minsocal

I have a cat, now 18 years old. Several months ago, he seemed to have given up on life. I considered putting him down, he was that "bad off". Then, I thought, just make him comfortable. Ease his way. So I cleaned his head twice a day, combed him out ... and then I realized he was "down" because he could not do this for himself. It did not matter if I did it for him, he just needed to be clean.

Well, he is still here. Cranky, as always. As healthy as an 18 year old cat could be.

Likewise Dutch,

Myron

As for myself, I frequently revisit the of story of The Garden of Eden. Here is a story of a dawning, of becoming. Well, at least as I read it, anyway. It is a human story, very human. Somewhere along the way evolution spawned consciousness. The element of consciousness most important here is that of awareness. I am aware of myself, others, and the consequences of human actions. With that comes ... responsibility? I cannot change the laws of nature, but then, conscious awareness is now a "law of nature". Hmmmm ...

Unless I am mistaken, or my computer is malfunctioning, your comment is the only one on the 8 Points for the entire year of 2013. You might just have a point here.

As I scan through the 8 Points in brief review, I find community, purpose, sacrifice and work to be a major theme. This my understanding, at least and it has been the view of PC I have lived with most of my life. It is a constant return to Micah:

"... do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God".

Myron

To say that "t do not know" is one of the most honest and intimate responses a human could make.

Human consciousness is what it is for very good reasons. The constructs of time, place and causation are built into the structure and function of the evolved mammalian brain. We could not function without them. At the same time, they are constraints or boundaries few humans, if any, can transcend. In a sense, this is what Micah meant when he said, "... do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God".

I think that Jesus had a message to deliver. That message is not all that complex, is it? Are we hiding the message behind endless debate?

As C. G. Jung put it, there is no proper or prescribed objective notion of how anyone can or could access the transcendental. He followed Kant on this point, as well as Spinoza. You must find it within ... and what you find is OK.

Love is the most painful and joyful emotion. It can be an umbrella for all other emotions. When in love you can feel happy, sad, joy, anger, jealousy, even hate. It is paradoxical an all encompassing, yet it still exists, it is indescribable but simple to understand when you feel it. That seems like the God most people describe, the two seem to click don't you think?

 

When I get overly philosophical, I realise that I am trying to reduce Gods plan to an equation of sorts, until a little voice reminds me: you can't figure out God anymore than you can figure out love, but you can experience them all the same.

 

God bless

R

There you have it ... to get "overly philosophical". The problem that some earlier Progressive Christians railed against.

Myron,

 

Do you have a view then whether God is love or is not love?

 

Cheers

Paul

Yes, I do. It was made clear some time ago. I'll go through it again, if you like.

It is entirely possible to reverse the question and ask "Why is God Not Love? If the first question is valid, as well as the second, then we know, to some degree, that we are human and not God. Not a bad fact to consider? It is not a new concept, BTW, as it has been around for a very long time.

Computer games are just that, "games", and not much more than that. They replicate some human motivations, but not all human motivations and they do not represent all of the choices we are able to make, not? So, all that is left is to develop games that tap positive emotions and positive motivations ... but that will not sell well, will it?

 

My thoughts:

 

Hell!!!... huh yeah

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh

Hell!!!! ...huh yeah

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing, say it again...

Hell!!!..., huh good God, y'all...

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing,... listen to me

My apologies to Edwin Starr.

Seriously: Hell is in the mind of the beholder. Our views on this subject say more about what is within our own hearts than the entire breadth of the Talmud or even Strong's Annotated Concordance on the subject.

We have seen the enemy...

NORM

Norm,

I have not been around this forum much of late, but i have to agree. We do seem to manufacture our own hell. But this is not necessary is it?

Myron

I'm sorry for you that you feel that way Steve. At no point did I ever pretend, allude to, or state that I have expertise on this matter. In fact, I am asking questions, not providing answers.

I'm sorry for you that you feel that way Steve. At no point did I ever pretend, allude to, or state that I have expertise on this matter. In fact, I am asking questions, not providing answers.

How many times DO I need to tell you, I'm NOT Steve?

Agreed - hence why I am trying to undersatnd it.

 

 

 

I understand this. Of course allowing paedophils to ACT on their sexual orientation (if that is what it is) is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I was trying to discuss the 'naturalness' (or not) of such a sexual orientation.

 

 

 

What line are you drawing Steve - the line that paedophillic sexual orinetations are not natural, or the line that has been drawn and identified and agreed to so many times here - that paedophillic actions are not acceptable or permissible exactly beacsue they harm the other party?

Your second quote refers to 'Steve' and I'm not 'Steve'. Why do you think I want to leave this site?

After due consideration, I am joining George in exiting this site for the last time.

So long, all. Maybe another day.

Myron

Steve,

 

I think it is only 'natural' to be offended

 

I did try to be sensitive about my questions and I certainly do not associate paedophillia with homosexuality, other than my question as to whether paedophillia is a natural sexual orientation just as heterosexuality is.

 

As I mentioned, this was sparked by my conservative Christian friend diverging from the "homosexuality is un-natural" argument to now saying it IS natural, but that that's the problem (according to him).

 

If the naturalness of being a paedophile holds, and we expect them to control their natural sexual orientation, my friend is using that argument to say homosexuals should also control their natural sexual orientation because it is against God's.....whatever.

 

Along with you, my counter argument is that homosexuality is about love and relationship, and not power and abuse (except for certain individuals but they exist as heteros too). But as a way of dissuading him from the view he holds, I was/am looking for a counter argument to his view that even though gay is natural, it should be stood against/refrained from.

 

But as you see I started another thread to avoid associating the two subjects.

My apologies, I did not notice that you were a 'global moderator' and have expertise on the subject beyond mine.

George gave it a good run for the money. I see his point.

In the United States, children became a "protected class" because they are NOT fully developed. That change came about, in part, BECAUSE of Progressive-Liberal elements is our society, and those elements have a strong link to Progressive Christianity.

"...I am looking to discuss how people view the argument for gay acceptance because homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and not a choice, in light that paedophile sexual orientation is possibly natural and not a choice."

 

I have a problem with the word "natural". It's too arbitrary. If people would be more effective with 5 fingers on a hand instead of 4, then does it follow that having 4 fingers is an unnatural handicap. From this perspective, everything is natural. The desire to love, the desire to murder, the desire to have sex with a member of the opposite sex or with a member of the same sex. For this reason, I think it's pointless to argue about whether something is natural or not. Instead, we can only argue about whether something hurts another person, as in the case of an adult having sex with a child, or whether it is a good thing, as is the case with two people of the same sex who love each other and who find satisfaction with each other.

 

My concept of God and goodness is truth, justice, mercy, kindness, love, honesty, and all the other "good" words I can think of. I don't really want to argue about what's in the Bible or how God made us. I only want to argue about what adheres to these good words and what doesn't. God made some people like children, some like members of the opposite sex, some like members of the same sex, some with horrible deformities and diseases, some with almost supernatural intelligence, some with a hateful heart, some with a loving heart. I don't think we can determine what is right and what is wrong, or what is good and what is bad, by looking at the way God made us in order to determine whether he really made us that way or not. Because yes... however we are, good or bad, he really did make us that way.

What does harm, and what does not? One VERY difficult concept, not? How does Progressive Christianity directly face this issue?

 

True, but the point I meant to make was that the article (and a number of others sources I have read thus far) idicates that peadophiles have a sexual orientation toward children - it says nothing about a sexual orientation toward dominating ("A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger, Blanchard says").

The term "sexual orientation" has more than one interpretation. It could be behavioral or emotional or both. As used in American academic circles it refers to the emotional or affective component, the behavioral component is another issue. The problem here is more complex than a definition.

A concept to consider is the emotional development of children and the element of "doing harm". Where I live (California) all psychotherapists are mandated reporters. They must report pedophiles who act on their impulses. They are also governed by a set of ethics which requires them to "refer out" a client if their own internal ethics conflict. This is quite often the case, BTW.

Another concept has to do with mutuality and consenting. That is where a line becomes drawn that, in my experience, most Progressive Christians I know are willing to accept.

From what I read, paedophillia isn't about the urge to dominate but about a sexual orientation toward children. This article here makes the point that there are child molesters, and there are paedophiles.

 

http://www.webmd.com...ning-pedophilia

No, your article says ... "

Could someone here tell me exactly what it means to be 'non-religious'?

I would add that my own perspective is one of a post-post modern, that is, as Jung put it "contemporary".