PaulS

This obviously begs the question how somebody who believes the forum is against God can agree to the terms and conditions of joining this forum. Pipiripi, please review the forum guidelines - see link called Guidelines at top of forum page. You would of had to read these to become a member here. If you feel you cannot meet these expectations, please cease from participating here. Even with your English being only slightly less than fully fluent, I think you would understand that telling participants in this forum that they are participating in an activity that is against God, is easily considered rude and insulting. I would suggest reading the 8 points again too so that you might have a better understanding of how this forum tends to understand Progressive Christianity. You do seem to have a misunderstanding - at least as far as this forum broadly recognizes PC. Paul (As Admin)

Burl, This is the last public comment I will make here as Admin because we don't want threads to start becoming debating points about why we follow the Forum rules here that we have all agreed to (unless you want to start a thread on that matter). Further comments off-topic will be deleted as we also don't want off-topic posts clogging up the thread. 2020 is a new start for all and I, as Admin, will try to help ensure we stay on track. We may only have a small active group, but we have thousands of people each year who review our threads - I'm sure one big email would be unattractive to them. Plenty of people have come before us and more will come after we are gone. I'd like them to have access to what we have been fortunate enough to have access to, you included. I hope you and others can appreciate that. This is not bullying, this is active Administration according to our own, agreed, guidelines. Paul (As Admin)

Personally I prefer the 2011 version, but as I have said before: "For me the 8 Points simply 'point' to a way - they are not THE way. Like all creeds, these 8 Points don't capture all things in all ways and they still leave things to be desired. I don't see them as a tool to weed out people who some regard as not precisely fitting the mould, but more as a guideline to suggest why you may wish to participate here. After all, we aren't the only progressive christian movement in the world with all the right opinions and views, but just a tiny little corner of the universe in this current time. Progressive Christianity existed long before this forum and it's parent site coined it, but being humans we like to categorise and put things into certain boxes for convenience." I still look at the current 8 points like that and don't stress too much about it. Maybe I'm only an 80%er PC - I'm sure there are plenty of others in the world that will decide for me!

Your four posts and Pipiripi's three had nothing to do with the original post. You both continued to digress even after the instruction - it's that simple. Paul (As Admin)

I agree with Joseph. His post is not bullying and the world has become a pedantic and way too sensitive place if disagreeing with somebody's beliefs and explaining why, is considered bullying, intellectual or otherwise.

Several posts of Thormas' and Pipiripi's have been hidden as they not in context of the original post and are better suited to Personal Message or a new thread, despite previous Admin request. Thormas & Pipripi - please adhere to Admin instructions. Paul (As Admin)

I have to say, that is my sense too on the changes. I don't mind too much - I guess at the end of the day somebody has to commit to something on paper if they are trying to express to a broader audience the approximate values of the collective, and with PC being so wide and varied as it is I doubt anybody can land on a point that all will agree. When a group genuinely welcomes people from all walks and understandings of life it has to be a challenge to maintain a particular identity. I don't rely on these definitions to tell me who I am or what I have to be, but treat them more like general guidelines to respect and acknowledge.

I think Pelosi did herself and the Democrats a disservice by tearing up that address. I expect it will resonate with hardcore Dem voters but I suspect swinging voters will see it as a political stunt that looked frankly, a bit immature. Yes, once again Trump was a rude pig ignoring her like that. But I suspect that was his intention all along - push her buttons until she cracks, and she did. I don't blame her, but I think it was a political mistake and politics is all that matters in this situation. Nope, it's a 3 for Nancy from me on this matter.

As this thread is FireDragon76's thread about changing views on church and spirituality, please start a new thread if you would like to know more about Piripi's background and sharing yours, as it is not in context with this thread. Much appreciated in advance. Piriripi,as you are new here, please understand that we try to keep threads roughly on track with the theme they start with rather than digress into other messages and lines of discussion. Please also consider starting another thread if you wish to convey other messages that are a different subject matter to the intent of the thread. Thanks also, in advance. Paul (As Administrator)

I understand that you might think that - I did once upon a time also. But I have learnt and experienced too much to hold that belief any more.

There's a lot in the bible that by modern standards would be considered shocking and disgusting if people were to behave that way today (e.g. genocide, God-authorized rape and slavery, executing people for picking up sticks on a Sunday, etc). So personally I don't rely on needing something to harmonize with the bible, but each to their own. I think you're doing pretty good with the English. What is your native language?

I think they tend to call that 'confirmation bias' Pipripi. It seems to me that people would have no idea whether it was a Jesus opening their mind or simply their own thoughts that give them belief in something. In my opinion, Daniel and Revelation have no connection whatsoever, other than they are both people writing about their understanding of God stuff.

I would argue about your understanding of what 'real' Progressive Christians are, but I'm sure we could argue all day and not necessarily agree. What I do know is that many people who regard themselves as Progressive Christians would say they use more than the bible as their guide. So for me, I wouldn't be categorizing them as not real PC's if they used other sources. Myself, I think the bible has a lot of limitations in the modern world (it' individual writings were written for people largely 2000-3500 years ago) and I don't read much of it literally but rather consider it individual opinions and views about how those individual authors (and perhaps the cultures at the different times) understood God. That makes sense to me when one sees the changing nature, character and stories about what God 'is' as the writings progress.

I'm not sure anybody can 'know' what the Book of Revelation was actually getting at, as we just don't have the understanding of the world back then that the author did. I think most biblical scholarship these days though sees Revelation as more of a shot at the all-powerful Roman Empire which had Israel under its heel rather than writings representative of any second coming or ultimate end of the world as we seem to consider it today.

I think that is just scary that any government would take that seriously! I hope the US continues to keep its separation between Church and state!

I didn't know that you had to/could register there to identify as an independent, or that you can register as either Rep or Dem. In Australia, you can choose to be a member of a political party which then allows you some voice as to who gets put forward as a candidate, but we don't go as far as primaries before our Federal election. I too have voted for different 'sides' (like you we have two major political parties) depending on their platforms and characters and also agree that sometimes a change can be a good shakeup, even if there is a bit of pain in doing so. I think for the US Trump is simply damaging, but that is just my opinion. I 100% agree that the media thrives on sensationalism. We get it bad here but I think you get it even worse. I think Australia being a smaller country and a lot less money involved in politics, means we still get grass roots people interested in politics. People who prior to politics owned small businesses, or were union leaders, plus a splattering of lawyers, doctors, farmers and others. So I would say that for here, most of our politicians are genuinely honest and caring people - even those whose views I don't agree with often.

Hi Pipiripi Welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy exploring and participating here. Cheers Paul

Welcome to the Forum JoWillie. We encourage new members to share a little about themselves, if they are willing, in the section called Introduce Yourself. I hope you might choose to introduce yourself and I hope you might enjoy engaging with others here, of course whilst respecting contrary opinions. I'm not an American myself, so I don't get too excited personally as to whether your country was or was not established by people with a certain view of God in mind. I have to admit though, I think a worldly establishment is probably much better than a 'Godly' one just because I think that usually those who have a particular view of exactly how such a Godly establishment should look like, usually end up making it hell for everybody else! The British weren't the first to discover Australia some 40,000 to 80,000yrs after our indigenous Australians arrived (when Australia was joined by land up through Indonesia and further north) but indeed when they set their mind to establishing Australia as part of the British Empire there was a fair bit of genocide and general disdain/disregard for the original inhabitants of the land here too. We are a 'Christian' nation also (statistically) but thankfully it is generally more 'relaxed' and Aussies are a lot more tolerant of religions I think than perhaps some parts of the US.

I may have to reassess whether Warren should actually be my pick too! Not that it matters much to an Aussie who's not allowed to vote in that election!

I think that is a flaw with our current democratic processes in both our countries! I've always been against Dictatorship, unless I was the dictator and then I would make it all perfect! Until some new regime decides that it is unhealthy once again and changes the rules back! Ah, the continuum of life!

I understand it's legal and all and how your voting system weighs votes, just pointing out that he wasn't the most popular person voted for. Mate, we would gamble on two drops of rain running down a window pane to see which one hits the bottom first! And you've not gambled properly until you've played our "Two-Up". Gambling is regarded as part of a wholesome character here - who would trust somebody not prepared to put their money where their mouth is! Edit - It seems up until Trump's reign, betting on US Presidential Elections was illegal, but your courts have now said (in 2018) that not being allowed to bet on these outcomes is unconstitutional. Subsequently, in many US States you can now bet, with more coming on line soon. https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/guides/how-to/bet-on-politics/

I don't disagree and I don't think one needs to research too deeply with many politicians, but still there seems to be a resignation that lies, deceit, exaggeration are just part of the game, so if people are content to have such people run their country, then they get what they ask for I guess. Indeed, a similar game is played here in Oz. Perception, indeed!

I would find it hard to vote if I was a US citizen. I lean toward Republican policies but think Trump and many (i.e. a lot of) GOP members are bad for the country. That said, there's a lot of negatives on the Democratic side also. Then there's the notion of supporting a smaller party or independent who in actual fact probably are a better quality candidate, but to me that's a wasted vote because it just doesn't count enough at the end of the day. As I'm not a US citizen, my preference is for somebody that can improve America's relations with the rest of the world. So with a heavy heart, I vote that I would prefer to see Warren as President (followed by Sanders) but could easily consider a GOP vote if there was another candidate put forward in Trump's stead (more substantial than Walsh or Weld that is). Who do I think is going to win? Sadly, at this point, I think Trump will get across the line again.😢 But that's not what the poll is asking.

Well to be fair, it seems the majority of US citizens agreed with me (and others) and wanted to see Hillary as the next President compared to Trump (Hillary - 65,853,514 versus 62,984,828) but as you know, your electoral system didn't allow the most popular person with the US voters to be put into the top job. I should also point out that the poll wasn't about who people thought would win, but rather who they preferred to win. I still think my choice was a winning preference, but I can understand why you lot wanted a lying deceiver rather than a criminal cartel in the chair . Americans eh! Incidentally, I did win $600 by betting on the correct winner of our Aussie government last year when everybody said they couldn't win. The bookmakers even paid out over $2m to punters who bet the Opposition would win, over a week before the election was even held! Edit - I just checked one of the main bookies here (Sportsbet) and Trump is currently offering $1.83 with the closest contender being Joe Biden at $5. Not bad odds for Joe, but not enough in it to tempt me backing Trump (yet).

As you know, I'm all for consensual sex. But lying to people and trying to cover the matter up cuts to character, whether running for president or not, in my opinion. Same with Bill Clinton - trying to deceive people cuts to character. What I'm amazed about is how prepared people are to accept poor character in their leaders. How does one say with a straight face - this person is a great leader when they lie, deceive and exaggerate to achieve their ends. To me, it doesn't seem the character that any society should be prepared to accept of their leaders.