PaulS

Yes, in our modern world that is the structures we have in place. But I'm trying to get past the politics of it and try to understand how others 'feel' about saying 'No' to those in need when it is plainly clear we have so, so much more and largely because of pure luck (the luck of being born in the better country in the first place). I just try to imagine that if I was a father struggling to raise and protect his wife and children in a violent, poverty-stricken country, and I wanted to make it to a better country just so my kids could grow up safer and with a little hope, that to be rejected by others who say that to love others is their highest priority, just seems so crap. To me it seems we are sort of saying "I love you so much that I don't want to lose my 4 bedroom house with a pool, 2 x cars, and a very comfortable lifestyle because to share means my quality of life will diminish, albeit probably not as poorly as your life currently is now". Again, I'm not pointing fingers because I am just as guilty as anybody else, and the way I probably deal with it is some little self-satisfying thoughts about contributing to charity and not being able to help everyone, but really, that just seems so hollow.

Yes, but obviously nobody gets to live like that. Laws and power and people prevent you form living where you want, when you want, how you want. But I can't help but think those laws are in place to selfishly protect what one has and are designed to prevent sharing.

I just find it hard to imagine, that the Jesus many of us think we understand these days, would be prepared to say 'No' to a family of immigrants trying to escape abject poverty and make it to a far better place to raise their children. It just strikes me as selfish and an unwillingness to maybe suffer some reduction in our lifestyle - a lifestyle which largely we have simply because we were luckier than the other family to be born in a better country. Don't get me wrong, I do it too so I am not pointing the finger at anyone, Christian or not. Just questioning how it all fits in with the idea that Jesus was love, that we want to emulate Jesus, but then go and so "I'm not sharing with you". It just seems so hypocritical of us, but what do you do. Harden your heart and satisfy yourself that you're doing 'enough' anyway? As Rom points out, who are we really to say another cannot share in the goodness of our countries.

Thanks for sharing, Joseph. How does not judging others fit for you when it comes to our criminal justice system? Do you see that as a different sort of judgement and if so, can you maybe explain.

Just for something different, I wonder how people feel about migration and more to the point, control of migration. Like The US (and I guess every country), Australia has rules in place around who we will and won't accept into the country and under what conditions. The issue for Australia is the arrival of people from developing countries by boat. There is also a large number who arrive by air and then overstay their visas. Thankfully I was born here, so much like the Queen of England and her royal birthright, for no other reason than my fortune in being born in the right place, I get to live in this lucky country. Although we don't have the same National Emergency with illegal migration that the US apparently suffers, we nonetheless have our moments about how to control the influx of arrivals. I completely understand the practical and logistical implications and why they might be required in order to maintain the high living standards we have. It make sense from a "this is our country and we will decide who gets to live here" pov. The other extreme, an uncontrolled inlfux of anybody and everybody, would seem problematic. But I can't help but feel that is completely opposite to any notion of love and self-sacrifice for others. "I'm alright Jack" is definitely a notion that pops into my head. To be honest, selfishly I don't really want my quality of life or that of my kids to suffer due to uncontrolled immigration, but how do others reconcile such with not being prepared to share everything with others much less fortunate? How Christian is it that we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough for others? Your thoughts?

A better more reasonable understanding would be that there is no such thing as 'sin' but that there are such things as actions which can harm community. The latter can be rectified/addressed by not doing those actions. How, according to Christianity, does one stop being a sinner? As we now know that the concept of original sin is nonsense, so why not make the break and stop using this nonsense word 'sin' with all of it's history and connotations? Why hang onto it and try to make it fit better within Christianity? Let's acknowledge that doing things that harm community are not in the interest of community so that's why we don't do them. Making out that sin is some sort of 'eternal drive' or natural state of being that needs changing, perpetuates these myths that we need 'fixing'. Personally I think the best way to move away from this poor understanding of sin would be to stop using the word and all the baggage that comes with it.

It is how the term is understood and used by the majority of traditional Christianity. I agree with changing it like you seem to, but I'm just saying the way you are using the term now is not how it is generally understood or presented across broader Christianity. I am glad Progressive Christianity is bringing a new understanding of sin, but it is still the minority position for the word. There's a lot to be said for the driving force of Christianity actually being outside of Judaism primarily through the early conversion to Christianity of non-Jews through Paul initially kicking off Christianity in Rome. This was probably the major schism of its day and we see some of it mentioned in the NT with Paul disagreeing with James initially. Conveniently, the bible now reports James was all good with Paul's change in direction. I think it is more likely that non-Jews were using the OT to 'prove' to Jews and Romans (Romans who liked all things 'old time') that their understanding of Jesus was correct. This later morphed in further adaption of the OT into Christianity but I think there is a distinction between that and early Jewish Christians looking to Jewish scriptures to better understand Jesus. Early Christians such as the Marcionites didn't even want anything to do with the OT. The fact that you have to explain the word sin to modern audiences should make it clear to you that you are not using the word sin as Christianity and religion in general has generally understood it up until now. If you want to morph the word into a new understanding of its meaning then that is your prerogative, but I'm just pointing out that it is a moving away from what has been traditionally understood by the word. No not all, just the majority to date. Like I said, I have no problem with you changing the perspective of the word sin - I am just noting that it is a change from how most have understood the word (and that personally I think you could stop using it altogether because of its connotations, but that's just my view).

The connotation of sin goes a lot further than just doing a 'wrong' action. One of the main premises of Christianity has been that one is born 'into' sin - they are stuffed from the very start and need saving from sin, even a newborn is considered a sinner by most Christian denominations (non-Progressive). This is a lot more than simply saying somebody is doing 'wrong'. Why do you restrict the law of God to the 10 Commandments only (version 1 I presume) and not the balance of the 613 commandments found in the OT? Many of those commandments are just plain outdated and ridiculous in modern times (such as not eating shellfish) which I guess is why they just get overlooked as commandments from God any more. Actually, it is not evident that Christianity has grown our of Judaism, but rather Christianity later co-opted Judaism to make its points. In fact, many early Christian groups wanted nothing to do with the Old Testament God but as we know, their views didn't win the day in the end. But regardless, I do agree that as humans we create laws that we think benefit community. And those laws change as our culture and society change. No, but they have to adapt what is traditionally meant by the term 'sin', I think to the point that it isn't actually 'sin' anymore as per religious definition, so why use it? I know you use the word sin, but it has no connection to the religious definition of sin (that is, we are born into sin and we need saving from sin). I agree with you what you say about actions having consequences etc, but they are actions, not sins, as per religious connotations.

Hardly derision or attack Burl, but rather observations that are plain for all to see. When one promotes an article, they are promoting the whole article aren't they? Or are you now saying you only think the bits about the bible not being an answer book are the parts of the article that are 'nice' and not the bulk of the article which is what the author proposes the bible actually is? It seems to me that you like to direct a conversation to what you think you know and what you think others needs to hear. If you care to address the examples I provided then do so - if not, no problems. That's a convenient saying of Jesus' for sure.

You and I probably can conclude this, but I'm not sure Burl can. He certainly seemed to defend slavery as simply a HR exercise when I expect you would acknowledge it for the harm that it did to those it enslaved and I doubt you would try to defend it in any way. I expect you also agree with me about the other 'nasty stuff' in the bible being of man and not of God, but I am yet to hear Burl agree, so I guess the question remains (but I'm no longer expecting a genuine answer from Burl). My initial response to the article was in the author's calling of the bible "Quite possibly the greatest love story" and "It’s a story of a God that goes to extreme lengths to bring his people back to Him". It's that old exclusion repeating itself - In the OT God's people certainly weren't considered those to be outside of the chosen tribe of the Israelites. By affirming the article as a nice short essay I was simply trying to understand if Burl saw the entire bible this way, as the author proposes, because to me it seems an absolute nonsense that the OT was anything but bad news for those outside of Israel and I think this article's author is looking through rose-coloured Christian glasses if he thinks all of those violent and harmful stories in the OT were about God going to extreme lengths to bring his people back to Him. For the author to claim that the Bible is a story of a people that choose death over life and a God that took on death so that he could bring his people back into life, totally disregards pretty much the entire OT (no God took on death ion the OT so that he could bring his people back into life). Then again, maybe he's just trying to be poetic for drama's sake and does acknowledge the atrocities committed in the name of God by people who simply thought that was what God wanted.

I don't think there is anything 'mere' about use of the word sin, although perhaps some consider it mere by not appreciating the connotations in using such language. The use of the word sin suggest transgression of divine law. More specifically, it is the offence of breaking, or the breaking of, a religious or moral law. But whose moral law and by which gauge do we assess it? At the more extreme end there are Christians who say sin is any lack of conformity to the moral character of God or the law of God. Sin is associated with 'evil' thoughts, speaking evil, or omitting good - which is where they start to get into a pickle because all acts need to then be determined as sinful or not and we have all seen how that often ends! And of course there are those who believe we are born sinners, we are born evil, and that we need saving. So in that regard I say sin is a nonsense and is a figment of religious people's imagination. Actions may be real, but it is what we assign to that action that makes it 'good' or 'bad'. For instance, killing another person might be considered bad or it might be considered good, depending on the community's understanding at the time. I don't think there is any set code of what is or what is not 'sin' and I would further say that how we consider these actions does change over time (which is why you and I aren't smashing babies heads against rocks or enslaving virgins from conquered communities outside of ours). I do not expect Burl was using the word 'sin' the same way you or I might use it as a substitute for any other word that may better describe an action that harms one's community.

So apart from slavery, some other very human representations of the bible that for me obliterate this article's premises that the bible is a love story about God trying to call all people unto him: -God killing all the firstborn babies in Egypt - now what the hell did they do wrong! -In Numbers we have a sabbath breaker stoned to death for collecting sticks on the sabbath. Oh the crime! -Also in Numbers we have something like 32000 virgins being claimed as booty when a war was waged against the Midianites. I won't bore people with the dozens of examples of this sort of nonsense being proposed in the bible as the will of God. Actually, it would be wasting my typing to try and list all of the very human claims made in the OT in the name of God. I doubt you would want to fruitfully discuss them Burl. Here's one website that lists a bunch of atrociites attributed to the good Lord in the OT if anybody else is interested - https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html For me, like Thormas states, the bible comes from a very much human perspective, based on societal, cultural and religious norms of the time.

Very poorly and not at all to the point - but I am getting used to how you do that Burl.

I don't think sin does exist - it is a figment of some people's imagination (religious people).

I agree the bible is not a book of answers but I think you trump me in the preconception stakes. A very poor poetic observation in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly Joseph. The problem with thinking of it like the author of the article does, is that many Christians then have to bend and twist reality to make the bible fit what they believe it has to live up to. It has taken awhile for Christianity to get to the point where it can acknowledge that many of these OT authors were simply reflecting the culture and beliefs of that time - many of which have no place in a modern world and which cannot be explained away or rationalised other than to say that was what they thought was right back then.

No, we do not need to look at everything. Slavery existed, every historian supports that other than the most ardent biblical-apologist. Yes there was a different type of slavery that Israelites inflicted on their own, but there was also very much the nasty type of slavery that meant nothing good for the slave not so fortunate to be born to the right tribe. Just address the examples that you asked me to provide Burl. Or as I expect, don't.

Okay, but just a couple of quick ones on slavery as I'd rather get onto the raping of virgins and the smashing open of babies skulls against rocks in God's honour. That's the real love story! Exodus 21:20-21 When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. Leviticus 25: 44-46 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

Burl, what do you make of all the nasty stuff the bible attributes to God in the OT? The genocides, the rapes, the slavery, the child abuse, etc etc - all things approved of or committed by Bible God, according to the Bible. Do you think that is how the people who penned the stories really thought God was, and/or do you think that is who God was/is? God certainly didn't seem to want much of a relationship with the many people he wreaked vengeance upon in the OT, so how does that tie in with what this article proposes concerning the bible being a love story and a 'journey' leading people to God (unless 'leading' means smashing opposing tribes into oblivion to force them to love Bible God). I find it difficult to reconcile much that was written about God in OT days with what some Christians say about God in modern times.

I almost became Canadian about 40 years ago when my Dad seriously considered moving us there for work reasons. It never eventuated obviously. My wife and I were just talking about this the other day and her father had proposed a similar move but they didn't go either. I wonder if there was some sort of push on in the 80's for Aussies to become Canucks?

No, it's true. I can say on some authority having been to BOTH countries, Australia definitely is a better place to live than the US. If you hear any different, I can assure you it is just fake news.

You need to visit Australia, Joe - It kills the US as the best place to live!

Amazing travels! I've managed 11 of those places, but usually without the dancing!

I think most democratic leaders in the last several decades have faced steadfast opposition from their opposition counterparts, to anything they propose, which would explain why so many of your past presidents have promised but not delivered - they haven't been able to. That is both an advantage and a disadvantage to democracy I think. Trump will be very similar I suspect as he isn't a statesmen capable of bringing opposing sides together. To me, he seems to think his strength is in division. That might keep him in power, but he will be ineffectual. I'm not sure it is anything Trump has done that has delivered your economic improvements as it seems to me that time and the structures that were already in place are responsible for your economic recovery largely. The stats Rom provided, to my mind, demonstrate that consistency of the economy to continue to take two steps forward for every step back. It's a similar story here in Australia and I'm not convinced any government is particularly largely responsible for economic recoveries. They tinker and claim credit, but I just don't see them actually employing something new that they deserve the applause for. Trump indeed has his problems but it seems these days the bar is so low for politicians that we are used to accepting people who lie and exaggerate as totally acceptable leaders.

I'm better off to leave it to the Buddhists I guess (I'm neither a Buddhist or very good at meditating) but I thought it was a little more nuanced than just silencing 'self'. I understand it more to be about silencing the 'noise' that ego/self produces and in mindfulness allow the opportunity for one to observe their thoughts, recognize the noise, and allow one's own potential to provide insight/revelation. Rather than 'ignore' thinking I think Buddhism suggests recognizing it for what it is - just thoughts.