PaulS

Matty, Welcome to the forum. It sounds like you have a fair bit on your plate trying to determine what you do or don't / should or shouldn't, believe. It's a journey many of us have undertaken with varying outcomes for all, so you're not alone and never will be. Wherever the journey takes you, just know to keep breathing - it will all work out in the end. Cheers Paul

Less formal education may well be an advantage!

I like this Zen poem to remind me how simple life really is (well at least I think it's Zen): Empty handed I entered the world. Barefoot I leave it. My coming, my going- Two simple happenings That got entangled. – Kozan

We have our own City of Gnomes in the lower reaches of our state. What I think started out as one or two people leaving a gnome on a rural street corner has grown into a free tourist attraction called 'Gnomesville'. I don't really care much for gnomes, but it is an amusing place to visit. http://gnomesville.com.au/

Tom, Welcome to the forum and I look forward to reading more from you. Cheers Paul

Welcome Matthew, I hope you enjoy reading and participating here. Good to have you along. Cheers Paul

I don't find that strange at all TomAllyn. There is something special about people who don't claim to have all the answers and who are open to thinking outside of the box they may have otherwise cornered themselves in.

Well in Genesis God did say he made plants for eating and animals for human companionship! Maybe Christians should stop eating the companions God made for them? (Just a little of the buried vegan in me coming out).

Some of the most compassionate, empathic and intuitive people I know would say they don't have a 'spiritual' bone in their body! I think too often 'spirituality' is mixed up with religion or faith. My take on spirituality is simply 'living'. I can't walk down the street without being spiritual.

If by 'spirituality' you mean simply living an engaging and mindful life, then i would thoroughly agree with your first paragraph. If you are referring to a narrower sense of spirituality, such as focus on a particular God or God-story, then I would disagree. I think intellectual self-satisfaction only decreases with more questions, interest and desires if one sees the end result as needing to have all the answers. I can't think of anything more stimulating and satisfying than seeking answers to new questions and exposing myself to new interests and desires. I can't understand anyone who wouldn't want to open up and live life like that (well I can understand, but that's really a different debate topic). Maybe some people want the security of answers, whilst others relish the challenge of more questions to be answered?

Giving my mother-in-law a garden gnome at Christmas time has become a tradition for us. Some 23 years since it started, I am now searching for a meditating gnome!

Disbelief is uninteresting? Wow Burl, you are missing out on so much if you simply write disbelief off so easily. There is so much behind 'disbelief' that it would seem you haven't even begun to consider. You possibly view disbelief as the opposite to belief, yet I would suggest it is much more multi dimensional than that simple comparison. Not sure what you mean by 'tautological belief in the product of one's own mind', but from where I sit, insults like that could be thrown from 'either' side with neither providing any more evidence than their own theories/interpretation. If by 'delusion' you mean coming to a conclusion without evidence to support such, then I would suggest pretty much every religion, and most religious people, would fall into that category.

Again to the contrary, I do consider evidence that challenges my preconceptions (except I think what you should be referring to are my current conceptions which are a result of challenges to my old preconceptions and the eventual abandonment of those). If I don't agree with you it's because your evidence isn't convincing to me. You may be convinced by it, I think you're wrong - life goes on. I don't think a day goes by without my 'belief system' growing (whatever that is precisely - can one narrowly define in a few sentences what their belief system for life is?). Unless I lived in total isolation and did not expose myself to the world and failed to engage my brain, then I fail to see how it couldn't grow. Smaller, harder and tighter? Far from it. Would you prefer to have a belief system that grows larger, softer and more loose? I don't think one can understand the life-changing challenges that go with leaving your old beliefs behind when you are challenged with new ones, unless you have walked that walk. I lost friends, family, my mental stability for a while there, an entire way of life for me, when I moved away from believing in a divine, Theistic God and Jesus as some sort of 'extra-dimensional' God/Man. I didn't choose to not believe anymore. The answers to my questions and the evidence I discovered left me no choice. I could not stop my unbelief if I wanted to (and believe me, I wanted to, so many times). It shook my world to the deepest core and whilst I could be upset at those people who just think I'm being lazy for not considering their 'evidence' of the 'truth', I really just feel sorry for them that they don't have the comprehension of what insults like that can mean to people who have lived through these changes. Trust me, there were times I wish I could have believed what some people do - it would have made my life a whole lot easier. You misunderstand that the challenge wasn't to consider the evidence that went against the new beliefs I had formed - I wholeheartedly considered and studied it. The real challenge was to believe it and I simply couldn't. It made no sense to me.

It would only be confirmation bias if I believed Jesus wasn't divine and then interpreted everything else to fit. Whereas the reality is that I came to this conclusion from what I consider to be the evidence and then the rest of it started to make sense to me when I saw it that way. The fact that over 2000 years ago Jesus didn't ask me to stick my fingers in his wounds, if that even actually occurred, certainly doesn't help me in any way.

Moved from progressive Christianity based on possible debate and debatable issues (JosephM) To the contrary, Christianity makes a lot more sense to me if I remove Jesus' alleged divinity and understand him as a simple (and purely) human being. I would go so far as to say Christianity robbed Jesus of his real identity and replaced it with what *Christianity wanted to promote. *Christianity of the type that promotes Jesus and God as extra dimensional.

I often scratch my head when Christianity promotes Jesus' short 30 or so years on earth as equating too understanding our lives etc, as if we can all be summed up as first century Jews. What would Jesus really know and experience about being married, raising a family, fighting in a war, living through famine, or even modern life such as pressures in modern lives. To me, his experience would fall well short of that of all human beings. As for it being a sacrfice, if you knew that you would spend all eternity reigning in a wonderful place called heaven, then really, is 30 or so years of roughing it really that tough?

Welcome Mark and well done on 4 months sobriety! I wish you well in that area and hope that this forum assists in whatever way you may find useful. Regards Paul

I think we should interpret them how we want to, Rom. I don't think there is any one right way and differences may apply in a multitude of situations. Look over the fence by all means and take what works or note what doesn't work. And by all means be courageous and step into the world putting your reason to work and finding your own way. I don't think there is any one right answer and I'm confident there is nobody watching or judging you in how you act. The ultimate judge is our species and if you contribute to it's well being then kudos. If you contribute to making it harder for anyone then I'd suggest don't do it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no right or wrong answer other than whether we contribute well to our species and planet, or not. Whether it is ultimately important or not who knows, but I just think in the interests of our species' and planet's self interest, it would pay to be mindful of our species and planet. But I'm not sure I've answered your question. Have I?

I don't think belief is a choice. Essentially, you can't make yourself believe in something or not, you simply either do believe or you don't. You experience the case for and experience the case against (and all the other bits in between) and you come away with a certain belief. I don't think that is a choice. My interpretation of what you are saying is that in your experience you feel that life has meaning and purpose, that this man Jesus had a great insight into that meaning and purpose, and that you are personally committed to carrying that forward. I don't think believing that is a choice but rather a conclusion you have come to and thus now your belief. You couldn't have stopped it if you tried because that's not how our brain's work. As for the Christian message being the best way to move humanity forward - well I think elements contribute but I don't think it is or has been a lone voice. Humanity has known since we were monkeys in the trees that cooperation and working together works the best for our species. That caring for others in our group is much better for the group than the alternative. We have broadened outside of our tribes and groups as we have evolved and developed. Buddhism was experiencing similar beliefs of empathy and consideration of others long before Christianity. However if one's way of contributing to society is by practising a Christian message, and they cause no harm to others in doing so, then I see no problem with it. Whatever works for you I say.

The short answer is no. We know nothing about the author whatsoever. Was it really Mark? Was it somebody who knew Mark? Was it a pseudo graphical author pretending to be Mark? Who knows. Mark is an interesting Gospel in that as the widely recognised actual first gospel, the author does not promote a physically resurrected Jesus. Perhaps the earliest Christians didn't believe in a physically resurrected Jesus? The ending currently in the bible is certainly not in our earliest known versions of the bible.

Welcome Lissy, I hope you enjoy participating in the forum. Cheers Paul

I understand, but you won't be the first child who holds a different point of view to their parents! But of course that doesn't take away your worry and I am only being a little light hearted. If you think it will end very badly, then I think a different approach might be required than if you think your parents just simply won't be approving. I know I did plenty that my parents never approved of but they still loved me. Sometimes you just have to walk through it unfortunately.

You say you're looking to Jesus and the bible more as a guiding light as how to live your life. I wonder if your parents would be as concerned about that perhaps compared to say being a Christian believer who believes you must accept Jesus as a persona saviour or you're going to Hell etc etc. Perhaps as atheists that might be more their concern rather than whether you're using this or that philosophy to help you through life. Perhaps.

Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy reading and participating here.

As Burl mentions, this thread hasn't been contributed to for some time, however threads are never 'dead' as all threads are available in our archive and any new comments always appear to all members as 'new content', so threads often get reignited by new members coming along. I don't understand why any of those groups are on the list as a sexual orientation, because by definition sexual orientation is simply about what gender one is attracted too - heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual. S & M is simply a 'practice' so to speak and can be enjoyed by homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals alike. The others are not an orientation so to speak, but obviously they may be an 'attraction' for some, and in all instances they are criminal in our modern society because they usually don't involve consent and usually harm others. As for deciding who can and who can't participate here, anybody is free to contribute and participate in the Forum as long as they follow the forum etiquette/guidelines. As for whether they should be 'allowed' to be a Christian or not, well I don't have that call and I'm not sure anybody else on this earth can decide who is and who isn't allowed to be a Christian (although I'm sure many think they can). Personally, I think the author of Romans didn't like homosexuality for whatever reason. Probably not all that unusual - gays have always been a minority group in our society and like most minority groups, they often suffer at the hands of the majority! Thankfully our society has developed over time and many now recognize the legitimacy of homosexual and bisexual sexual orientations and accept these sexual orientations. Unfortunately, many still believe that the writings of some people nearly 2000 years ago necessarily applies to society today. I see no reason for that to be the case but if some of the writings are useful, then great. For me, I couldn't care less for sexual orientation and my golden rule would be if you do no harm, then you're alright by me.