Pete

I would say listen to your heart Phil. I believe it speaks volumes more than scripture and dogma ever did for me.

Glad you joined us Mister Bean. I think learning is a two way street. We also learn from you too. I, like you enjoyed Spongs book Rescuing the Bible and I also came from a conservative background. If one had asked me 20 years ago what my views would be now I think I would have been very surprised at what they are now. It is good to find another traveller on the road. Welcome..

Welcome John. I love Spong too. I came to the conclusion that the fundamentalist approach was not for me and Spong made it that much clearer for me. I will ever be grateful for his courage to stand up and say what he thought rather than just towing the line like so many. I am pleased you have joined us John. Pete

Welcome Robgil, I think your like of Borg and Spong speaks volumes. It is good to hear from you and I look forward to hearing more when you feel ready. I know some forums are scary to go onto and you get hit with a lot of challenges but I am sure you will quickly realise this one just welcomes you.

Hi Phil, Welcome to the forum. We seem to be getting a small number of us from the UK and I find that exciting. I do not believe in an attonment theory. I just go with your forgiven because God is love and can do no other and this life (IHMO) is about learning to grow with God.

I read about the petition that was held against Desmond Tutu's visit to Gonzaga. The article I cannot find now said that over 800 conservatives signed the petition trying to block his visit because he supports Gay Marriage. Then a counter petition was started and over 15,000 signed it as protest on the conservatives stance. This is not the article but it tells the the story :- http://www.spokesman...ism-at-gonzaga/ What it shows to me it that the voice for ending such prejudice is growing and growing.

Aha! I am with you on this George. Thank you for that explanation. I agree that one can be religious and have a faith without being homophobic or unable to question ones beliefs and I guess this forum is testament to this. God, I do hope in future generations people look back on homophobia and say to themselves how ridiculous some in this generation have been to try to promote such evils like homosexual prejudice and laugh mockingly that some even went as far as to try and prevent gay and women ministers.

That is a risk George. Your comment may well be true in societies who are fortunate not to have a church and state mix but in countries like the UK where the Anglican Church is part of the state you are getting senior ministers trying to throw a spanner into the works to prevent other churches from carrying out gay marriage. I give an example where the Arch Bishop of York is trying to use laws from the middle ages, which gave the church the right to define that a marriage is between man and a women, in order to try to block the government from giving other churches the right to carry out gay marriages. See:- http://www.independe...rk-7561456.html His stance is supported by the many members of the catholic church and fundamental churches who have been on TV campaigning by telling everyone it is a sin and it should remain banned in the UK. It is not a case that all churches want this ban but because of the relationship of the church and state and the Queen being the figure head of the Anglican church here in the UK it is getting difficult. What could be a simple comprimise by saying each to their own belief on the matter is just too much for those who have an unfair (IMO) advantage and influence on the state.

I know your question was asked of those who have already participated in the conversation but please forgive me if I also say something. I think one of the difficulties fundamentalists have is that they have to try all sorts of things to try and justify their understanding of what they believe is an inerrant bible. I am proud to recognise that among progressive and liberal churches this is not the case. The issue leaves fundamentalists unable or unwilling to question the bible as they see it as the bedrock of their faith and therefore they will not challenge it or have it challenged. Liberals and Progressives lean more on the spiritual and are free to question the bible on issues like homosexuality and disagree with the disapproving verses of the bible. Personally I fail to see why some hold such difficulties questioning the bible whose authors thought that the world was composed of a firmament which we live on and a firmament above held up by huge pillars. The stars were then held in place by the firmament above. Likewise I feel the ex-gay movement is a nonsense and a cruelty inflicted on people who have no fault other than to be sensitive to such people who cannot question what they do. I have no faith in those who say they can change a persons sexuality and agree with George that it really is none of their business. They also do not recognise that gay relations is not unique to humans or of fallen people but is found throughout creation. See:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior I wonder what they would feel if we set up an ex-fundie movement. Whether this is politically correct or not we would (IMO) have more chance of succeeding in such an endeavour than those who insist they can change someones sexuality.

Welcome Eldred. I look forward to your posts.

I remember reading a science magazine which said that darkness is just the absense of light. Darkness itself as an entity does not exist. Light on the hand does.

To a blind man or women does the moon exist or is it still there despite not being able to sense it or describe it? If only light exists then that would be the norm. If only dark exists then that would be the norm. The description of light and darkness may be removed because there is no distinction to contrasted it with but does that remove the light? If we are of the light then by free will we act in the light because we have no other option and if there is only light then would another option be necessary? However, this is all hypothetical (IMO) as who can say what the next life is like or even if it exists. One can believe it does or believe it does not but like the moon to a blind man we can only be led by our own faith in what is or is not? What if the moon was just a story the sighted like to tell blind men or women?

"In this century we have been newly filled by the conscious knowledge of our own darkness - that we carry this darkness within us. We no longer need to project our darkness outward into demons or scapegoats - or, if we do, we know we are evoking disaster. It is by encounter with our own darkness that we recognise the light. It is the light itself which shows us the darkness - and both are summoned within us. Lorna M Marsden, 1983" from Quaker Faith and Practice. GB. I think that a choice is necessary but I feel one can only choose when one is aware that choices are available. As human beings I think we can presently and at best (IMO) seek the light from the darkness. We can only make "only light choices" when there is no more darkness with which to choose and we are part of that light. In this world we may not often see the light clearly and spiritual growth (IMO) in this world needs experience of the darkness in order to recognise the light because both light and darkness exist here. It is for us to then choose light and move towards it within ourselves so we can outwardly serve the light. We only (IMO) reach the light completely when we journey from this world into the light that I call God.