PaulS

Terry, I agree about being non-judgmental, but I think that cuts both ways. I suggest that if you want more people to take your research/opinion seriously, then I'd tone down on the apparent condemning statements that lump all marriages into the same box as you do - that they are fear and control based (mine isn't), that we aren't genetically wired for monogamous relationships (absolutely no scientific evidence to support such a statement, just assumption) and that we should get a reality check and wake up to some hard facts, that what we're doing isn't working (which is plainly false for many, many people following the standard marriage 'model'). But clearly you feel strongly about this and have taken your position. I don't feel as strongly about marriage either way but do feel strongly about articles that claim everyone is doing something wrong. Peace & goodwill. Paul

You may not have said that exact sentence, but you certainly portray the picture that nobody can have a successful monogamous marriage when you make such conclusive statements as: "The monogamous exclusive relationship is fear and control based model" "We aren't genetically wired for monogamous relationships "Mr. & Miss. average are not only reluctant to look at alternative models, but are aggressively opposed to a paradigm shift in their thinking" "Get a reality check and wake up to some hard facts, that what we're doing isn't working".

Interesting. I have no objection to people that feel they need more to their marriage, but I think your article is a little biased when it says that 'nobody' can live happily ever after in a monogamous relationship. I would have liked to see the article expound on the alternatives it says we are all ignoring or aggressively refusing to consider. From what I have seen, open marriages and the like seem to have just as many dramas as monogamous ones. Cheers Paul

I wish you well Sue but sorry, I don't know of any such resources. Paul

Welcome to the forum Steve, I hope you enjoy participating here and find the site useful. Cheers Paul

Hi Canajan, I've been participating here for about 4 years but haven't come across you, so not sure if you've been away that long or whether perhaps I missed you're posts. Whatever the case, welcome back to the scene. My own personal philosophy concerning what others believe is that if they aren't causing harm then they're fine by me. I might not accept their belief/testimony to what they say is truth, but it can make for interesting dialogue at the every least. Personally I don't think there is any such thing as crazy, it's just that some people have brains that might operate a little differently than the mainstream, so are they the one with the issue or the mainstream? Who knows. Again, whatever the case, who cares if it's not harming anyone. I look forward to reading from you more. Cheers Paul

A difficult situation for you by the sounds of it Fire Dragon, and I'm not sure I can contribute in any meaningful way, but I do wish you well in finding a church that fits for you. I left church nearly 30 years ago and have barely put a foot back in one except for the occasional wedding/funeral. I do miss elements of church-going, but I think I have gained so much more with freed up Sundays!

I sometimes look at fault finders but then think of this: 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

G'day Ellam, and welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy participating here and I look forward to your thoughts and discussion. Cheers Paul

Neither you nor you son are being arbitrary which seems to reinforce that neither of you are 'choosing' belief, but rather that you either believe, or you don't. It's not like choosing between hot and cold where you know which does what.

Do you think it is a choice? Could you really choose 'not' to believe this considering your experiences and learnings?

I'm not too concerned over here in Australia, anyway!

As I have said on another thread, a lot of fundamentals try to deal with these 'icky' passages by suggesting "the times were different then", or "they needed these laws because of their state at that time", or "girls didn't mind being raped in those days" (I joke about the last but I have heard Christians more politely try to suggest that forcibly taking a woman as a wife after having killed her husband somehow has a noble connotation!). One has no option but to pull apart the bible and recognise that it is in no way consistent when it comes to God's attributes (as they are written throughout the bible). The only other choice is to convince ones-self that we just don't understand why it looks so bad and we need to have 'faith' that it somehow does actually fit together. Good luck with that I say.

I think when the bible says "God says do this thing to another tribe"...then there is only way way to interpret it - the author very much intended it as literal. The author is definitely saying in a very literal way "God ordered this to be done". One might believe that God did no such thing, but that isn't anything to do with interpretation of the author's words. Perhaps what you're suggesting, and if so I agree, is that God may have never ordered, ordained, or otherwise encouraged such actions, but that this is purely human work and whether rightly or wrongly, those people attributed their actions to their religious beliefs. Interestingly enough (well, actually it's not all that interesting) most fundamental Christians I speak to cannot bring themselves to acknowledging these difficulties with the bible and instead feel they have to justify God's behaviour, e.g. "That was how things were done back then" or "God gives live and he taketh - who are we to question what he deems fit", etc.

Terry, throughout the OT there are atrocities, genocides and cruelty that are directly attributed to God - "God commanded this, God commanded that, God said kill every living thing there but keep the virgins for yourself, etc etc". Subsequently I attribute these things to 'Bible God'. Now maybe there's a God somewhere weeping because of man's misinterpretation of his desires, but nevertheless, cruel Bible God is unmistakably the same God that most fundamentals worship (and excuse his tyrannical acts). I think you'll find many instances of this God positively endorsing cruelty and using it as a tool to suit his ends (as described by man anyway). Check out this page for a brief list of some of this God's dirty work - http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html

Evangelicals most likely would have a problem with my 'pick n mix' concept of the bible, Terry. That is their issue though, not mine.

I do believe that what I believe today may become unbelievable at some point. Similarly, I find it unbelievable that all the beliefs I currently hold are believable by others.

But I would also add that there is a lot of stuff in the bible that should be considered pure evil these days - like the dozen or so acts of genocide that God calls for in the OT. I think one can take some inspiration from certain parts of the bible, and also accept that a lot of the bible is just somebody's opinion, in that day and age, within the societal norms they are accustomed to.

I don't see you view as incompatible - you don't take the bible literally and so perhaps don't take the verse in Peter literally either. There are truths in all manner of books we read, fiction and non-fiction alike, that doesn't mean we believe every other single word in them. I see the bible as no different - a collection of books from a variety of authors, spanning hundreds and hundreds of years, which accounts for their contradictory views about God and spirituality (not to mention laws and tribal customs). Some things may be true, others subject to opinion. Take what works for you and throw away the other baggage I reckon.

I find this too true, Rom. I don't think I have any choice in my beliefs - I either believe something, or I don't. There is no 'choice'.

Welcome Terry, There's a very good reason why most Christians come from Christian countries, most Muslims come from Muslim countries, and most Buddhists come from mainly Buddhist countries, and it certainly has nothing to do with one being right and the other wrong! Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy discussion and participation here. Cheers Paul

Of course all of that is a possibility, as is the possibility we are living inside the tummy of a giant dragon, or that like the movie The Matrix we are simply running software whilst our bodies are being sucked dry by machines in the real world. I don't say that to ridicule but to acknowledge that all manner of possibilities are just that, possibilities. Without a doubt, the possibility we are living in a dream, is a possibility, but it is not one that I accept at this point in time. I choose to remain open to the possibility, but in the absence of something directing my beliefs that way, it seems improbable, to me. But I question if believing in this possibility is harmful? Although I know you care for others to some degree (as do I - we both care enough to do something to some degree or another) the whole 'this is just a dream so suffering isn't really suffering' allows people to ignore the very real suffering that I think exists. Much like the statement that started this thread which attributes all the 'good' to God but ignores all the 'bad'. If it's all just a dream then we have no reason really to care for the environment, to love one another, to move forward - we'll just wake up one day and acknowledge that was all a dream. Of course, if I am living in a dream then it doesn't really matter what I think about the here and now. I guess the only way this possibility can be verified is if I wake up one day!

That's okay Joseph (and I am enjoying a coffee as I write!). I don't think I have missed the point, rather I am not convinced your point is valid (and of course I mean that nicely). I accept of course that that is how you see things - I just don't' presently see them the same. But life goes on!

I doubt very much that Jesus ever encouraged a Church or indeed endorsed making 'disciples' of all men. That to me seems very likely to be somebody else's understanding of Jesus. If we were to go with the 'red letter' words in the bible, Jesus' message loud and clear is that you don't need an intermediary to be at one with God, but that rather you as an individual can have a relationship with God. And how do you have that relationship with God, by being in relationship with EVERYBODY else, not just those in your Church. Not saying you do that Fatherman, but Churches themselves always become 'clubs' and are exclusive, no matter how inclusive its congregants think they are.

Yet whilst you were asleep, time in fact did not stand still and what you dreamt indeed did not really occur. I don't think many of us really think dreams and real life are the same thing. We acknowledge and differentiate when our bio computer is doing other things during sleeptime versus when we are awake. As far as I'm aware, nobody has died from starvation or preventable disease because they have dreamt it. They have died because it is very real in awake life, but not real in dream life. I am under no illusion that what we dream cannot physically harm us, so I think there is a very big difference between the 'realities' of awake vs dream state.