrifice whose death would heal an imaginary rift between man and God. I like to think that if Jesus had been more educated about evolution he might even consider that there is no such rift between man and God and that as humans, we are born perfectly human. We have been evolving for some millions and millions of years. Humankind (homo sapiens) had walked this earth for more than 160,000 years before Jesus lived. The oldest written word that we apparently have from God came some 157,500 years after our species first appeared. That's a long time for there to be this rift between man and God that only Jesus could fix. And if God did 'create' the earth, he seems to have spent a lot of time waiting for man (some 14 billion years) so that this rift could then exist and he would have to sacrifice his son to himself, to fix it. I don't think Jesus was either a fraud or a liar, I just think he was born into a Jewish religious culture that was being oppressed by a nasty foreign power and these things helped shape his view of the world and his personal understanding of God. He probably had the best of intent - it's just how he came to think of life and God, like so many others have come to their views too.

Definitely. If Christianity is to continue to have any sort of relevance in the world, it has to do so on the basis of truth and facing the facts. That's easier said than done for a religion that has for so long promoted a lot of messages that actually have no substantiation back to either Jesus or the OT. It will be hard for Christianity to face, but if it doesn't, it will wither into oblivion in the future. That could be a good thing when it comes to a Christianity that promotes what I would call poor messages, but I also think Christianity can be a benefit for some as an inspiration for living a fulfilling life, that some might find useful and it would be a shame to lose that as well.