PaulS

Welcome Patrick, I look forward to being part of your university project! There is a huge archive of posts and discussions you could read through, and/or freely participate in any of the posts raised on a daily basis. As a member, when I log on I go straight to 'View New Content' (top r/h corner) and see what topics have been started or continued, and then interact with others here. I hope you find your time here beneficial as well as appropriate to your educative needs. Cheers Paul

I don't attend a church, but if I did I would like to hear sermons very similar to these I read from Philip Gulley - he is a Quaker preacher and has a website called 'Gracetalks'. www.philipgulley.com

My 'leaving the fold' occurred when I was about 19 when I joined the police force and saw a world I had no idea existed, having been raised in a fairly closeted, fundamental Christian family and church. Part of my leaving was simply rebellion through gaining exposure to people and a world that I hadn't known. But a big part was the questioning I also undertook at that time concerning this apparent 'plan' of God's to save all of us poor people whom by no choice of our own were born unto sin and were eternally doomed unless we chose to believe that we needed to ask Jesus for forgiveness for being born worthless. I started questioning the justice in that logic. My leaving was painful in many ways - friends no longer really wanted to socialise with me because I was a 'backslider' and their friendship turned into a 'mission' to bring me back to the fold. I pretty much lost my community and circle of friends of 19 years. That left a gap that was filled with less than healthy exploits. For a long time, and to some extent these days, I miss that security I had and even now at 45 I still find myself signing hymns to myself sometimes because it feels comfortable. I can't go back because I simply don't believe what I used to when I was involved with Christianity. That said, I have now been involved through this site and elsewhere with many other types of Christians than I had grown up with and have a different understanding of the bible. For me the jury is still out on whether God exists in some way, shape or form, but I'm happy to continue to ponder this and go along for the ride!

I was really referring to a better understanding of the bible and its interpretation based on scholarly research rather than dogma and belief systems that people have been taught to adopt as their own. As a for instance, many Christians here might view the bible as errant, human writings, written within a cultural climate of the time, and with a limited knowledge of modern science. Subsequently, whilst many might view the different books, stories and metaphors in the bible as useful and even enlightening, many would also accept that the bible isn't without its errors and biases, and that it isn't a dictated-from-God manual of how to live. I think many here would feel comfortable with the latter part of that definition of Christian you cite, i.e. it is a label that recognises their connection to Jesus and his teachings (and there may be discussion around what are and what are not his teachings) but they don't carry the baggage of believing they need to believe Jesus is literally the one and only son of a God who required his blood sacrifice in order to forgive human beings who were/are born naturally evil and unworthy of God's forgiveness from birth, unless they accept they are worthless sinners who require Jesus' atonement to gain that special pass to Heaven one day. I hope that might not sound too flippant towards those that hold such beliefs - it's just that I find such beliefs harmful and unworthy of our society in this age.

I don't think you can be so certain that Jesus identified himself as the Son of God, Skyseeker. I don't think Jesus is very explicit about it at all, and remember that much of what Jesus is 'quoted' as saying could just as easily be somebody else's spin on things after Jesus was dead. Remembering that the earliest gospel was written some 40 years after Jesus had died, I really think that the more likely conclusion is that the stories of Jesus' divinity grew after his death. I agree that he was more than your average Joe and for whatever reasons he did have an impact on a small group of people that grew into a religion over time. However I question that he ever walked on water, raised the dead, etc etc. I think these are straight from the myth textbook and were stories that grew to cement Jesus' specialness, rather than accurate reports of his capabilities.

Skyseeker, In my opinion I think viewing the bible as the inerrant word of God cheats people of the deeper richness of the bible. I think to understand the bible as a compilation of many different human thoughts and understandings of God & the universe, always affected by their culture and societal mores of the day, is a far richer way to understand the various authors. I think the rigidness and certainty which many people read into the bible is just a modern way of being a rigid, certain Pharisee from Jesus' day. Paul

Welcome MsPragmatic, I hope you feel comfortable enough to continue sharing here too. Most people here are very open-minded, many enjoy a good debate, and many are knowledgeable concerning things about Christianity that you don't hear from the pew often. We respect everyone else's views, which I think is an essential part of this forum. People's beliefs and views are formed from their own experiences and none of us have the same two experiences, so it's only naturally that we all have our own way of seeing things. I look forward to getting to know you and your thoughts more. Cheers Paul

I read this myself recently, Kate, and agree with you wholeheartedly. I find it so refreshing to read material like this - Jesus was a man, a human being of the lowest order like all of us - yet he had an amazing impact on those around him and later the world. To me this means any of us can have such an impact - we don't half to be Gods or even half God/half man to try and make a better world.

I pretty much agree with your thoughts, Lotharson, and indeed myself do what I can to help people see that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, and that for this reason alone homosexuals should be allowed the same rights as heteros, in every sense of the word. One thing I would add though, is that it is not conservative Christians alone who are against homosexuality. There are many different religions and even non-religious people who perhaps in ignorance or perhaps because they have no better understanding, would see homosexuals treated as less than fully human. Indeed it is sad but I think we are seeing a change across the globe towards acceptance of gays. The sooner the better I think.

Welcome Fred, I hope you enjoy participating here and I look forward to hearing your views in discussion. Cheers Paul

Who does own the true definition of Christianity?

Hey Ronald, So glad you are finding the forum useful on your journey. I hope you continue to enjoy! Cheers Paul

Welcome JR, Hope you enjoy the discussions here! Cheers Paul

I think it's good to keep threads 'clean' so to speak to avoid moving off topic, which unintentionally your post was likely to do. Firstly, what exactly is 'orthodoxy'? I know for conversational purposes what is generally accepted as orthodoxy, but when talking 'early church fathers' we're not exactly talking direct disciples of Jesus are we, but several generations removed. To that end I don't believe the doctrine of the Trinity has always been central to Christianity. The fact that it took several hundreds years to get the Trinity down on paper would suggest there were lots of debate/points of view in early Christianity. The fact that it's not even mentioned in the bible would suggest it wasnt a doctrine of the earliest Christians. As you acknowledge, it has been the 'accepted' doctrine since about 400 years after Jesus lived - maybe we've been so wrong in accepting it all this time? That said, if that doctrine does speak to some people, good for them. If it serves a useful purpose, then so be it. But if the doctrine made no sense and was rejected by other PCs, I don't see an issue. Indeed, throwing the baby out with the bath water may be just what is needed for Christianity to survive the 21st (if that's an issue for anyone). To ignore your post on the other thread doesn't put your opening comments into context with this thread. I read that comment to suggest that there needs to be some more specifics around what PCs 'validate' as 'accepted'. Personally I wouldn't like to see PC head down that rocky road. In fact, the ongoing questioning around PC and the focus of it being more like a journey than a destination, is what makes the movement so attractive to many, IMO. If personally the Trinity works for someone, then why not, but I wouldn't like it to be a point that has to be 'agreed' to for one to participate in PC circles. Cheers Paul

Who asked that question Steve?

You are not a bother at all, Daniel. You are certainly facing some tough times with your mental health and we all need friends and people we can share with/bounce things off. Firstly, please know that your schizophrenia is NOT caused by demons! It is a health issue, much like demons don't cause cancer, or strokes, or heart attacks, or leukaemia. I think Christians who try to tell you otherwise are like the ignorant people in Jesus' day who attributed epilepsy to demon-possession. Ignore them and seek help from your medical professional please. It's great to hear your medication is having some affect - further refinement may also help. Sometimes it can be a 'baby steps' process. If it is of any assistance, I went through a 12 month period of what for me was extreme anxiety concerning God & Hell and it seemed impossible to shake it. I was scared of God & Hell, but I just couldn't make myself believe the things that many Christians would say you need to believe to be saved. Like Joseph alludes to, it was the slow process of deconstruction that helped me better understand my intuition for not believing in the first place. Whilst I haven't really reconstructed any particular theology in it's place, I slowly came around to feeling that no God of love would ever subject his creation to demons, suffering, torment and eternal agony. That's enough for me. I also satisfied myself knowing that as Hell wasn't eternal, it probably couldn't be all that bad anyway because it doesn't kill you! I know - not very logical probably, but for me it helped. I think it might be good for you to read some Bart Erhman, Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong and other PC authors. For me personally, I found that they helped me better understand the Bible as a man-made document, written (and edited) by various people throughout time who often had different views of the world and God. The whole book is subject to cultural bias and understandings of the day and should not be read as a rule book set in concrete for time immemorial. Our minds are amazing contraptions and they can do some very strange things to us that may have us question what we regard as 'natural'. I am firmly convinced that the things we can't explain are only waiting further investigation and understanding of how our human brain works. I believe that if there is a God of love, then that God loves us all, regardless of our mental health and contrary thoughts at times. Be at peace, Daniel. You are safe & you are loved. Cheers Paul

He was born because a man had sex with a woman. I don't think there is anything else behind it. What he became is a different story.

I would argue that the rightness or wrongness of an action has evolved along with humanity - it was once morally right to have slaves, now it's not. Some societies had a moral code where it was okay to stone your daughter for not being a virgin, now it's not. But in general, we humans have chosen morals that suit and/or benefit our development. Killing is okay (war) but not within your own tribe (murder). Adultery is okay (divorce, remarriage) but it can harm (jealousy, distrust). The moral yardstick is determined by the culture and society because we have evolved making decision about what does and doesn't advantage our growth.

Steve, Maybe I wasn't clear enough. In response to Matteoam's claims I was pointing out that indeed science has carried out scientific experiments for the likes of meditation. But that wasn't the type of experiments which I was alluding to which may rock religious foundations. I certainly don't think the entire US is beholden to fundamentalists, but certainly a fair share of your politicians and those with political clout on the likes of schoolboards and such, do influence. I won't accept that in a State such as Kansas, where year after year the Education Board swings between creationism and evolution, that any career teacher/scientists could feel safe challenging fundamental religious claims. I mean just imagine the reception a scientist would get in the 'bible-belt' if he said he was going to carry out an empirical experiment to once and for all determine the existence of God. Do you really think that he would be accepted without qualm? I mean really, the US is a country which has to take to court whether evolution could be taught in school or not! I only make this point to demonstrate that it is not open slather for scientists, particularly in the US but elsewhere also, to

Matteoam, What kind of empirical study would you like to see, Matteoam? There's been plenty of science that has looked at spiritually-related subjects such as meditation and which acknowledges it provides a health benefit to the user, but how does anyone 'prove' anything perhaps 'supernatural' or metaphysical about it? Similarly there have been scholarly studies concerning the power of prayer which show no discernible intervention from God. These scientific findings don't get an awful lot of publicity or recognition in the US. Me thinks that many scientists in the US would be hesitant to undertake experiments that risk shaking religious foundations out of fear of having their funding cut off or their reputations smeared. It seems to me that many in the US have in the past hysterically defended their faith from scientific scrutiny, whatever the cost to the scientist.

I have to agree with Rom. I've stayed silent until this point, but your view Matteoam, that seems to be that scientism is the act of refusing to believe that which can't be proved or scientifically accounted for, seems questionable to me. The example you raise - paranormal investigations - even seems to suggest that people are applying scientific principles to get to the bottom of paranormal 'experiences'. I'm, not sure how you can determine which scientists are actually scientismists, but it would seem to be that most scientists should in fact fall under such a definition. The fact that something doesn't have a scientific rationale is a very good reasons for believing that a) it doesn't exists, or we don't scientifically understand it. The latter to me would seem to be a trademark of historical discoveries where things were once regarded as 'of God' or without scientific explanation, only to be scientifically explained, and clearly, years later. I actually doubt there are more than a few, if any, scientists that don't leave the door open to some things and simply say we don't understand it yet, rather than dismissing it outright. In those cases I would say you are dealing with some pretty ordinary scientists. In my mind, the fact that most scientists have an open and questioning mind seems to be why we as humans have progressed as we have.

I don't see morals as being initiated by some personal agent, but rather a result of evolution of various survival mechanisms. If it is logical for something to be 'uncreated' then that logic must extend to it being possible that the start of life (big bang, first cells, etc) was uncreated.

"I don't, but it seems reasonable to me for these reasons....."

I thought that is what I was trying to say, Hornet. It seemed to me that CP couldn't accept that a cell might exist without having a creator, but seems to accept that God existed without something causing God to begin to exist.

I don't think there is much logic to it, Pete. Similarly, when I once challenged my sister about going to Hell if one doesn't realise they 'need' Jesus, and using the example of a woman abducted into sexual slavery and abused for 20 years possibly not getting the 'picture' that Jesus loves her & died for her etc, her only response was "well, the wonderful thing is that Jesus will even save her tormenter"! It's a mindset that I think protects the individual from questioning the beliefs they have found security in.