JosephM

Stanley, To me "belief" doesn't even need to enter the picture. as necessary though it has potential to make ones view of life appear different . God is...... therefore "I am" and requires no "belief". God being a limitless and ever-present reality existing in all of creation neither being defined by nor being separate from such in all its limitless potentialities. In my view, Life itself as One, is its own proof of God of which rejection or acceptance does not alter nor is it a requirement to that reality. Joseph

Derek, Thanks for the clipping and your personal story of the e-reader and you. Good to read your posts again. Joseph

Welcome, Sometimes differences within family theologies provides opportunity for great spiritual growth. Living in peace with those of identical beliefs is easy but challenges, in my experience, does seem in time to have its perfect work in us. Joseph

Welcome Lisa, Feel free to start any threads of interest to you after familiarizing yourself with the site. Enjoy your journey. joseph

Randall, You can create a free website easily for storage of your essays or writings HERE. You will have to sign up for a free gmail email account first but it is really not that difficult.. Then all you have to do is give the link out to those you wish to access for download or to print or view your files.. Its really quite easy if all you want is storage for your writings. Joseph

Hi Lonnie, Sorry for the inconvenience. I tried the registration process a couple minutes ago using Google Chrome as my browser and was unable to duplicate your problem. When i inaccurately entered Captcha, it reported the error and changed the challenge question and the question was visible. No one else has reported any such problem and we have not upgraded/updated software for some time. Perhaps it was just a fluke or temporary system hangup? Thanks for reporting and i will investigate further if the error is duplicated again. Joseph

Thanks for that heartfelt sharing to the question wayseer.

Randall, FILES that large should not be uploaded. Perhaps you can use free storage from Google or even Hotmail Skydrive to store your files. We are interested only in the link address as we do not provide space for large essays or writings on this site Joseph

Welcome Randall, You are not among strangers to your experience. Glad you found us and a link to your writing if you have it on the web, would be fine under the "General Resources and Links" forum section of this site. Joseph

Myron, Sorry to have you waiting so long. I have tried to give enough time for all the moderators a chance to chime in in our moderator forum. I think in the future if we see more of an interest than we presently see to discuss the issues raised on our home organization page then it might be good for us to dedicate such an area as you have suggested. At the present time, it seems to us our main organization wants comments directed to the authors of those articles/issues on that site. However, if we here wish to discuss them here, we are most welcome and are free to do so under the appropriate rules and guidelines of our existing forum headings until such time that a higher level of interest in those articles / issues for the type of discussions we have on this board might justify a separate forum area of its own. Thanks for the suggestion which we are definity open to implementing in the future if we see enough interest is generated through use of our existing PC and Debate and Dialog sections here to discuss them. Joseph

Welcome Donald, So pleased you found us and hoping your time here is mutually beneficial. Joseph

Tentex, Good question. I don't know what Spong meant if he said that, but you have to remember that Spong beliefs doesn't speak for Progressive Christianity anymore than anyone else. Also there is no need to believe anything just because another said it. I certainly for one don't believe that life is accidental. Other than general agreement of the 8 points, Progressive Christianity is, in my view, an individual journey. Joseph

Jay, Do a search at www.progressivechristianity.org for a progressive church in your area or tell us where your area is. Click on the link i inserted or search trhough the global network from the home page. Joseph

Welcome Marko, You make a lot of sense to me. Joseph

Norm, No problem. Being puzzled at my argument is okay. Your position is fine with me. I don't have anything more new to say publicly.

We now have 9 Site sponsors with 2 remaining anonymous We have 3 more openings and payment can now be made by Paypal by contacting me with your email address by PM.

Norm, Not really. You assumed wrong. i slipped up in the first sentence using the word preference instead of orientation and got it right in the second one ,...unless of course you think you know what i really meant more than myself.

Paul, I don't see the word marriage as a narrow or greatly changed definition. It was never in the course of US history and perhaps before never meant to define same sex relationships. While it may have meant many things in the past such as one man and more than one woman i have never heard it defined other than a relationship of those of the opposite sex. Paul, Tell me, why do you feel a need to change the definition rather than make up a new word to describe such a relationship as same sex union? Why antagonize the meaning which suits heterosexual couples presently quite well? if your concern is equal rights and privileges and benefits as you say then address those rights and work for social equality for the gays and Lesbian community. Why instead try to make it the same as another word which for centuries has been intended to convey a particular accepted meaning and now you seem to be trying to force a new meaning on a culture that many people (especially many religious individuals) find an unacceptable option to them. Words are important to people and the unions you identify are different , not the same by nature, and the meaning of the word marriage need not be changed just to make one side happy at the expense of the other who do not agree? As i said if its the discrimination on the part of the government that bothers you, then address that issue, not the established defined word called marriage. Gays are not forbidden a public union here but only certain benefits afforded to the legal definition of marriage by the government. If that is unacceptable work to change the benefits for homosexual unions rather than change the established heterosexual definition of the word and upset others. Using the word marriage doesn't make a homosexual whole no more than the word Christian makes one a follower of Christ. I don't know that there is any law in the US that forbids homosexuals from a ceremony and announcing their commitment to each other and the world. Why does it have to be an established word identical to the word used by heterosexuals when it signifies a different type of union? It is no different here. homosexuals can make up any papers they like and have ceremonies but the federal government does not recognize it as marriage. They can even adopt children here also. Yes, and i am with you there. More understanding and compassion is needed on both sides. As far as i am concerned homosexuals are my brothers and sisters and what their sexual preference is is no business of mine. i just have well could have been born a homosexual. The ones i associate with are more loving , thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate than many of my heterosexual friends but i still do not feel it is appropriate to infringe on a definition that was and is still meant meant to convey a different meaning. And furthermore that changing is unacceptable to many heterosexuals and presently to our society as it exists at this time. What does the reason matter since you won't find it rational? Is it not enough for you that it is rejected by those who have in the past established it with a particular meaning and they are entitled to want to keep it as such? Homosexuals are not forbidden joining together as partners, they are only forbidden within the traditional definition of marriage by the government by being forbidden a recognized marriage license similar to Australia. Our society in the US presently reflects that position which is evident by the discrimination in the laws. Society discriminates against almost everyone. The present laws are no accident. they were purposefully implemented to accomplish an ideal or value. IE.... graduated income tax is discrimination giving tax credits for having chrildren is discrimination forcing people to support wars they don't believe in is discrimination forcing only those of a certain age to fight our wars is discrimination Taxing inheritance of only those with estates over 5 million (2012) at 35% and in 2013 of those over 1 million at 55% is discrimination taxing singles at a higher rate than married is discrimination requiring racial quotas is discrimination profiling is discrimination aiding nations most who are deemed to be advantages to us is discriminationation requiring people who have no children to contribute school taxes to support those who have many is discrimination increased costs for medicare benefits for those over a certain income level even after retitrement and paying in more than others is discrimination not allowing convicted felons to vote is discrimination allowing discretion to a judges sentencing for the same exact crime based on his interpretation is discrimination One could go on and on and i am not saying that these are right or wrong, fair or not, i am just saying it s the function of government and society and the reality of it is that not everyone will be treated as equal as they would suppose because the good of the whole as seen by government/society often conflicts with the wishes of the individual or a class of individuals. I believe if we address the real issues instead of definitions we may get further and we may or may not be able to change things until society as a whole changes but hopefully we can continue working to do so with compassion and respect for those who differ so we can accomplish our goals at peace instead of alienating those who disagree with name calling, character attacking and assuming they are irrational because they see marriage as defined differently.than those wishing to change it. Alienation mostly serves only to prolong the evolutionary process. Joseph PS Sorry for the long post. I have repeated myself many times in hopes that i have made myself clear enough. I am done so if you don't address anymore questions , i will retire from this thread Neon, I did not overlook your questions to me in post #80.The nature and wording of the question is not based on any of my premises and i find myself unwilling to even respond to such.

I have not read the book George but i have no problem agreeing with what you describe as his concept of "ralionalist delusion". Or the notion that our moral values are derived from reason. It seems to me we often fool ourselves concerning moral values into thinking that it was a product of or a result of our careful and rational thought process. In my experience the process is highly subjective and usually follows the intuition and is used to make the reasoning or rational thought the source rather than the product it actually is. About his point concerning " people make awful decisions when deprived of emotional input " i fail to understand unless it is only referring to the damage to the brain scenario Perhaps i need to read the chapter or am misunderstanding as my experience is of clearer thought when calm from emotional input. Joseph

Paul, Then that is fine. Talk about the real issues, I agree with you they are the real issues. And they aren't solved by changing a definition so lets not confuse the matter, I think you will find much less resistance from people if we stick to those concerns and leave the definition of marriage alone. And Yes, i do think government is concerned about continuing the species and its view of families, values, rearing children and education to maintain itself within the bounds it determines appropriate. Its rules and regulations and policies attest to this. Joseph PS And those rules and policies are to an extent always discriminatory in nature in some way. In my view, equality in society is only a concern when it is convenient. Such is the nature of society. I can give you a host of examples if you like.

Society set in place the courts.... to look out for its best interests. Its not a case of right and wrong. It is a case of society evolving as it it was setup to do with the assistance of the courts.

George, Procreation doesn't physically need marriage but society needs marriage as a way to influence procreation and the rearing and educating of offspring. Yes, i am not in favor of not allowing the institution of marriage as defined to include same sex couples. That appears inconsistent to you but to me not out of line with intentions. Whose intentions? Societies of course. The benefits of marriage you mentions are outside the definition. They were put there by society because they felt it was in their best interests to promote their ideal. That ideal may change and the benefits modified but the definition and benefits are not one and the same. Joseph

George, Society does indeed allow them to marry. I would not change the definition because someone might be sterile. That would be to me an unwise decision on societies part. The intentions of marriage were to preserve the male/female unit with the hopes of reproduction and child rearing for society. Because a person is sterile does not alter intentions of society. Joseph concerning BTW... Yes they indeed can and it is not forbidden.

Paul, What we are talking about here is not about recognizing the humanity of homosexuals nor of the ignorance of some people of homosexuals nor the treatment they have received from parts of the population. Nor are we talking about forbidding anyone of their free expression of a loving relationship with a member of the same sex. We are talking about a definition of marriage that in spite of what is said in any vows was intended by society here to form family units that procreate the species for the survival of the species and to fit in line with what society sees as its ideal family. While it is true that we can still procreate out of the circle of marriage, its intentions within this society was for order and family values that were in line with the dictates of society and its ideals in general. (which do and may change) Therefore it was designed to define the relationship between a man and a woman whereby the hope of offspring would be a natural progression and in societies view best for the raising of its future generations. In effect, you say homosexuals are being discriminated against by society not recognizing their relationships as the norm of marriage. Well i would not deny that their relationship is committed and loving and i would even agree from my experience that it can be as committed and loving or even moreso than a heterosexual couple but it cannot be the same as the intentions of marriage as defined which includes the consummation of that marriage in sexual intercourse in the possibility of offspring. In my view, any discrimination on that point, is from nature and not society created. While it is true society has in ignorance treated homosexuals poorly in the past here in the US. i think that treatment is changing for the better howbeit more slowly than the some would like it. I would not compare slavery with the refusal of society to change its definition of marriage to two of the same sex or some other definition to please individuals. To me that is quite a stretch. The issues raised imo, do not require changing the definition of marriage into something different. The issues, as i see it, are not with the word marriage but with treatment and rights outside of that definition and should in my view be addressed as such. It seems to me inevitably in a democracy / republic certain views will prevail. My view on the definition of marriage harms homosexuals no more than an opposing view would harm mine. Each country can decide for themselves and rectify injustices as they are realized as such. I do not see the present definition of marriage as a problem in itself. Society as a whole has the ultimate responsibility to regulate itself and all are welcome to provide their input.. I have provided mine and it may be in disagreement with many and lack any persuasive argument which is not my intention anyway (i am only sharing a view). I have answered your curiosity as honestly as i could and live in peace with those views. Is this view subject to change? Yes but perhaps not from rhetoric reasoning or argument that has a show of reason or logic or subjective rational whereby men are convinced by it and that the other that is not convinced is merely irrational, homophobic or bigoted for disagreement. But rather a change that would come from within that speaks from ones knowledge and experience and fulfillment of the part one plays in this drama we call human life. Does reason and logic create reality or is it the other way around? Cheers, Joseph .