Pete

I remember being brought up in Evangelical Churches. My family attended both The Assemblies of God and the Elim Evangelical churches. I remember as a child looking at the bewildering reactions of those around me. It now seem to me there was a lot of peer pressure to speak in tongues and I always wondered why God would want someone to speak in a languge (if it ever was one) that no one present could understand and no one could prove the ministers interpretation was legit either. The emotional frenzy in such churches can be what puts many off attending or even come near them. It is also this emotional frenzy that acts like a constant assertion of a group whether or not one has felt something but they joiin in anyway. It is easy to feel something a crowd is exhibiting around one as can be seen in a football crowd or the audiance at a show. When someone claps everyone claps. I look at such services in the same sort of light. Never want to return. It maybe someones idea of a happening but it aint mine.

Mathmatical Proof that Barney is Satan Given: Barney is a CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR Prove: Barney is Satanic The Romans had no letter 'U' and used 'V' instead for printing, meaning the Roman representation for Barney would be: CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR Extracting the Roman numerals, we have: C V V L D I V Decimal Equivalents are: 100 5 5 50 500 1 5 Adding those numbers produces: 666 666 is the number of the beast. Therefore, Barney is Satan. From:- http://www.pinetree.net/humor/barneyissatan.html I know this looks like I am poking fun at the topic but what I am trying to say is it seems to me that people can make many people ( and cute friendly dinosuars) appear as if they are the antichrist.

My what a man. The kind of person the stars and moon make way for and his path was laid by the love of millions. Thank you. I will really miss you.

I agree

I have little problem with moderate Muslims and I agree they do denouce those who terrorise. Yet, I guess I find Islam difficult in the same way as I do many of those in fundamental Christianity. There is this book. It is asserted it is the very word of God and it is without flaws. Everyone should therefore follow it without question. Its this acceptance of that assertion on face value and not asking questions and not coming to my own conclusions bit I usually struggle with such faiths. That said on the issue of terrorism, as one female Islamic comedian said "why do people judge Muslims by al Qaeda when they do not like Christians being judged by the KKK". I think she has a point.

Sorry to hear the news in your post Murph. Cancer is a cruel condition. I am glad things went quickly as it reduced her suffering but I know a painful loss of someone you love is still a painful loss what ever happens. My thoughts are with you Murph and your family.

I liked Braveheart but it is a shame that history does not support the film. http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/historicalheros/historyvsbraveheart.html http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/independence/braveheart.html

What Movie of the last decade do you recommend? Me:- I guess I am a Lord of the RIngs fan and although the Hobbit does not strickly follow the book I feel it is good too.

I do not think God pretends as God is not the changeable variable here. (IMO) It take people and their changeable viewpoints for that and they project these on God. Like you say the mirror never changes but the person looking in the mirror does.

I guess (IMO) the people of Israel needed something strong to believe in. They have a history of being persecuted from many races. They needed hope, a feeling of being strong, security and something that would ensure their endurance under persecution and often slavery and vicious behavior of those who invaded them. In my opinion, the biblical God was a work in development which was added too over time until we have the mixed result of the God of the bible we have today. For me to understand it one needs to see a history of the people as well as what the book says or does not say. If you're seen as God's chosen people then you have to explain persecution. It is easier if one sees that they did something wrong and therefore the God of the people permitted persecution upon them as a punishment. Therefore there had to be explanations for this. The view of God of the bible gave hope, discipline and a unity of people under terrible conditions whether that be annihilation under Rome, Greece, or the Babylonians or being tortured under the inquisition. It also gave the same to the early church, but the church got so powerful that many times it was them that were later the persecutors. They were the ones burning people and slaughtering people for differing with them. I do not see everything of the bible as bad but when it comes to fanatics lording it over everyone then I struggle with it. Hence, I am not prepared to damn or make suffer anyone for the faith I believe in. For me the history of God is also the history of people.

I understand Jonathan. I best explain myself. This may upset some but I believe how we see God is part of being human. I am convinced that people perceive God according to their own aspiration in life. If you want order then you believe in a God who wants order. If you want meaning then you perceive God as spiritual and meaningful. If you want to be loving then God is loving. If you want vengeance then God is vengeful. If you want control then God is controlling. If you want security then God is authoritative and all powerful. If you long for a continual parent then God is a parent. If you're angry then you perceive God as angry. If you desire judgement then God is judgemental etc. We cannot perceive God and do not understand God but we judge God according to what we see as our example of a higher being and our personal aspirations. In one of Bishop Spong's books it talks about a horse that visualises God would see God as having the characteristics of a horse. Hence, I do not care whether one believes in a God as described by the bible or whatever but I think it is part of a person's human make up to aspire and therefore perceive a higher example to aimed for, even and if it does not exist then it is created. As Voltaire puts it "If God did not exist man would create God. Leading from this I believe there is a spirit in humanity for good or evil. Call that aspiration if one will but I am for the spirit of good and loving and believe in this. Hence, for me God is loving and good and I am just trying to be inspired towards that. Where God is unknown then mankind projects. I am therefore not in favour of doing away with religion or belief in God because I see it as part of who we are as human beings. Equally I am not in favour of another forcing their projection/aspirations/God or Gods on another with threats of hell and damnation because this (IMO) disrespects the humanity of others. Sorry if this offends some but I guess we learn to speak frankly on this forum and I have tried to do this. Please make of it what people will as that is what human beings do in my experience and I am all for being human but let me also I aspire too. I believe Fred Phelps has a right to believe as he did but when he moved on to the grief and fears of others then I believe he went too far by disrespecting the humanity of others. Now I believe in God but I do not think God or the unifying essence of all is anything like what I can perceive or describe fully, only in what I can experience. In that light I try to grow.

I think this hits on the issue Jonathan. The loving of only those who have blind obedience to one is not love. It is slavery, oppression, and tyranny. This is one of the reasons I find it hard to accept the biblical description of God as either just or loving.

Now let me see a God of my imagination or a God of the bible writers imagination? Being someone who does not trust everything in the bible I think you know my answer to that. For me the nationalism and terrible behaviour of the biblical God (IMO) is enough to put me off believing the bible gives a fair description of any God worth respecting.

I can find lots I agree with in that statement. The place I put myself is liberal Christian. I put it there without the baggage or the threats of hell or torment etc. I do so because I believe early Christianity was a very mixed group of beliefs and the modern conservative view was not the only one present. It just likes to portray itself as such (IMO). I do not care for talk about loving people of differing faiths and perceptions and view points suffering eternal pain just because they did not have a required belief of some interpretation of text from questionable sources (IMO)..

Yet, that is the issue. There are many views about God and what is known about God, and some threatening that everyone has to have their view or else bad things will happen to them and I have never found anyone who could describe God to the satisfaction of everyone. That and if God exists then what is God is beyond either me or you to say as mere mortal human beings. I believe God exists and for me God can be experienced and human beings have sort God and enlightenment in that same experience whether they call it God or not. Some (IMO) meditate to experience the unity of all and some pray to commune with all. Hence, I do not care what a person's faith is but what is in their heart matters (IMO) because that is where I believe God is to be found and not in some arbitrary and many cases cold hearted text. I therefore do not feel I have to justify some of the evils of the bible or other texts and declare they are not there despite it being written. It is simple for me. If God is love then God is worth following but if God is going to condemn people despite their love on the basis of what is said in some questionable text then I do not call that love and do not think that idea of God is worth following.

Or it could be as I see much of it. Someone writes God said this or that so that it is beyond others to debate but I often doubt God had any part in it.

That maybe true in some circumstances but I still would not hold back in criticizing some. For example Hitler, Stalin, Pol pot etc.. Not that anyone here is in that group or even Fred Phelps..

There is a difference Dan. Getting no presents from Santa is not the same as telling them the will burn hell forever. There are many street preachers who many preach the message of you must be saved or you will burn in hell. Such messages have an affect on the vulnerable. I was brought up with the message that one cannot question this because one risks going to hell and not get salvation from it. I was well into adulthood before the questions got greater than the fear and even now I feel the guilt and fear. How loving is that to leave that childhood burden upon me and others.

I agree with that perspective too Jonathan. I also think Hell was invented by the church and given their history they seem to know a lot about creating it on earth too (IMO).

I understand that but in the cold light of objective sight I still wonder if it is abuse to bring up a child with such fear. How different is it to say the bogeyman will get if you do not behave. That would be psychological abuse. How is this different?

It keeps ringing in my mind. I read one blog that felt that teaching children about hell is child abuse. The more I think about it the more I feel that way too.

Like Spong put it:-

I agree Jonathan. It is the reason I find it hard to say to people at times that I am inspired by some of the teachings of Jesus in case I am being thought of in the same light as some of what I call extremists. I was informed just today by a group of people handing out leaflets in the street that they are trying to help me be saved from the eternal fire of hell but no one mentions the fact that it is only Christianity and Islam that believe in a hell and as I understand it the Christian church invented hell. How loving is that? I try and avoid some in the street. It is not that I think they have won any arguement but more I just do not want to be in talks with them because I know how angry they become when I challenge what they say and in my opinion how pointless it becomes when it becomes that the other person believes they have the only voice worth listening too. I am often happier in the company of atheists even if I am not one.

I remember watching a documentary on Westboro. It showed that the bible meant not so much as the word of Fred Phelps and how he saw things. He said it and therefore it must be true mentality. Hence, the reason they have not changed or listened when so many Christians (both liberal and Conservative) and others have tried using the bible or persuasion to get them to change their mind on many of the things they say and do. Trouble is (IMO) the bible can be read with loving eyes or eyes of hurt, hell and damnation. I personally believe much reflects on the person reading the bible and what they choose to put emphasis on and what they choose to ignore. i.e. Love, mercy, and forgiveness and not judging people or damn these and damn those to eternal suffering. People will choose but I cannot see how a person can say they love and then say with relish that people are going to burn in hell. That people can say that God is love and then say he will make people suffer for eternity with no reprieve. That people can talk of love and then turn up at someone's funeral when their relatives and friends are in absolute pain and sorrow and grieving then shout they have gone to hell and will suffer for ever. The contrast for me is difficult for me to see as one of the same. For me the bible can be read in so many ways. Russell Brand:-