Slightly off-topic, but perhaps not as much as some posts, the Swedish Lutheran Church is pushing to remove any reference to their god or to Jesus as 'he', that the entire Trinity is to have no gender.

As an atheist, I'm not sure where that leaves the Holy Spirit, which I've always interpreted as referring tactfully to the Divine Penis, stretching from Heaven down into the hitherto Virgin Mary. Medieval artists drew the Act as if a tube ran from somewhere Up There down under Mary's skirts: so what else is an atheist supposed to think ?

But what is his/her/its role now supposed to be ? Will the Trinity become a Duality ? 'The Parent, the Child and .... er .... '

Of course, feminists could assert that their god is actually female. But that complicates things further: how does a female god fertilise a human woman ?

Maybe we should just stick to parthenogenesis, and not ask questions. Darn, that's what everybody had to do in the Middle Ages.

Joe

Hi Loudmouth. I heard about that push last week. In my opinion it is crazy and should be ostrized. Not because of people wanting to be recoginized without a gender, or out of disrespect for women, but because throughout the bible God refers to Himself as a "he." As a Christian, if that is not enough to be respected by fellow Christians, then looking only at the New Testiment is enough for me because Jesus was born a male, as well as referred to God as "Father." The Swedish push for removing gender would have to include some very heavy counter interptations of scripture while trying to ignore or rewrite the parts that plainly say otherwise.

The Swedish church in my opinion therefore is not something I'll give merrit to until they hold God's words, and Jesus's words as the standard over all of our philosophies. Sorry for the confusion, I don't know how this looks to an atheist. To me though it looks like people compromising their faith and trust in God, under social pressure for what we count as right or wrong.

Not_now.soon, as someone who was born and raised a christian, even though I may not be so inclined these days, find this attempt to change the most fundamental basis of the teachings of the bible as a historic fact, and not to be prostituted by a group of politically correct slack jaw yokels.

I have argued against PC from the moment I first heard of it.

It is the men's fault we have to have these ridiculous conversations.

We allowed women to gain a foothold in independence, but not giving thought to the fact they are not equipped to handle or justify this new found power.

The failed argument of equality again continues to prove me correct as inadequacies such as being suggested by what the Swedish Lutheran Church is considering.

These stupid politically correct scum should be removed from society, and I don't care to what extent. We are continually being forced to consider more and more absolutely ridiculous suggestions, all in the name of PC.

Once upon a time this was considered treason. (insighting violence against a ruler). It was punishable by death.

I find what the Swedes are suggesting is treason of the highest order, and it's a shame the death penalty is no more.

You would not hear such moronic comments being uttered anywhere, if it were. Bring back the death penalty I say! As if.

.

Dear AL TRAV,

.

You wrote :

« To explain; from birth my lifestyle has been contrary to the Aussie one. For example, having spent most of my life focused on my hobby/work/career 'locked up' in a workshop designing/building all things automotive and engineering, I found I had NOTHING in common with these people ... »
.

That’s an interesting story. My impression, for what it is worth, is that, you have either suffered some sort of traumatism or there was something lacking in what should have been your socialising process as a child. Children usually undergo the socialising process from an early age through play and leisure activities they share in together.

The only way to find out is to consult a psychotherapist, psychiatrist, or psychoanalyst. There are plenty of them around but the difficulty is to find one that is not only competent and intelligent but with whom you feel comfortable. You have to find somebody who matches your personality. First, you have to decide if you feel more comfortable sharing the intimacy of your inner self with a man or a woman. It has to be the right “fit”, otherwise you will never get to the bottom of the problem and it’s a waste of time and money.

I have been through this many times with my children and grandchildren. Sometimes it works with the first psy on the list. Sometimes you have to try two or three or more before you find the right one. That’s probably the most difficult part. The rest is up to you. It’s not easy to uncover whatever it is that your subconscious has hidden away and refused to reveal all these years.

It's never too late to try to understand.

Sorry if I sound a bit pedantic, AL Trav, I really know nothing about any of these things so if you think what I am suggesting is a lot of rubbish, just forget it. I won’t be at all offended.

I wish you and yours a happy New Year and excellent health in 2018.

.

Banjo, I don't wish to paint you a false picture. I have no issues with my up-bringing or as an adult.

I discovered, from a young age that because I am by nature a practical and pragmatic person, I have a more acute sense of what IS and not what someone is promoting IT IS.

I found that Aussies are not a mature and knowledgeable people. They are completely dedicated to 'having fun' and enjoying themselves with the mantra 'I work to live'.

I realised from an early age, this was counterproductive and could not understand why this country had this type of culture as the base.

I am quite pleased that I don't relate to this culture because it is a self destructive mentality and they are paying for it now and on into the future.

I have always said, these people should not be allowed to vote. They are mis-informed, ill-informed, lack any knowledge about the political machinations and the greed and lies being the norm and being practiced in every level of govt.

My anger and frustration is because I know what is going on and I can't believe there are not other people like me who are incensed enough to care and comment accordingly.

Instead all I get is, 'She'll be right mate. That's what we pay them for'. Meaning the politicians.

Banjo, I believe the people you refer to that have found living in Australia have no grievances may be because they live very simple lives and never have to engage with the establishment, eg; govt, I do.

Believe me I don't need phyc's I need a military backing to clean this place out and start again.

To ALTRAV

I also have looked forward to your posts.
Whilst i disagree with you, you have got me thinking hard about your arguments, and exactly why I cannot agree.
So, your argument again is:

Homosexuality cannot be natural because:
A. nature requires all creatures to reproduce.
B. A homosexual couple (assuming to the exclusion of any others) cannot procreate.
C. Therefore homosexuality is not natural.
Further, t
D. Because homosexuality is not natural it is a state of being best described as a "disorder".
E. Homosexuality is a minority (of the human experience).
F. As a minority homosexuals should be felt sorry for.
G. Our feeling sorry (for homosexuals) should be of the same kind we extend to midgets and albinos.
In a latter post you mention that Homosexuality is “in nature” but is a “curve ball”.
I will take this as a restatement of A through C above.
My response to your argument:

A. Nature and morality are quite different things.
B. Nature just exists – it is there with us and without us
C. Morality is our way of deciding what is right or wrong, and
D. Nature has nothing to say about what is moral or immoral

The above is much better discussed in a BBC website article by Brendon Ambrosino from 16th March 2017. I quote as follows:

Debates about sexual orientation have tended to focus on a badly defined concept of “nature.” Because different sex intercourse generally results in the propagation of the species, we award it a special moral status. But “nature” doesn’t reveal to us our moral obligations – we are responsible for determining those, even when we aren’t aware we’re doing so. To leap from an observation of how nature is to a prescription of nature ought to be is, as philosopher David Hume noted, to commit a logical fallacy.

If this whet’s your appetite for the whole article, go to:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality