PaulS

"Often we wander off into the territory where god is transcendent, ie beyond all categories of thought. So any answer we come with as to the reason for population density of our galaxy is by definition unverifiable or meaningless". I agree it is unverifiable, but I wouldn't say it is meaningless. I think lots of advances have come from 'meaningless' speculation and chatter. Who knows when one may come upon a 'truth'?

In my experience to date it seems the scientists can provide a lot more evidence and logic to their understanding than new earthers can to theirs, but appreciating how important the NE's theory is to NE's is the key to understanding their fervent faith. To me, if the science of evolution has made some mistakes or incorrect assumptions, no big deal. But to a bible-believing new earther, any threat to their theory can rock their whole world. I mean if a being called God didn't physically mould Adam from dirt and Eve from Adam's rib, then the bible's integrity is threatened from the very outset (if you share that interpretation of biblical historicity). When your whole life is styled around a fundamental & literal understanding of the bible and Christianity, that is a serious threat.

At 72yrs Marcus still had so much more to contribute to a better understanding of Jesus and Christianity. Many of his books really helped me reconsider true Christianity in a new light. RIP Marcus.

Ricklee, Here's a thread I started previously concerning so-called prophecy of Jesus. You may find it interesting to learn that much of so-called prophecy is actually about other events which early Christianity used as tenuous links to provided Jesus (and his Way) with some credibility. Cheers Paul

Fantastic Joseph! Sounds like you're livin' the dream! Glad to hear it's worked out so well.

Is that a yawn or a smile Joseph?

Warming up for Australia Day celebrations on 26 Jan! https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152933970203614&fref=nf

Would anybody like to venture an opinion concerning what would appear to be a lack of life on other planets (at least in this galaxy) and just why any God might like it that way? I raise this in the context that many here believe in God as 'source' and often consider God to 'be' love, so I was just wondering what your thoughts may be concerning our possible/most likely isolation on this little blue dot. Cheers Paul

Ricklee, Bible believer or not, your are welcome here. In fact, if you were a Muslim, Hindu or adherent of any other religion you would also be welcome. As long as all participants adhere to the Forum's code of conduct, then they are welcome. But this is a discussion forum, so your views or opinions may be discussed by others. You ask what if the Fundamentalist is right? Whilst I myself don't think that is a possibility, you are entitled to your opinion. But may I question a few of your assertions in the above: You say the Bible states over 4000 times that it is the word of God. I would challenge that. Nowhere in the bible does it state that the entire bible (as we have it today) is the word of God. Of course various authors in the various books that makes up the library of the bible do make such claims independently though. I'm sure the individual authors often felt that they were conveying God's intentions - even when they were condoning genocide, rape, slavery, patriarchy, and so on as God's wishes. Concerning any so called prophecies about Jesus made in the OT - have you ever considered that it is actually more logical to see that the various NT authors have represented Jesus as fulfilling prophecies by linking Jesus to various elements of the OT rather than him actually fulfilling prophecy? There is a rich tradition of biblical authors taking verses out of context and applying them to Jesus to fulfil their message. There is much research and material readily available that can show this to you. I'm happy for you that Jesus has meant something to you and your life. Many people also feel this way about Allah, Mohammed, Buddah, etc. They too have died for their beliefs so they must be right too? Of course you're entitled to ask that if the fundamentalist might be right and if so, then what? But I think the point that Anne raised was that if you don't believe in something, then you can't believe in it, even though you may still fear or be concerned about it. I'm sure that makes no sense to you, but having been in her shoes I know exactly how it feels. The beautiful thing though is that I know that if there is a God of love out there, he isn't going to be sending any of his children to eternal torment.

Thanks Joseph.

Cheers Rom. I'm not up on my Joseph Campbell so didn't realize the difference between his Christ-myth view and that of mythicists. Thanks. ...and yes, Bart can be all that bad! I like that he is so thorough and so unbiased in his work.

Hey Rom, I'm reading an excellent book at present by biblical scholar Bart Erhman (Did Jesus Exist?) who disposes of the mythicist view that Jesus didn't actually exist. His evidence for the existence of Jesus is compelling. That said, whilst the evidence for his existence is strong, Erhman points out that next to no evidence is available of him being regarded as a cosmic saviour by his followers in his day.

For me, the 'Liar, Lunatic or Lord' argument seems a bit simplistic and overlooks the many alternatives. Firstly, it's quite likely that Jesus didn't say or do many of the things attributed to him. With the earliest Gospels not being written until decades and decades after the death of Jesus, I think it's very likely that there has been some poetic licence taken in the time between the life of Jesus and the writing of these Gospels. I'm sure the writers had the best intentions in mind, but that doesn't make it right. Secondly, as Joseph points out above, the either/or logic used when considering this statement makes no sense. Jesus could just as easily have been 'Lord' (or Teacher/Master) to many, whilst still incorrectly holding an immediate apocalyptic view of the world. It is clear that Jesus believed the end of the world was nigh (despite a later addition in the NT to try and make up for this prophecy not coming true by trying to turn a day into a thousand years), but this apocalypse did not occur within the existing generation. Does that make Jesus crazy or did he simply, hold a strong belief in something which wasn't actually true? Similarly, I don't think fundamental Christians are 'crazy' for holding their beliefs, and many of them are wonderful people. So I don't have to decide one or the other. I think the most logical approach is to consider Jesus within the context of his time and in the spirit of which the people at the time would have received him. Also, consider the Bible in it's entirety and the contradictory statements concerning eternity in Hell (if you believe as Rick seems to above) - elsewhere in the Bible God declares that he will never abandon us and that he is everywhere. Clearly, going to a miserable eternal hell absent of God contradicts these statements But to cover biblical contradictions, philosophical arguments about Jesus' 'Godship', and biblical scholarship would require much more than I have room for here. There is a wealth of scholarly material concerning the bible and Jesus out there and it takes a person a long time to read and study these various works. Some may find it much easier and much more secure just to swallow what's preached at their pulpit without question, or to happily live in ignorance to the well-documented alternatives concerning an understanding of Christianity. My prayer would be that God will help them see the light and direct them toward a better understanding of Jesus, God, and the Kingdom of God - I think the world would be a better place for it.

Welcome Bingle, I wish I had known about progressive Christianity all those years ago when I abandoned my faith for similiar reasons you touch on - it might have saved me a lot of grief and angst. I'm glad you've found this forum and I look forward to your participation here. Cheers Paul

All healed now, thanks John. I kept the bike in the end, much to my wife's disdain! Today I'm off to play 18 holes at a nearby beachside course (The Cut Golf Course) which should be good - not for the golf (I'm a hacker) but for the views!

For me, I find Facebook a much shallower forum. It doesn't lend itself to in-depth discussion like people get to participate in here, but rather allows one to post a quick opinion or point and then move on. It's a bit like talk-back radio where "everyone wants to express an opinion that nobody else wants to hear". Also, having reviewed the PC Facebook page, I can't see how one would access the archives of topics that are available here on the Forum. There is such a library of information and topics discussed here that is simply not available on Facebook. Perhaps Facebook grows quicker because of the convenience, but I doubt it is anywhere near as fulfilling or informative as this Messageboard.

Welcome Starjazz, I hope you find some useful resources in the archives here - or start a new discussion yourself on any point. Cheers Paul

Angelo, But apart from evolution, do you believe that mankind inherited sin because a physical Adam ate of a fruit and thus condemned all of mankind to eternal separation from God? I'm guessing not.

Rom, What many call Christianity these days relies upon the tenant that Jesus Christ was the Son of God sent as a Saviour to mankind to be a human sacrifice (atonement theology). Why was he required as a sacrifice? - Because man (through Adam) has inherited sin, is separated from God, and can only be reunited with God through accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour. The New Testament is indeed interpreted in several places as demonstrating that this sin is inherited due to Adam's disobedience of God. So if there was no Adam, what does this mean to believers of this mindset? I know you can't answer on their behalf, but I'm just throwing the question out there to read what others may have heard/experienced. Cheers Paul PS. Believe me, the majority of Christians DO believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis - that there was actually a specific single fruit tree, in a specific geographical location referred to as The Garden of Eden, and that a man created from dust by God did disobey and partake of a bite of that fruit, thus condemning all mankind in the generations to come to an eternal hell UNLESS they call upon Jesus Christ as their Saviour. I was one of them. In my defence, this belief was due to the indoctrination I received and it wasn't until I was 18 that I began to distance myself from such beliefs.

Yes, those verses say 'why' God drove man out of the Garden of Eden, but the impetus for doing so was Adam eating the apple. If Adam did not exist (as evolutionists like myself would argue) then where does that leave this chapter of the bible and the concept of original sin? If you are a biblical literalist and you deny evolution, then it's easy - God created Adam, Adam then ate the wrong fruit, mankind is separated from God forever. But if you accept evolution as fact, then that would seem to rock the foundation of fundamental Christianity - no situation where there is only one modern human on earth located in a specific Garden of Eden = no apple being eaten = no original sin = no need to be saved = no need for a God to send a Son to be crucified etc etc. That being the case, have you heard Christians who accept evolution, justify the doctrine of original sin and if so, how might they?

I know accepting evolution as scientific fact can be a real problem for some Christians, as it threatens their understanding of creation and original sin. I think some people are threatened because any such 'chink' in the armour of their doctrine may threaten a domino effect where all their beliefs go to water once one is compromised. A Christian friend of mine who accepts evolution as fact believes 'the Fall' may have occurred when man developed the ability to speak & communicate and at this point separated himself from God through his actions. I would suggest he takes the eating of the apple as a metaphor for man going it alone against God's guidance/desires and getting himself into all sorts of trouble as a result. So I was wondering if anybody else has/has heard of any alternative takes on this original sin belief and how some Christians may try to justify this belief against the existence of evolution?

For me personally it's most likely the attractiveness of the familiarity of the 'good bits' of Christianity I have experienced tempered with science and logic. That said, I really don't call myself anything religious in nature outside of this forum. I'm just Paul usually.

I don't believe PC is as regulated as other religions and religious groups and subsequently there is no 'requirement' to believe anything really should you wish to call yourself a Progressive Christian. My interpretation of the 8 points is not that they are dogm, but more an expression of what many PCs find compelling about Christianity without the dogma that has developed that 'does' require certain beliefs. I guess in short, there's a lot more around Point 1 and the 8 points concerning PC than what the points themselves specifically try to capture. For my own point of view, I interpret the Oneness of life as identifying that we did all come from the same stardust and big-bang mechanics as everything else in this Universe (as far as we are aware). I'm not sure how sacred I regard that but I can appreciate that as 'One' us earthlings rely on each other for fulfillment and community, often incorporating animals and nature into this situation to create a Oneness here on Earth.

Welcome Angelo, I hope you enjoy PC further, here. Are you of a religious background freshly discovering PC, or some other background? You'll find this forum a pretty open place to discuss and throw things around. Cheers Paul

I could agree Joseph, but when that pain and suffering has nothing to do with their own choosing or decision-making and is in fact forced upon them by others, I see that as simply cruelty which I don't think any god of love would demonstrate. That is about the only possibility I can imagine, if indeed there is a purpose to our existence (heh, that could be a good topic for another thread )