PaulS

Indeed, all people are beautiful and in this case I think it is indeed unfortunate that some Muslim women feel they need to hide themselves, either because they fell compelled to or because they want to for whatever reasons. Some of my thoughts concerning security come from some recent social experiments I have read about where a person wearing a balaclava in a shopping centre was treated entirely different from people also there but wearing burqas. I know France have laws prohibiting the wearing of the burqa in public (but I haven't read up on why France mightbhavevthese laws). I've also read of a couple of cases in the US of robberies executed by criminals wearing burqas. Had they been wearing balaclavas they may not have gotten into a position where they were able to carry out the crime. Just thoughts getting tossed around.

What do people think about the wearing of the Burqa (Burka) and/or the Niqab within societies that are not predominantly Muslim? In Australia there has been some recent debate mainly due to security issues pertaining around people not able to be identified if they are wearing a burqa and/or niqab. Personally, I am not entirely comfortable with either items of clothing from a security point of view, but I also feel that our culture of engaging people 'face-to-face' (e.g. look people in the eyes when you're talking to them) doesn't lend itself to accepting this style of dress. Personally I feel a lot more comfortable when I can see a person's face and facial gestures (including their eyes) when I am communicating with them. That said, I can also appreciate that some people feel wearing this type of clothing is important to them. I know there are arguments concerning the oppressive nature of women having to wear such to comply with their religion, but I am talking here about women who freely wear this clothing because they feel it honours Allah. How do members here feel about respecting these Muslim choices whilst at the same time addressing security concerns and/or cultural complications? Like usual, I don't see a black and white answer here and I would like to hear other people's opinions about the issue.

I don't recall seeing this post but Azvanna's response made it pop up on my radar. I particular like the reference: "To my mind, both progressive and liberal Christianities begin with the realization that it is neither epistemologically nor morally permissible to believe everything standing in our favorite holy book without any kind of reality-check." I think this is exceptionally important when we are talking about a compilation of 66 books, written by a diverse variety of authors, from a spread of cultures, over a period of 800 years or more, and who's last writings are dated back to about 1800 years ago!

"When i believed we had free will i systematically placed full responsibility and blame on others that i felt choose poorly. I was not able to have compassion because of my understanding that they could and should have choose otherwise. When i later saw and understood that, for the most part, we are slaves to our conditioning (genetics, environment and our own unique experiences) , i realized that people could not choose otherwise than they did at that moment . I saw we all have different limitations that make 'could have' and 'should have' a hypothetical reality that is in the past and no longer exists. With that understanding i have no problem with forgiveness and i only have compassion for those who make unwise choices. It also to me, helped contribute to a more nonjudgmental attitude toward others and myself. They will still receive their reward/punishment for their action by society but i can forgive them because in effect to coin Jesus' phrase "they know not what they do" because if they really fully understood what they were doing , they would not have chosen unwisely" - Joseph. That paragraph sums up the beginning of the end for me when it came to believing in a 'just' God that would send many people to eternal punishment. In our simplest view we might think people have a choice to lead a good and wholesome life, but from what I saw as a police officer, children raised in an environment filled with crime/drugs/alcohol/family dysfunction etc, are already behind the eight-ball when it comes to making good choices in life due to the influences they have been subjected to. That doesn't mean many don't go on to lead excellent lives, but for me does explain why many get caught in this ongoing cycle of poor choices. So sure, we have free will when it comes to making some choices, but in many situations I don't think we get to 'choose' what we believe or why because our experiences and learnings have already shaped our decision making.

Welcome Azvanna, Yes, I too am an Aussie, albeit from the other side of the country, and I certainly have no idea who you are, so your secret is safe with me I grew up within fundamental Christianity (Bassendean Church of Christ in Perth) but began to question everything I had been indoctrinated with when at 18 years of age I joined the police force (served 13 years and left it 15 years ago) and saw the world from a different perspective. That was a very difficult time for me as I began to change my beliefs and move away from the Church. Within a year or two I had left the Church altogether. My parents still attend, and my sister felt called by God to be a missionary in Mexico, so I am rather the black sheep in my immediate family. I simply say this to maybe reference some understanding about what you may be going through. I think it's terrific that you have found perhaps some way to look at your faith which makes more sense that what you have been led to believe to date, and I hope participating an dreading here will help and comfort you on this journey. Cheers Paul

Welcome Shnarkle, I too find much wisdom in the Bible and I am even grateful for all the 'wrong' things that seem to be there because it helps me see how my ancestors shaped their thinking concerning God, over the years. I hope you enjoy participating here and get a chance to look at the archives for much discussion too. Cheers Paul

Love it! Jim's musings here should probably be read in every Church in the world, in sync with the Sermon on the Mount! After reading the article, the only thought that stuck in my brain was the 'lust' factor (I wonder if that says something about my character ). I think lust, in the sense of a person looking at another and holding sexual thoughts, is entirely natural and on it's own is not a concern. Simply put, if we didn't lust after a member of the opposite sex then we wouldn't be able to procreate. I interpret the lust that Jesus was referring to as the lust that then goes on to cause harm. To me this would mean jealousy that eats one up, or desire which causes one then to make bad decisions (such as choosing to lie, or deceive, or even cause harm to another so that they might benefit toward the object of their desire). Should a persons' lust drive them to harmful behaviours (say internet porn addiction) then that's the sort of lust (IMO) that Jesus was saying was not conducive to the Kingdom (although I acknowledge that internet porn wasn't big in Jesus' day). Lust which 'harms' is what I think Jesus would have meant, not just a picture in one's head of what it would be like to have sexual relations with another.

I gotta say that the pin in my side about the gay - straight thing is that I don’t care too much to be labeled with the word straight for some apparent reason. Can’t the gay people come up with something else to call us? It also kind of implies that we are somehow not really happy, gay being a synonym for happy and all that. Even with a person whose personal life is not necessarily active or that active, a person can still be happy in other, I have to say very real and enjoyable and enlightening ways. All this being said I guess that “straight” is perhaps not all that bad and even does have some positive connotations. But I still have to think about this. I think it's important to remember that labels are for human convenience, but that they rarely ever represent every single situation accurately. Also, I don't reckon we need to take them too seriously or else we might get bothered. I mean I alone carry several different labels - straight, white, WASP (white anglo saxon protestant), Australian, male - all of which represent other people too, who sometimes I have little in common with. Where I’ve been really tripped up by forgiveness and unconditional forgiveness and all that; is that I’ve been stuck in situations where a person having just done something very wrong, to me, and at me ,and on me; When I try to contest this behavior at all, then comes at me demanding and in effect forcing my forgiveness. This, with no apology, no admittance, no restitution what so even and with no intention of even maybe changing his act and/or his way of doing things. This can go on for only so many decades before I finally say, “forget it, you’re not forgiven” or “take it up with God” or even, “Even God has Es’ limits”. A person can only take so much of some things before they are unable to forgive whether they want to or not. It’s this and similar scenarios that make me think that without some sort of admittance, apology, restitution and changing of one’s ways, (in proportion to what was done of course), that maybe then, as Jesus is quoted as saying “you don’t get out”... Or don't "get out" just like that with no even half a half a thought about it. The following is from Matthew and is from the Sermon on the Mount: 23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. 25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-23.htm http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-26.htm http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm So divine and unconditional forgiveness is there, but in fact a person might need to do something sometimes. In fact these situations are sometimes an opportunity for being able to make things right. I kind of figure that if I offer a full and complete apology (in proportion to whatever I have done wrong), (and make whatever restitution, admittance and changes I need to make, and actually create a new bunch or bit of a track record that at least somewhat balances out my old one), then if a person can’t or won’t forgive me, well, then, that’s on them. What I’ve done is not on them, but their unwillingness to forgive is. This kind of thing frees people from having to live with an elephant or an alligator or even a terrordactdile in the living room so to speak. So to me, that means it really is a positive opportunity, because living with these things can become a kind of hell in their own right. I could go on a good deal more about this subject, and even show that I’m really not so much of a hard liner regarding this subject; but my time restraints and interest in keeping my posts a bit shorter advise me to stop here. I think the forgiveness thing has many different angles, including the difficulty in forgiving sometimes (and I'm in the camp that sometimes we are okay with not forgiving). But where we don't forgive, I think it is important that we are still able to let it go, whatever 'it' is. I think forgiveness in that sense helps people. I hope that you are doing well and that things are on the ok-s between you and me You and I are all good, E. I'm trying to track done a previous post by you concerning you being a New Yorker or something in order to respond, but know that I have no problems with what you are posting at all. I am very happy for people to hold opinions different to me and I don't judge them for it. I enjoy debate and discussion, and like I said I may sometimes push my point too hard (but I am trying to be more aware of that), but all in all unless somebody is rude or abusive, I have no issue with them here. Cheers Paul

Welcome satchbee, Congrats on your upcoming wedding. It sounds like you are working through some issues with your church that are helping you in the long term. I wish you well in your journey and I hope you're friends remain so regardless of your affiliation with that church or not. Cheers Paul

"I’m thinking that the color purple still exists whether I, or anyone else for that matter, can see it or not. It may not be part of my experience, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It may not be “real to me” as you put it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real or a real phenomenon. Just because something “isn’t real to me”, doesn’t make it unreal or nonexistent. However, if it doesn't exist for you, then you are relying on somebody else's interpretation that it exists as they say it does. What if they're wrong? Some things may not be everlasting or eternal, in which case hopefully some things will just evaporate from reality and no longer exist (things such as hell, or a cosmic correction center, if there is one, - or the mean lousy things some people sometimes do). In which case they will no longer be real or exist, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist at one time. I agree that no one can know everything, with the possible exception of JC, (and maybe a few others in or near that kind of echelon). But we can know the truth or truths that we do know. We can know some truth, or a piece of the truth, even if we don’t know everything, (or all of the truth). At best I think we can think we know the truth, but that has proved untrustworthy in the past (e.g. people used to 'know' that the earth was flat - they even killed people who questioned this). I guess I go with real experience. If I feel or experience the presence of God, or JC, and perceive, encounter or experience enough of this/them, then I start understanding that this is real, this isn’t just me, and that there’s (a) real positive spiritual power(s) behind, in and around everything. For me this has very little to do with books or the bible or what a group of people up the street in a building with a steeple on it are saying. (it has nothing to do with what my parents think either, which wasn't much). I just experience it, sometimes I do have to struggle or work to tune into it, and then other times I don’t, but in either case it’s a real experience of a real “entity” or “entities”, if you will, that I am experiencing. Again, what is a 'real' experience for you may not be such for another. At best, one can say that an experience to them is real, but it might not be for another, or anyone else for that matter. Also, this in no way makes me all that, or any more than just my own little regular, ordinary level of special, as a person. And this happens to lots of people. All of them may or may not talk about it or know how to put it into words, or be too shy to put it into words, but it’s still their real experiences. And for my time and understanding on this earth I feel that they are experiencing something real. They are not just experiencing something that is “real to them”, they are experiencing real and true and existing -somethings. If these somethings are God and/or Christ and/or the Holy Spirit, and some book(s) that were once written about them don’t quite work too well, that doesn’t mean they aren’t real, that doesn't mean they don't exist. That just means some people wrote a/some mixed-up book(s) about them. I agree these may be peoples' very real experiences, but it is just 'their' very real experiences and not necessarily universal truths. I can't agree with you that they are experiencing something that is real and true and existing, other than to the point that it is 'for them'.

I don't agree Elen. I think the issue I have with 'truth' is that many people can profess to know it, even though their opinions of it are different than one another's! What is real? If you have no way of seeing the colour purple then I'd have to say the colour purple is not real to you. You cannot access it. You cannot know it. You can understand that other people might describe it to you as something you do not possess, but I don't think that makes it 'real' to you. So it's not denying that there may be a colour purple, only that to say it is 'truth' means that because you can see it, then it is true. Maybe the purple-see-ers are actually colour-blind too compared to a greater being that sees purple as its real colour (let's say yellow) and that yellow is actually the truth - it's just that the purple see-ers just don't know it yet. I think the truth is elusive if you want to take it to its conclusion, because how can anyone ever know everything or be sure their current truth isn't just an illusion according to their understanding of what truth is? I know my 'truth' has changed more than once, but each time I was convinced I knew the truth. Cheers Paul

Welcome Mike, I hope you enjoy participating here. I look forward to reading more from you. Cheers Paul

I don't think I 'need' a religious belief system - really I don't have one per se currently and seem pretty good with that. That said, I like to think about other belief systems and I do wonder if there is something I should believe in or understand about the world that I currently don't. Admittedly that could be a hangover of my upbringing as a conservative Christian who 'knew' he had the 'right beliefs' for so long, only to realise they were wrong (as far as I now believe), so perhaps that has tuned me to think that there is a religious 'truth' out there somewhere that I haven't clicked with. But as for a 'need', I don't think I need one. I do take aspects from Christianity & Buddhism into account as to how I live my life, probably because they're the two religions I am most familiar with in my culture & society. But if I didn't know about them I think I would have learnt their primary values (love, compassion, empathy, peace) from other sources anyway because I think these things come naturally to us.

Sound advice!

Hi Paul, Ok let me see if I can address this. You’re saying that two people see the same wire differently, one person is colorblind and the other has regular vision. First let’s establish what ‘red’ really is. I’ve studied a bit about art so I know a thing or two about light and color and that sort of stuff. Red is light being reflected off a pigmented surface at a certain wavelength, the surface reflects more of the red wave length of light than that of the rest of spectrum, and this is what the human eye perceives as red. If a person perceives it correctly or at least the way the human eye is meant to perceive it, or commonly sees it, then this person is perceiving red truthfully. They perceive the truth of what is going on concerning the red wavelength of light. I know someone who is colorblind and this person knows that he doesn’t perceive some colors correctly, particularly red and green. He’s frequently asked other people if something is either red or green. He was a painter to and did some perty good work, but he did have to ask people what color he was painting with from time to time, and learned to compensate for his colorblindness. Apparently some of the cells in his eyes didn’t pick up on certain wavelengths of light or something like that, I’m not exactly sure about the exact medical explanation here. Thing is he knew he wasn’t perceiving the truth or the reality about some colors. He didn’t say well my truth is what it should be and everyone else is wrong or mixed up or something. He knew his eyes were different and like many people with colorblindness got through life dealing with it in a way that didn’t impede his life or the quality of his life very much. Now maybe we shouldn’t say he is seeing things wrong, because that’s not very nice and perhaps not the best way to put things. But he himself would say that he didn’t see things entirely as the really are in terms of color, he would say that he saw things differently and he knew that his truth in the perception of color was not the truth, or to put it more simply not accurate. So in a certain sense his truth was that he didn’t perceive the entire truth or reality about color and the colors in the spectrum that the human eye can perceive. I hope that when we disagree a bit or challenge each other with certain ideas, we can and are doing it in a friendly way, the point being to get clearer perspectives on things and to… *the truth* J Cheers - Elen Elen, I would argue that your friend is seeing the 'truth' as it is for him, regardless of societal expectations as to what is 'normal'. His brain is wired the way it is, so to him the truth about 'red' is different for him that it is to another. That doesn't mean he is seeing things inaccurately, in fact they are 100% accurate and true for him, it's just that roughly 92% of other males in society don't see his truth the same way. I'm sure if you're friend lived in a situation where 92% of the population were colour blind and only 8% saw 'red' the way I do, then I would be arguing that that this 8% also have their truth albeit different to the truth of the others. Please know that I will always participate in these debates in a friendly way. Sometimes I hold strong views and may try too hard to convince others to hold my point of view, but I am aware of this shortcoming and try to reign myself in from time to time. Cheers Paul

Thanks Elen, You're dead right, I had turned Ben Harper's song into one of support for harming others! I have since corrected the word. Thanks. I think homosexuality is difficult for many to 'get' but I don't think that's so strange considering on average only 5% of humankind are homosexually oriented. Being gay definitely isn't the 'norm' so to speak when it comes to human sexuality on a statistical basis. I think the best way to understand homosexuality is that if a couple love or are drawn to one another (same sex or opposite sex) and that's who they want to be intimate with, then who cares, go for it. Again, if they're not harming anybody else (including their partner) then they're alright with me. The main question I have for any Christian that supports an eternal Hell is how does that fit into God's desire for forgiveness? Jesus isn't quoted as qualifying when to forgive, or whether to forgive only to a certain %. For him, forgiveness seemed to be 100%, at all times, no matter what. So to 'believe' or support the contrary seems to fly in the face of Jesus' message (IMO) and I think one has to play mind games to bend and twist this to make this fit. Your thoughts on 'some' sort of punishment, perhaps 'corrective' punishment, seem more logical to me than eternal, non-redemptive punishment. Cheers Paul

Ellen, I think truth can be fixed often, but at times I think it can be relative. Take a coloured wire for example. The majority of people KNOW the wire is red. They KNOW the truth. They can see it with their own eyes that it is red. Who could possibly argue with this obvious TRUTH? Enter the person who's brain is wired slightly different - we call it colourblind. Their reality, their TRUTH is that that wire is a murky green colour. The very same wire, observed by two different people, is a different colour to each. How can we say one is wrong and one is right? One holds the truth and the other doesn't? It's from that angle that I cautiously approach 'truth'. Cheers Paul

I personally think it can. For instance, hanging on to ideas that homosexual love is 'evil' does nothing to helps us grow into acceptance and love for all. Dare I say we will never have peace until we stop judging others as 'wrong'. I like Ben Harper's words from his song Burn One Down here - "My choice is what i chose to do; and if I'm causin no harm, it shouldn't bother you. Your choice is who you chose to be; and if your causin NO harm, then your alright with me. Similarly, our ideas of justice can be warped if we believe in an ultimate judge being justified in sentencing somebody to eternal pain and misery. If people accept that as a fair and reasonable thing to do, then who knows where to draw the line on what is fair and reasonable! I think evolution has taken plenty of dead ends and wrong turns, so always moving forward doesn't seem to be natural necessarily in the short term, but ultimately the end result is what wins out in evolution.

I think this notion of 'truth' is very vague. What may be one person's 'truth' could be another person's lie. If we have experiences beyond our control, let's say mental health disease or even experiences like sexual abuse, these things can affect our 'choices'. So to say we are free to choose, doesn't seem to fit always for me.

I think the God portrayed in the Old Testament is a tribal God of the Israelites. I think like other cultures, they had 'their' God to explain 'their' story. Their God suited their culture of the time with God being a 'King', a 'Warrior', a 'Man' - all of these ways of understanding God came from the culture of the day. I think people who take the bible literally have to somehow make these old stories 'fit' to feel secure in their religion. How else could one celebrate a God who orders a people to commit acts of genocide right down to the last baby, infant, child, even animal! This God himself is justified committing genocide via the Flood based on the notion that the 'world' was evil (all bar Noah etc). But this would mean again that every baby, infant & child was also evil. Really? There are a lot of things over the last several thousand years that we have done away with, but there are some that we are still clinging too (homophobia, racism, animal cruelty, etc). I think we are evolving as a species and our morals and values will continue to change.

Welcome Elen, I think it might have been Spong or Borg that write about understanding Jesus through the eyes of the Jewish tradition and that as Christianity moved further away from Israel people had less understanding of the teachings in a Jewish context, and began to relate to the teachings from their own context. I think this is where taking Jesus' death as a sacrifice to God began to creep in and take on the 'substitutionary atonement' meaning. I look forward to your participation here and hope you find this community a beneficial place. Cheers Paul

I don't know of any biblical scholar that dates Mark before 40AD, so I too would be interested in this 'source' that Craig mentions.

Probably the closet i come to being in a relationship with God is the feeling I get when I'm with a large group of friends, children playing, everybody laughing and enjoying each other's company. Or when I am immersed in nature, whether it be on a bush walk or mucking out my chicken pen or weeding the garden. Those two simple activities/experiences fulfil me. I am more decided about what God is not, than what God is.

I couldn't say it better myself! Jesus as a sacrifice only makes sense to me as somebody else's interpretation of his existence. I don't think for a minute that crucifixion was Jesus' mission, rather I think he held strong views about the tyranny of religion and politics and was making his points about focussing on relationship with God.