"Your attitudes to God are so offensive and belittling of spiritual things ........." was posted by Philo who goes on to acknowledge my apparent cynicism. The problem with this is that I regard myself as a free living spirit but atheistic if one wishes to use that term.

I know someone here has been concerned for a while about playpens, teddies, anthropocentric mindsets, teddy mind viruses and other exclusivities with their characteristic products of fatalism and solipsism? This same person has also been concerned about science where there is a need to shift from closed systems to more inclusive world views and broader environments including the infinite environment.

This same person will say there is mystery but not magic. There is strangeness beyond our wildest imagining but it isn't capricious, nor whimsical, nor frivolous. The infinite environment is an orderly place where one can only feel privileged with eyes to see where we are and brains to wonder why. Teddies, poltergeists, angels, fairies or funny spirits don't intervene and hurl things about for reasons of mischief or caprice.

Contributions that I have put forward to the best of my ability emphasise an open inclusive environment as opposed to a closed exclusive system. It's not hard to see all forms of global influences challenging once held exclusivities and closed systems. From what I've seen of science there is a need to shift from closed systems to inclusive world views and broader environments including the infinite environment.

i.e. No fashionable teddies nor cosmologies please.

Now how is that for a good news story?

While we are in the story mode let me tell this "David and Goliath" version for Boaz. And yes it is true with real truths.

My brother worked at a Sydney hospital many years ago and tells this story about Kerry Packer.

KP was in having some chest scans or something and when it was done he sat up on the bed and pulled out a fag, lit up and started having a good old smoke. A couple of nurses and a young trainee came out and mentioned to my brother how they were too afraid to say anything. My brother went in and said "hey you, PUT the FAG OUT or you will blow the place up."

KP said something like .... "Don't worry I'll pay for all the damage." My brother said ..." That won't happen because you will not be here to do it."

My brother said that KP then put out his fag and looked at him with a serious expression and pointing ...... said " You know what? .... I like you ..... I like your type".

Donna's story indicates that the department of education is controlled by another religious order (or cult), that uses its position to fight off rival religions.

Apart from rival religions, this religious order considers the following as evil: "discipline", "homework", "culture", "intelligence" and is set to keep Australia mediocre and weed out tall poppies at all costs.

Isn't it an insult to the aboriginal religions and cultures that the department of education does not consider them as rivals?

Thanks for the reply BD & Martin. Martin, reason is not doing whatever is in your self-interest. The ability to reason includes the ability to understand that others also have interests, and that their interests are to them meaningful and valid, as yours are to you.

Which is probably what you mean BD by "love your neighbour as yourself". I agree that this recognition of the rights of others is the most fundamental human norm, but I totally reject that this is a religous concept. "Love God with all your heart" has nothing to do with recognising the validity of other human viewpoints. It is a human concept. Some religions and/or religous people aren't even very good at applying it - for example, fundamentalist christians tend not to recognise that the rights of gay people are meaningful or valid.

To take the example of pornography, you argue that pornography should be banned because it objectifies people (and presumably therefore causes harm to human relationships) This is an argument based on reason, and one I have some sympathy with. You have every right to make that argument, and I would listen to and consider it. On the other hand, arguing that pornography is bad because God says so means absolutely nothing to me because I do not believe in God.

hellothere,
The love and worship of God is not focused in a being up in the sky. It means to meditate in absolute purity of character, attitudes, acts, behaviour and wisdom. The love of God helps us reflect on the image we were designed to express.

Love of neighbour can only be fully realised as we recognise what values we place upon ourselves as we worship perfection and purity of character, acts, attitudes and values we place upon another as demonstrated by God in whose image we were designed.

With regard a view of disoriented male sexuality and purpose, Christians recognise that disoriented sexuality does not fulfil a purposed role. Go to Google and type in "Homosexual health" and you will realise why it is socially abnormal. Read the research

Philo, arguments based on religous beliefs will never convince me because I don't share those beliefs. I am perfectly capable of understanding what are positive human traits and what are negative ones, I don't need some kind of god template to measure myself against to understand right and wrong. I can decide what is right or wrong by thinking about my actions and the effect they have on others, and I bet you can too. And as for God being perfect etc, and us being made in his image, isn't it correct that according to this perfect God, if we do not believe in him we will suffer the most severe punishment imaginable? Not believing is in God's eyes worse than murder and rape? Am I the only one who thinks this is sick and twisted? Is that your moral template, your "perfection and purity of character"? Believe in me or suffer forever, charming.

As for disorientated sexuality, what about lesbians? I think you will find that their health is pretty good. As is the case for gay men who take precautions. And even if their health is bad, why does that matter to you? Smoking kills more people than HIV/AIDS, which is morally worse?