Pete

I think it is difficult to say. Firstly, I see as Dan has pointed out a big difference between someone being on the religious right and someone being in an Evangelical church. As I pointed out in my opening post I am not against people holding a religious view but its use to (IMO) beguile a mass of people in government which should be there to represent all people (believer and non believer alike) I find myself unable to support. Maybe that is just my UK perception. However, I understand your perception and why you have come to that conclusion from a US perception. Yet, from my personal experience in the UK and Europe there are many that profess a Christian belief but most do no not attend or affiliate themselves to a church. As the Tearfund in 2007 discovered around 58% of UK citizens profess a Christian faith and only 15% say they belong or attend a church. I am sure many do not attend because they do not feel happy with the church or have become disillusioned. Hence, the phrase "Believers in Exile" is often used to describe the situation. Around 50 yrs ago the attendance at church would have been around 50%. So it can be said that there is a fall in people attending a church. Now I am not saying that these people are all liberals but I would have as a guess most have never heard of a liberal but share similar views. It is also true that in the UK there are many churches being closed. Some are becoming homes and some are becoming religious buildings of other faiths and some are just being flattened for new building. That said we have in the UK more churches declaring themselves as liberal than we would have had even 10 yrs ago and I believe that is to meet this situation of people being disaffiliated from previous churches they attended. May I say again that my original post was directed at the religious right wing and not Evangelical churches. Even if it is common knowledge that I do not agree with most Evangelical churches much. Yet, that is on a religious ground and not on a political basis as was my original post. I fear the religious right wing and its influence. Evangelical churches I can just disagree with or not. http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php

I have just read a comment in the UK's Daily Telegraph :_ http://blogs.telegra...-right-is-dead/ I have to admit being a liberal Christian the religious right wing has scared me in more ways than one and there is no doubt that what goes on in the US has an influence in the UK. I admit I would be pleased to see the religious right wing go. That is not because I am against religion but because so many aspects of the religious right wing are anti so many things that I personally support. Such as:- Evolution being taught in schools. A health service for everyone. Gay Marriage. Respect for other faiths and none faiths. Recognition that atheists can also be moral citizens and just because your religious does not make you also moral. The right to question the bible, the church or the government without others complaining that your some how against God for doing so. etc etc What I want to know is do members believe it is true that the religious right wing is dying?

I totally agree. I think we can see that in the hurricane. I cannot get over the thought of the suffering that has caused. I also think of New Orleans and the great Tsunamis, and those who starve and have war inflicted upon them so much in many countries.

what? you mean like he cleared the temple or do you mean forgive everyone. Two very different actions said of the same person. Ghandi, now I would say was a pacifist.

I think there is pacifism and pacifism. Some will not defend anything, even there own lives or those near to them. Others will defend somethings. I heard form one pacifist who lives near me who wanted to protest at a soldiers. She hated the idea that the escort carried guns and she hated the ceremony because she felt that the soldier had volunteered for the services and therefore it was his own fault he got killed. There was no appreciation for the grieving relatives and friends. For me, this just pointed out that not all violence is about physical contact.

I do not believe in violence but sometimes violence comes anyway. Violence is not a respecter (IMO) of whether someone is a pacifist or not. I think many people have something that they feel a need to protect. I may not believe in violence but if violence was the only thing that would stop someone killing another or attacking people then I guess that is the way. I have never heard of a terrorist or thug yet who just stopped because someone said they were a pacifist and lets just talk about it over a coffee. I could not watch and be just appauled if my mother or family member was being phyically attacked. I may stop once the need for violence and the presenting attack was over and not like it for a minute the fact that this occured but I would not allow an attacker to rule by force or injure those I love. It is a conflict of emotions for me but this world is far from perfect and sometimes (IMO) doing what we hate is called upon.

Please feel welcome and that goes for anyone.

I am not a Pagan either but I did make an attempt at a universal prayer on the ULC in the UK site. May that which strengthen you, sustain you. May that which lights your way, ever guide you. May that which brings happiness, be always with you, and may love and peace be never be a stranger to you. Pete.

One of the difficulties I have with this is not disbelieving what he says but on understanding some of the medical aspects of death. Firstly in many countries death is measured by the heart stopping and not one when there is no more brain activity. Now if the heart stops then the brain becomes starved of oxygen and after a few minutes it will irreversibly start to die. If the person is then revived then they are likely to have brain damage. Shortly before the brain starts shutting down the body produces a large amount of endorphines (morphine like substances) and the person then gets a feeling of euphoria (feeling of joy and well being). It is possible to have hallucinations during this period. Now the issue I have is that people who experience such things usually do so within the context of the beliefs in which are prevelent within the society they come from. Hence Christian societies have Christian experiences. Bhuddists have Bhuddist experiences, Muslims have Muslim experineces, Other faiths have other faith experinces. Now I am not saying that all near death experiences are false or even that these people are lying or misguided but I am saying there are medical understandings as to why they may occur. If pressed for an opinion on this I would go with each to their own point of view. Although it may sound like I have made up my mind I actually remain open minded on the topic.

You may get your wish as I do not think he can prove he did not give his money voluntarily and I do not think he can prove he would of been a great footballer. That said he may win on the case of psychological damage. Thinking about it, If those who said that my getting poliomylites at the age two was the fault of my parents because they did not have enough faith were alive today I would seriously think of taking out an action of my own. I am sure there was a lot of psychological damage caused to me as a child. Thank God we can grow out of such things.

It maybe a law but it is not always easy to use. The law in the UK seems (IMO) to work for the poor who get legal aid and the very rich who can afford lawyers. People in the middle who are working but do not get paid enough for legal fees often do not get represented well (IMO). However, in the area of claiming damages there are a some lawyers who will take your case on in a "no win then no fee" basis. One then has to make sure that what you win will pay the lawyer. This guy if he does not win could end up with the court fees. So one has to think very carefully about using the law. That said, I suspect if he does win then the flood gates will be open.

That is why I go for the trade description or inaccurate advertising of the bible.

I doubt he can prove it ruined his football career but I think he may win on having psychological damage. I think I could win on that one. I have often wondered if someone could sue a church, demanding that the bible is without error, under the trade discription laws or false advertising in the UK. However I notice most who actually sell the bible do not claim it is inerrant. If I hear about the result of his case I will let you know.

A man is reported to want to sue the Baptist church for doing him psychological harm, ruining his football career, and taking his money by compulsary donations. See:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/mar/05/footballer-sues-church-manchester-united

When I was in my teens I remember some evangelists (Moonies I think) coming around knocking on doors. They knock at my Father's door. As an attempt to put their foot in the door so to speak they said they were doing a survey and required to know if my Father was happy. He said "Oh Yes, Deliriously so" and slammed the door. I remember seeing their startled looks from my bedroom window. Obviously not the response they wanted.

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 have heard from others here of the importance of knowing oneself and the quote I believe echos that in an interesting way.

Another book I have just read by John Shelby Spong is "Eternal Life - a new vision". Spong goes into more depth than previous books about what he believes and also how he sees the next life. He makes a big distinction between his view and that of fundamental christianity which he insists does not have a long history and started around two hundred years ago. I can see his vision although I do not agree with all he says (which as a liberal that is fine). However, I did find his book a good read. I enjoyed his views on the giving of himself to the service and love of others as being rewarding to himself and drawing himself closer to God. This theme he based on Frances of Assisi's peace prayer which I have placed on the open Pulpit. His belief in God is real (IMO) but he does not believe the bible describes God well or in any way that he can accept. I recommend this book as a challenging read. Spong says that he believes this will be his last book but I suspect we will hear more from him.

I would argue that just as the Christian texts developed over time to portray the Paulian and that of Philo viewpoint so did the OT develop from original spiritual text to the assertion of all things being as is. Just as (IMO) we would have had another form of Christianity had Paul not waded in I am sure we would have had another form of Judaism had the Babaylonains not invaded Israel and then later the greeks and the romans. It is of interest to me that the form of Judaism expressed in the North was different from that in Judea in Israel's history. For me Jesus was most definitely a Jew but I also go with God can be found in many faiths and that religion is just the path one takes until spirituality awakes and one experiences God for themselves.

I have never seen the bible as anything more than a collection of writings that were chosen by Judaism and the church from many documents and endorsed by the church in 398AD as scripture. They favoured Paul (IMO) because they were one of the few writings that that supported their viewpoint. However, I do not see that viewpoint in any of the teachings of Jesus. I also see Paul as the maverick and independent of the disciples in Jerusalem. I believe Pauls position is explained well in the first two chapters of Galatians:- Galatians 1 11-21. 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (someone we have no evidence except for a contradictory story that he ever met Jesus). 13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. (this again asserts that his take on things did not come from the disciples who were remaining in their jewish practices) 21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. (unknown by the churches of Judea he says). From my point of view grace has always been and God has always been approachable. Jesus (from what doubtful sourses as the gospels) in my point of view brought the message that the kingdom of God can live within one and is to come. Blessed are the peace makers for they will become the sons of God is a far cry from being washed in my blood so that one can appraoch and be acceptable to God. Even in the OT (some 800yrs before) we have Isaiah saying ""I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins. Put Me in remembrance; let us contend together; state your case, that you may be acquitted." Isaiah 43:25-26 It seems all God want was straight dealing and not a sacrifice :- see Micah 6 6-8:- 6 With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Isaiah 1:11:- "The multitude of your sacrifices--what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. Hosea 6:8 :- For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Do not judge or you will be judged mentioned in Matthew and Luke also supports this idea that God wants mercy and not sacrifices. A far cry (IMO) from the message that God wanted Jesus killed because he could not have mercy in any other manner. I am sorry but the more I go into it the more I believe Paul was on his own..

Another meaning I expect that could be interpreted is that one could have many fickle friends who may leave one but God stays close.

That is how I would see it too Fawzo. Just one point I would add is according to my NIV it does not state it as it appears in Cools copy. The NIV I have says " 24 One who has unreliable friends soon comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother".

I think your point has been excellently discussed by Dan. The other thing to note is that many Jews like Rabbio are lovely people to both Jews and Gentiles. That for me answers all I need to know about the topic. Beyond that I think Kingfisher has made the point and I believe it is worth a second look. Kingfisher's comment "Pilpalta b'chochmah? Havanta davar mitoch davar?" Were one's questions made in heaven and seeking deeper wisdom?