Heh. That's the most amusing read I've had in a while. I look forward to the responses...

Mate, I love it!

I am pleased that people get some entertainment from this. Personally I found it nearly as boring as Peter Sellick's 'Liturgy of the Church' article.

It was very funny but it did make the serious point that Christ was considered a 'do-gooder' and a 'chardonnay socialist' (or is that 'water-into-chardonnay socialist'?) for his time and authorities in Judaea turned popular opinion against him. And the fact that he associated with prostitutes and tax collectors made him a pariah with the holier-than-though religious establishment. A lesson still relevant today.

Interesting take on recent events. We haven't learned much in 2000 years, have we?

So David Hicks is Jesus is he?

This article typifies what is so wrong with the left. First, they can't tell a joke.

Second, they find moral relativism in everything, seemingly without thinking about whether the parallels they draw are even valid. Comparing the treatment of Islamic fascist David Hicks, who went to fight with a group that glories in the deliberate slaughter of people who don't share their religion, to the treatment of Jesus Christ is completely and utterly bogus.

Actually, this article is staggeringly funny, but not in the way the author intended.

grn asks "so David Hicks is Jesus is he?" My answer is no, he's David Hicks. And I have a question: who are the left? I've heard this term many times but I've never had an answer. grn may know. Do tell.

"Peter Fleming graduated in Arts and Education from the University of Sydney; his studies focusing on Classical History, English Literature and American Music Theatre. He is a graduate of the NIDA Playwrights Studio. He has taught in schools, universities and tertiary colleges, covering subjects such as Ancient History, Religion, English Literature, Theatre History and Arts Administration."

With all that going for him, Peter really shouldn't attempt humour. He lacks an essential lightness of touch, as well as the ability to be funny.

This article would not have been out of place in my old high school newsletter - and we would have given it heaps even then. The dialogue is clunky, the references (Psittacus... strewth!) clumsily unsubtle.

Three out of ten, tops.

Peri

Three is a lot of marks to give for presumably getting his name right.
Frankly... Im still not sure what his point is!

I enjoyed it and wasn't offended by it. Hmm...

"Comparing the treatment of Islamic fascist David Hicks, who went to fight with a group that glories in the deliberate slaughter of people who don't share their religion, to the treatment of Jesus Christ is completely and utterly bogus."

That's right he's comparing the TREATMENT of these two. Not comparing their actions. If Hicks is who the Americans think he is, then his actions are directly opposed to Jesus' who gave His life for every man, woman and child who ever lived. But regardless of what Hicks did, he doesn't deserve to be treated the way he has been without having been brought to trial (you know, justice). The court is where society settles matters of law and justice, not a foreign pre-trial torture cell.

Jones and Laws et al no doubt the inspiration for this piece.

Very appropriate for this weekend. Jesus Christ, that rebel and questioner of the status quo, would have been made mincemeat of in this day and age.

The big difference Jesus kept his beliefs and didn't run in the face of the enemy and was martyred for his faith.

Therefore he would never achieve the high profile and praise from those upholding Hicks as a martyr. Well, Hicks would have been a martyr, and a damn good one, if he hadn't been a coward and a liar and had had faith in his conversion to Islam. Instead he was just one more person who dug around until he could find justification for the psychopathic behavior he premeditated. Sadly like so many others, he found it in twisting religion to suit his personal ends and ran to those brethren who were looking for death. In the end -believing in nothing, failed utterly.

On Jesus's cross above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
As Jesus was dying his concern was for others "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

What is being writ for Hicks cross? They're certainly lining up to carry it for him. Those who also believe in nothing.

aqvarivs, you make a good point, Jesus concern was for others while Hicks concern was for himself. The good news is that despite the cowardly attacks throughout the centuries on Jesus His church continues to grow throughout the earth. Many believers are matyred simply for identifying with Him. Hicks has no followers just those who want to use his case to push their own little barrow. The Lord Jesus will continue to be worshipped as KING of KINGS while many will have to find another hero or political figure when Hicks usefullness to them is gone. Many of our journalist in the West are 'brave' in their mockings of the Lord Jesus and totally gutless when they won't even print cartoon mocking Mohammad. They are wise in their own eyes with their sneering.

DAVID HICKS SUPPORTERS ANSWER ME THIS:- If you had just won a gun battle with German soldiers and then rounded up the ones who surrendered, how would you prove in a court of law that any of them had actually been involved with the others in firing guns at you?

You dont see the faces of people who are firing guns at you from distances. So how could you identify any of them in a court of law?

If what you say about DAvid Hick's case is right then just the fact that the soldiers were captured with the enemy doesnt prove that they actually fired a gun at you.
That means if you tried any one of these German soldiers in a court
of law you would have to let them go as innocent and let them rejoin the German army again. You wont win any wars that way.

Jesus was killed because he had become a leader and was developing a huge following, an emerging leader who has the power to control huge groups of the population is always a threat to an occupying army just as in Iraq where a couple of the Holy leaders have basically become the leaders of military dissidents.

That is why religious intolerance exists not so much in opposition to religious beliefs as is the commonly held simplictic view, but in fear of the power of religions to muster huge armies and overthrow exsisting rulers.
As I often point out man kills not out of intolerance but out of fear of loss of territorial control.
The Jewish priests also feared the loss of their own control over the Jewish people and the easy income they recieved from religious donations and gifts to the church.

This has nothing to do with Hicks. It is interesting that some see this as loaded symbolism.

This was just an artistic representation. You could say that this could at worst be a postmodern or even revisionist piece of writing.

With these words, you know I have woken up Boazy. But this is only a style of presentation and it got people thinking.

When I think of the Jesus story without the "Thou's and Thine's and Begets" and other distractions, I find it much easier to relate to.

There are different interpretations of the Bible but this is just a style of presentation. There is nothing radical here at all.

Dear Yvonne... Jesus is made 'mincemeat' by many on OLO, and is regarded with the same disdain as He was on those days, by certain un-named elements here.

But you did make a very important statement mate... and regarding Jesus earlthy fate, if I may offer a statement of his, recorded for our edification and benefit.

"I came not to be served, but to serve, and give my life as a ransom for many" Mark 10:45

I found a most interesting reference in Luke, which is not found in any other gospel. It fits in with Lukes carefully presented understanding of Jesus (based on the Lords own words) as being 'fulfilment of scripture'.

To gain an insight about Lukes approach please read Luke 24:44-49.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=24&version=31

The unique reference of Luke is in connection with what are to some, rather enigmatic words about 'swords'.
Luke 22:36-37
[if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.]

They key words here are 'numbered with the transgressors' which is a quote from Isaiah 53.12 which is the chapter where those glorious and gracious words are found:

5 "But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray,
each one has turned to his own way,
and the Lord has laid on Him, ...the iniquity of us all"

and this is the key to understanding Jesus role on earth.

Yes, they made mincemeat of Him... as Isaiah 52:14 says:

14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness.

Jesus was indeed declared 'guilty' by man, but it is we, who are the truly guilty ones. The Cross was Grace in action. Undeserved kindness.

Boy, some people have David Hicks on the brain. My point was this satire illustrates how public opinion can be whipped up by the establishment against someone they don't like so easily. The establishment today being the government, talkback radio and news media. Jesus Christ had the misfortune of getting on the wrong side of the establishment in His day.

I'm also reminded of the old say "Jesus, please spare me from Your followers."

An interesting post but it follows a well established interpretation of a myth initiated by Paul and finally established by Constantine. Joshua of Nazareth was a revolutionary and by our definition, a terrorist; certainly by the definition of the super power of the time, Rome. His sole aim was to rid the holy land of the infidel, by all means possible (asymmetric warfare). He believed that the prophecies of the old testament held the key to unleash a destructive power on the Roman occupier. If you want a comparison with Joshua, don't look past Osama bin Ladin.

That was funny, particularly keeping in mind that this is a talk show transcript from 33ad, and being read by a crowd now, most of whom do not takes jesus name in vain, and their possible responses...

Like him or hate him, use his words to understand god or make use of it for selfish power and benefit, argue over the exact facts of his time and on...his name has lasted two thousand years and looks like it will outlast us...

Sam
Ps~by the way his primary destiny was to save souls from their sins and by his last words seems he succeeded bar the condition that there must be 'repentence' which is bloody hard in real day to day terms, particulary when you read what is needed to repent like when bathsheeba did david in...you got to brush up that vague quiet sense of destiny in us and then find your way to the right place and put ourselves in the required circumstances then the hand of god will guide you...I am told..

Netab,
Although Paul was a great missionary, he wasn't the first to come up with the Deity of Christ. The disciples, who paid for promoting such a belief with their blood (all of them but 1), and those who wrote the Gospels, were. Remember, the NT was completed by 90 A.D., so the fact that a guy named Constantine recognised this a few centuries later doesn't imply that the beliefs did not exist until then.

No the the establishment of christianity as a religion was not settled until Constantine and the NT finalised by 350 AD with the Muratorium Canon (even then they are not the NT as we know them now but close enough). When you refer to the disciples, do you mean those of the establishment or the those of the gnostic gospels. Finally, the first known written testament regarding Joshua, did not occur until Paul's writings of 50 AD. As you would be aware the earliest writings regarding this remarkable man were the gnostic gospels and thus the question; which disciples?
I hold in the greatest respect those that follow christianity but I don't believe that its secular historical orgins is beyond pale for contemporary scholarship.

Netab, the early Christian gospels were not originally referred to as "gnostic". The early message was spread form community to town via these gospels of which many were written and as many carried by word of mouth. The usual avarice that crops up with the institutionalization of anything spelt doom for the majority of the written gospels available at the time of the selection of only the works attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Consistency?
The 1st century gnosis movement was not Christian and many of the gnostic text convey no Christian attributes. That some Gnostics considered themselves Christian doesn't make gnosticism part of Christian doctrine. Gnostics were seen as heretics.
I have read where some assert the idea of gnosis was a concept from Zarathustra.(?)

Jesus had resurrection power .

I cannot understand crucifiction and how that is so celibrated. I cannot comfortably throw my grief onto Jesus as there is something cruel about all this.

I agree that we are undeserving. I never assume that another entity will necessarily carry my burden. Every Easter for me it is a depressing time. There is a mean nature to humanity and what they did to Jesus reminds me of this. To make the quantum leap to celebration to me just never really made sense. Perhaps I liked Jesus too much, and feel jealous that we are left here to fend for ourselves. Some Christians are so fast to glow at his suffering, and for some reason, to me, they take the role of the Romans. I can still hear the crying and suffering that it all represents.

There is something incomprehensible for all of this for me to fathom, and lets face it I am only human. My tag suggest I am a saint but that is just human irony.

So I guess that's my problem, not the Church or Christianity.

Dear Fletch
may I recommend a course of action ?

Read one of the Gospels.. say Luke, (for detail and history) or Mark (for action movie) or Matthew (for Jewish slant) or John (for the warmth and compassion) ..but which ever you choose, try to grasp the real person there.. the Jesus of reality, and notice how it is abundantly clear that at any time he could have averted his ultimate fate on the cross.

Notice how the disciples were in many ways like you, (not being critical here) they could not comprehend a "suffering" Messiah, -Its noteworthy that ONLY after Jesus extracted the confession from Peter "You are the Christ" did he begin to teach them about his true role of death and resurrection. (See Mark 8:27ff and 9:31, 10:32ff)

Mark may be divided between Chapters 1-8 "Who am I" and from the 2nd half of 8 to the end "Why did I come"

But back to the strategy.. when you enter into the emotion, journeys, encounters, healings, oppositions.. then.. just as Andrew and John are muttering about who will have the best seat in Glory (they were rather thick headed and self centred) Jesus 'crunches' them "Oh..guys.. by the way..what were you discussing on the way" ? hah ! busted.

So.. he is in COMPLETE control, all knowing..all powerful ....

THEN.. it all changes. They reach Jerusalem, and it looks like evil will and has triumphed, the usual human machinations take over.. 'get rid of this political/religious pest' and for a few days it seems like they got away with it .......It was friiiiiiday.. Darkness was winning, but as many a black preacher has passionately said "Sunnnnnndays-a-comin" (Tony Campolo Sermon) and when it came, glory of glories.. HE HAS RISEN.
History was changed forever, lives transformed, people renewed, such that we have the Halelujah chorus by Handel, and many other artworks praising our Saviour.
We are lifted up to the heavenlies in Christ. OH what a contrast to Friday...

Oh what a difference three days can make .

I know I must sound like a broken record on this, but every so often there is a post here that reminds me of it.

>>Jesus was killed because he had become a leader and was developing a huge following<<

If this was the case, why is there no contemporary record? As sharkfin points out:

"an emerging leader who has the power to control huge groups of the population is always a threat to an occupying army"

Yet of this particular one there is absolute silence.

It is as if future historians had heard of this Osama bin Laden chappie from accounts claimed to have been written thirty years after his death, but when they looked for corroborating evidence from contemporary sources, there are none to be found.

How likely is that?

It seems to be such a big hole in the entire story, yet none of the Christians on this forum seems to have the courage to acknowledge it.

To me, it is not a problem in itself. Everything we do in this world revolves around what we believe, even if that in turn is guided by the work of Alan Jones or Karl Marx.

The problem is that the boosters of the conventional Christian view of the Bible consider it to be "the gospel truth" - which unfortunately allows them to denigrate any other work that claims the same status, but differs from their opinion.

But that's religion for you, I guess.

No room for doubt.

But very specifically, no room for questions.

Pericles, the Bible is the Gospel truth. That some don't believe that the gospels are the word of God, or that some don't trust the written accuracy of the gospels doesn't negate the truth the gospels denote.

Dad4Justice WILL YOU PLEASE stop hogging the forum :)
You just talk toooo much mate.

Pericles 'ABSOLUTELY' none ? come come.

The early church was not huge, and it was hunted down mercilessly, it was not a MILitary group and as such would not have attracted the kind of attention you describe.
Finally..they KILLED Jesus, after only 3 yrs, and as far as Rome is concerned, they probably thought 'problem solved'.

Your problem is that you are looking at Jesus in 'earthly political' terms. Just as some of His disciples did.
The Gospel did not spread by mass rallies, but by word of mouth and quality of life. Small groups meeting in homes. No weapons, no agitation against the government...and Paul even 'sucking up' some might say advocating obedience to earthly authorities.

What's to hate or worry about in that ?

Please read this link for extra Biblical sources about Jesus/Christians.

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

It lists them quite well and does not dodge the critical questions.

I really don't understand why Christians continually bleast on about the non-biblical historicity of Christ. There is not a single text that has managed to passed intellectual scrutiny wrt to the existence of Christ yet Christians refuse to accept the jury's verdict and, in fact, ignore that a verdict has been handed down.

They continually ignore the evidence that the writings attributed to people such as Josephus and Tacitus that refer to Christ are fraudulent.

Why do they do it? Why can't they simply incorporate into their faith (belief without proof) that God decided to hide the evidence.

Lets have a look at some facts about Joshua. Firstly, he is born in somewhere in Gallilee. The historical records tell us that Gallilee was a hotbed of clans that had constantly rebelled againts Rome. His cousin, the good book tells us, is executed by the Roman appointed King, Herod. We will assume that none of this had any impact on his development. We are told in various historical records that Israel was in forment at the time of Joshua's birth. There was a widespread belief that the end days were just around the corner and that the blasphemy of Roman occupation was confirming certain old testament prophecy. Again, we will asume that Joshua, a talmud scholar, just ignored these events - after all, he was concerned only with saving the known and unknown world.
We know from Jewish records that the Jewish faith was undergoing a major theological split along the lines of those that collaborated with the Romans, those that rebelled or regarded Roman occupation as a abomination and other extremist groups such as the Essene's who followed a view that they were all dead meat unless they lived like them in isolation and prepared for armageddon (not unlike right wing christians today). We will assume that none of this effected Joshua's view of his world and that he wandered around chatting to God and preparing the foundations for a church for gentiles, that he clearly loathed.
The passover was a time of great sensitivity to the Romans, as the large crowds who descended on Jerusalem, always had the potential to become rebellious. The Romans always brought in a legion, just to be sure that they could deal with any uprsings at this time.
To enter Jerusalem, at this time to the acclaim of the locals as "king" was either a political act designed to create or forment revolution, the act of someone who has lived in complete isolation of reality or the act of a religious fanatic intent on their own self destruction.

Surely radio presenters would know how to use the vocative and address Brutulus as Brutule.

Oh well perhaps he works for a commercial station sacrificing all forms of respect and propriety in the hunt for ratings. If the article went on a bit longer we could have seen the real power behind the farce from it sponsors. Fast chariots with its horses arranged in a revolutionary V shape. Temple supplies, autumn special Ariadne statues. Followed by a promo for early evening current affairs "Shocking truth Cleopatra had Cabala text tattoed on her back".

Once upon a time, I used to accept these stories as well.

>>The early church was not huge, and it was hunted down mercilessly<<

It's good propaganda, but doesn't stand up to a great deal of scrutiny.

As far as I can tell, the "early church" was actually a motley bunch of factions, each with "their own histories, views, attitudes and mix of peoples . . . . Each writing has a different view of Jesus, a particular attitude toward Judaism, its own concept of the Kingdom of God, a peculiar notion of salvation, and so on", according to Burton Mack. The fact that a few of them appeared to be subversive terrorists and had their lives shortened by the governments that they upset, doesn't altogether come as a surprise.

>>it was not a MILitary group and as such would not have attracted the kind of attention you describe<<

But hang on a minute, sharkfin tells us "Jesus was killed because he had become a leader and was developing a huge following"

Which is right? Was he a significant force in society in his own time, or was this attributed to him later by some of the religious factions?

>>Your problem is that you are looking at Jesus in 'earthly political' terms. Just as some of His disciples did.<<

Well, of course I am. That is surely the likeliest place to find real evidence that not only did Jesus exist, but also that he was all the things that were later written about him. Instead, all we have is a set of documents of questionable provenance that have absolutely no (I repeat) no support in contemporary writings.

This, to me, begs some serious questions.

You, along with others on this forum, have no problem setting aside these questions, in favour of a blind faith that it all happened, just like the Bible said it did.

Faith is, of course, all you need to have a religion that keeps you warm at night.

Which is fine and dandy, but please don't confuse faith with reality.

Lets cut to that awful day; Joshua is on the cross. How he got there is open to as many interpretations as there are gospels but we'll put that aside. We know that the Romans reserved execution by the cross for those that had committed the most serious crime, that is treason or sedition. Joshua has above his cross 'King of the Jews' - clearly defining the political crime for which he is suffering this barbaric form of death. Now, lets expand on the scene. Beside him are two other criminals which we are told or not told depending on the gospel you are reading, were petty thieves /petty criminals. Why would these thieves or petty criminals be suffering this form of execution? The Romans did not use this form of execution for any other crime other than sedition or treason. There is only three explanations for this anomoly; either these two were also guilty of sedition / treason, they did not exist or the testaments have untidily covered up some uncomfortable issue regarding that day.

It is an abuse of a normal intellect to expect anyone with the slightest ability to critically think, to accept this constructed myth as anything more than a wonderful story supporting an established religion. However, it also denigrates a real man, of courage and conviction who lost his life in his cause.

Very very interesting.
I am now waiting for Peter Flemming's jocular article on Muhammad or perhaps a funny travel article on the Haj?

It seems that Mr Fleming takes more influence from his NIDA education than from his 'formal' education. Although there's a strong theme of drama, sensitivity to the cultural setting of 1st Century Judea has gone out the window.

If only every academic could be so dramatic!

I suggest that Mr Fleming should address the source of his fixation on Jesus. No doubt many of his past students, or at least those with a reasonable faith in Christ, would agree with this.

'sensitivity to the cultural setting of 1st Century Judea has gone out the window' I'm sure that the author can defend himself but on this occasion, I will clarify the issues. The fact is that research in the last 50 years has now told us a lot about this period in which Joshua lived. We know that it was a very turbulent period with Jew againts Jew, Jew againts Roman occupier and within that various extremist groups playing poker with the whole lot. We also know that this whole drama was being played out againts a backdrop of popular belief by the Jewish population that the end days as forecast by the prophets was inevitable in their lifetimes.

What we see in Iraq today is not unlike the times of Joshua in Israel 30 AD.

For christians to maintain that this young Jewish talmud scholar / preacher was unaffected by his own background and times is simply not logical or rational.

The knowledge we now have through advances in technology and contemporary study of the testaments and archeological knowledge of the region; show conclusively, that the New Testament is a constructed story which began well after his death.

My interest in this type of study is largely motivated by my concern of the rise of neo right christianity flexing its political muscle. Its insistence on replacing critical thinking with constructs based on literal interpretations of the New Testament is simply intolerable

Netab,

Some interesting comments. Thank you.

1. I don't know about Pilate under Augustus, but Pompey would crucify people for little reason. With captured enemy soldiers his commandes would have a few prisoners stay behind and when the main body of the people were just out-of-sight, he would crucify the the stay-behinds. Repeating the process over and over. The column moving forward didn't see what was happening. Howver, afterwards, future travellers along the road would see victims a space and the more victims a space more victims.

The catch with Pilate and Crucifications is that Pilate would not want to quash a roit. He had been chided for a massacre [even by Roman standards] earlier-on in his career and would have been motivated to keep a lid on things. Hence, the idea of crucifying people during the Jewish passover is problematic.

Regarding Paul/Constantine, we really have a transition of Jesus cults to institutionalisation/modification. A common sociology with the evolution of religions.

Herod was a Roman puppet (not of the House of David). My guess is Herod would not have been able to use capital punishment. A challenge to Rome's decision to support Herod would worry Pilate. Moreover, if Herod wanted JC dead, presumably he could have done this converted. So, there must have politic reason, "if" Jesus was taken Pilate

Wait a minute, Aesop's Fables aren't true stories either but, they are no less truthful. The use of parable is an old, tried and true method of reaching people to illustrate a moral attitude or a religious principle.
If one can't believe the stories in the Bible are true it might not be the fault of the Bible. It might be a dependency on the conforming to the POMOist use of "critical" thinking. Some people are just too clever for their own good and miss the point of such reading all together.

"For christians to maintain that this young Jewish talmud scholar / preacher was unaffected by his own background and times is simply not logical or rational." - Netab

On the contrary, Christian scholars appreciate greatly the cultural landscape of this age, and the challenges that this presents.

Jesus was far from a Talmudic Scholar. His onus was on the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings (the canonical Hebrew Bible). Some of His most scathing criticism was of the Pharisaic praxis. They demonstrated an outward, hypocritical religion and yet neglected true justice, mercy and love.

"The knowledge we now have through advances in technology and contemporary study of the testaments and archeological knowledge of the region; show conclusively, that the New Testament is a constructed story which began well after his death." - Netab

Not true. I would contest this but you seem to filter everything through your deep-seated intolerance towards Christianity. Hopefully you can open your mind to the possibility of truth beyond your own prejudice.

Oliver,
Thanks for your comments and I agree that the timing of Joshua's death with the Passover is problematic. Personally, I think he was executed sometime in August / Sepember which would coincide with the Jewish feast of the tabernacles; as far as I know the prohibtions of the Passover did not apply then. Of course, the early writers of the testaments were determined to show that he fulfilled all the requirements of the son of man as dictated by the old testament scriptures and so the necessity of placing him in Jerusalem at this time.

Historical sources are silent on whether or not the legion would have moved from Caesarea to Jerusalem for such an occasion; although they do confirm the legion moving to their Jerusalem barracks during the passover. Its an important point because the presence of the legion or its absence may shed light on Pilates state of mind in dealing with insurrection.

Joshua was a talmud scholar and the good book tells us that much of his life was spent in discourse with temple priests and other scholars. I think that we can safely assume that these discussions evolved around interpretations of the scriptures.

Just a quick general point. If christianity as a religion claims historical accuracy in these events then it should not fear historical investigation. When I hear, these same christians proposing a theory of intelligent design be incorporated into science at secondary schools; then its clearly time to look at the doctrines that are supporting these proposals

Thank you, Netab. Busy at the moment and will come back.

[Regarding Herod and Joshua (aka Jesus) you probably know I intended, "covertly" killed. There would need to be some reason to make things a public display, methinks.]

But does Flemming have the guts to have a go at Muhammad?
Or is he afraid to mock the Prophet?
Christians are an easy mark for the Intestinal Fortitude Challenged.

Is Mise,

Both Christianity and Islam have reli-political origins. The former involved the Jews who had been suppressed by the Greeks and Egptians and were in Middle East in the first century of the current era under Roman occupation. Significantly, Greek power lost its hold, and, the Jews looking retrospectively [archaism trait] felt more empowered, albeit, the reality Roman power had simply replaced Greek power. The Roman inititally respectful antiquity and being polytheists did allow the Jews a long leash. There Messiahs aplenty. But in was still a leash. A leash with a chocker collar as was evidenced by the first and secend Judeo-Roman Wars in two instalments c. 60-135 CE. Christianity grew from a Jesus Cult to the foundation of a denomination religion.

Leading to the seventh century the Arabs nominally pagan (civil) and did worship at shrines. But had not developed the same mystery cults, holy places and the concept of the spirit, as did Christianity. Moreover, there were Bedouin tribes in Hijaz abd Najd regions, wherein, the concept of "darh"[fate] and "muruwah" were strong. Tribal membership allegiances were strong and the word of the "sayyid" unchallengable. One dedicated oneself to "chivalrous duties" [Armstrong] against committmited against one's own tribe by other tribe. The Arabs were disunited and in competition and supremely obedient to different leaders.

Geophysically, the Arabs were surrounded by Sassanid Persia and the Byzantine Empire. [Post-Temple]Judaism still existed and Christianity was gaining a foothold. There was also the "istaqa" cult of self-sufficency developing from Mecca, wherein, personal weath threatened the cohensiveness of the tribe. Muhammad the early 600s would have seen frighting between tribes, the internal disintergration of the tribe, and, the lack of an ideology sactioned by prophetic endorsement. Inside and out Muruwah, an independent Arab character [indepedent to others] was treatened. So, M. developed a new unifying ideology, Islam.

Room does not permit a"contrast" between Christianity and Islam, so I this brief "compare" is helpful

Is Mise,
Why would the author want to open a thread on the prophet? If you look at the strands on this site, you will observe that there is considerable discussion regarding the Muslim culture and its founder. Secondly, no one here is mocking the historic Joshua; in fact quite the opposite.

I argue from a viewpoint that the myth of Joshua found in christian teachings is a mockery of a courageous Jewish scholar / teacher come nationalist, who lost his life attempting to rid his homeland of a brutal occupying power. The ultimate blasphemy of the memory of this man, is to paint him as some form of gentile saviour and then use that mythical construction to persecute the people of his culture over the ages. The fact that in his teachings (that one fifth or so that haven't been revised or altered for various idealogical reasons)there are moral lessons that are powerful regardless of cultural context or time, is a testimony to the wisdom of this man; however it does not justify the manipulation of his memory for essentially, political reasons.

If your christianity is faith based, then this type of discussion will be of passing interest only and should not disturb. If however, you believe that the historic account of Joshua as defined in the New Testament is beyond question, then please put your case.

"I argue from a viewpoint that the myth of Joshua found in christian teachings is a mockery of a courageous Jewish scholar / teacher come nationalist, who lost his life attempting to rid his homeland of a brutal occupying power." Netab

And your historical source for that is...?

Jesus always maintained that his kingdom is not of an earthly (political) nature - so why do you try to distort who he said he is?

The reason why Christians do not need history (like most pagans would) to trust the events surrounding our Lord and Saviour Jesus is that He lives in us today... and that is all the proof we need.

P.S. You don't seem to deny Jesus' death on the cross - Also you call Him Joshua and not Isa like in the Qur'an - that makes you not a muslim.

So if you are not an anti-infidels muslim what is your "real" agenda here?

Coach said: "The reason why Christians do not need history (like most pagans would) to trust the events surrounding our Lord and Saviour Jesus is that He lives in us today... and that is all the proof we need".

At last a Christian who acknowledges the lack of historical evidence to support Jesus' existence!

At least Coach has the courage of his convictions and recognizes that faith is belief without proof. Unlike Christians who resort to fraudulent 'historical' records such as Josephus' or Tacitus' to 'prove' Christ's historicity. Or the ridiculous attempts to try and prove biblical 'events' such as creation and the flood through scientific means.

The comment that Jesus lives in him does conjure up some interesting anatomical pictures but, hey, that's what delusion is all about.

Oliver and Netab,
Thanks for the lessons.
All that I am saying is that Flemming feels safe and secure in ridiculing the God of the Christians but hasn't the guts/fortitude/bravery (WHY) to have a go at the Prophet of the Muslims.
Perhaps he will, I may misjudge him but I'm not going to go without breakfast till he does a satire on Muhammad.

Shanno...

I serve a risen Savior, He's in the world today;
I know that He is living, whatever men may say;
I see His hand of mercy, I hear His voice of cheer
And just the time I need Him He's always near.

Refrain
He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me
along life's narrow way.
He lives, He lives, salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart.

Focus on the last 2 lines from that popular Hymn of yesteryear.

But having said that, and agreeing with it, does not diminish the historical foundation for that faith. May I recommend a close look at the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, and an enquiry concerning the historical connections in those books. Have a look at Luke 3:1-2

Now..note particularly one tiny, but VERY significant phrase...

"in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" to the biblically ignorant and historically challenged, this may not seem to be of great significance, but without answring the issue, I suggest you explore this with our good friend Dr Google.

On a scale of probability, netab's idea of 'invented story after his death' rates about -273 (which on the kelvin scale of temperature is the point where I think atoms stop moving)

At the end of your study, I believe you will have a much deeper appreciation for the historical accuracy and attention to detail of Luke (who was a doctor).

Then, we can come back to 'He lives within my heart' :)

David,

It's not uncommon for writers of fiction to place their fictional characters into a non-fictional context.

If Luke was really a doctor then he must have been a pretty bad one: how do you explain him believing

·Epilepsy is caused by devils. 9:39

·People who cannot speak are possessed with devils. 11:14

·Illnesses are caused by Satan. 13:11-16

·John the Baptist, while still a fetus, leaped for joy when he heard the voice of Mary. 1:44

You are obviously a fan of Luke so how do you deal with the conundrum of Luke 10:21 where Jesus thanks God that only the ignorant and foolish will listen to him. Hmmm.. is that why he lives in your heart?

[Thanks to skepticsannotatedbible.com for the biblical references]

David,
No one is denying that Joshua interacted with Caiaphas and his father in law, Annas or that it was Pilate who sentenced him to death. That proves that Joshua existed in this historical time frame and so we have agreement at long last. I'm glad to see you finally moving along the road of rational thinking and using it to establish some verifiable facts. Unlike the story teller who was struck off his horse on the road to Damascus, you seem to be sliding off but then enlightment comes in different ways to different people.
Now, if we could just get you out of the childish habit of attacking the messenger amd sticking with the issues; I would say we have come a long way.

Now that David is finally moving towards a rational perspective of the history of Joshua, the Jewish scholar; I think we should adavance the discussion to a issue that I raised in an earlier post. That issue is the qusetion of the two others who were crucified with him. If we hypothesis that these two were also executed for treason(assuming they existed)then we have three men executed for treason in and around 36 AD. The question is; were these two executed for the same act of sedition or treason as Joshua or a seperate act?

Firstly, I would place the time of execution as the feast of tabernacles / booths when it was required that adherents carried palm branch's and I support that by the NT account that Joshua entered Jerusalem to popular support and specifically that his supporters, lined the route of his entrance with palm branch's.

Back to the question of the two crucified with Joshua. It seems unlikely (but not impossible) that two insurrections occurred at the same time i.e. September / October 36 AD. Of course, it could be that these two had been languishing in dungeons waiting the arrival of Pilate for judgement and that their act of sedition had occurred some time before Joshua's entrance to Jerusalem.

I think these two are important because the NT is very short on detail and the clumsy business of identifying them as thieves etc, is clearly designed to cover up something of significance about these two. Any ideas?

Shanno,

Surely you understand that science deals with the HOW of life and philosophy/theology can deal with the WHY of life?

In modern Western culture we like to separate the two, but in many other parts of the world and times in history this is not done. A friend of mine who worked as a doctor in remote PNG said that when people were sick they wouldn't ask "what medicine do I need to be better?" they would ask "who put a curse on me?" The doctor would respond by praying for them AND administering medical treatment. This was no contradiction in that culture; people saw physical ailments, as existing through physical means (the HOW), but by being caused by non-physical means (the WHY).

In our culture, we would scoff at that, but that doesn't make it any less right for the cultures who accept it.

Now Luke was a 1st century doctor, long before (mostly Christians brought about) the modern scientific method. We would expect him to have as much medical knowledge as a 1st century doctor would have but to also interpret physical events through spiritual perception, and of course to communicate it in such a way so that his readers would have understood.

So really this isn't a question of good/bad doctor, but of culture.

BTW, with JtheB: You do realise it is possible for foetuses to move in a womb don't you? I think from the 5th month onwards the mother can sense it. Is it so perplexing to you that he might have done so at the sound of somebody else's voice? I think JtheB was about 6 months in the womb by the time Jesus was conceived, yes? So its more than possible that he could have lept (the Bible says "for joy") at that age.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

This is quite different to your (website’s) interpretation "only the ignorant and foolish will listen to Him". I don't see the word “only” in there. I think this verse is saying that those without preconceived ideas are the ones who will receive God's revelation, because they are not so caught up in their own man-made revelation. I could be wrong, but that's how I read it. This isn’t the only verse on Godly revelation though.

Dear Shanno... amazing :) first you kind of punch into the Bible for its lack of connection to history etc, then, when I demonstrate a very strong connection you blast that with a 105mm howitzer of "But story tellers often used real history as a framework for their stories" (paraphrase of your words)....

But you missed the crucial point. The High Priesthood of Annas AND Caiaphas. There is only ever ONE High priest, their could not be 2, but in this particular situation, there were specific reasons for Annas AND Caiaphas being regarded as High Priests, and those reasons would unlikely be known or even mentioned by some 'story teller' who simply wanted a few historical sticks to make a lean-to for his otherwise mythical story.

Pauls situation is not given sufficient weight by either you or my other 'enemy' :) Netab. Not only does Luke tell the account of Pauls conversion, but Paul ALSO backs this up in a number of places in his own separate writings.

In Pauls letters, I suppose his reference to:

9 Come to see me as soon as you can.
10 Demas loves the things of this world so much that he left me and went to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus has gone to Dalmatia.
11 Only Luke has stayed with me. Mark can be very helpful to me, so please find him and bring him with you.
12 I sent Tychicus to Ephesus.
13 When you come, bring the coat I left at Troas with Carpus. Don't forget to bring the scrolls, especially the ones made of leather. [b] 14 Alexander, the metalworker, has hurt me in many ways.


In 2 Tim 4 are just 'convenient sticks' to hang a story on ? :)

Come come..let us reason together. If this was a physical contest your argument would be lying on the mat and out for the count mate, such is the KO quality of these facts.

David, I'm not trying to deliberately miss your point but I honestly don't get it. There's no doubt that the authors of the gospels had a reasonable idea of the history of the so called Christ's days but that in itself does not prove the historicity of Christ. Wouldn't you think that a person who was strutting the stage performing miracles, getting crucified and rising from the dead would at least get some mention in the non biblical media of the day. No pictures, no personal letters, no contemporary writings - nothing, nothing, nothing!

You talk about a knockout punch as though this discussion were a fight. I'm not fighting - I simply seek the truth. If you can put forward verifiable facts I will gladly adopt your view on this issue. The fact that you adopt your view so steadfastly without any facts is the thing I find a little disturbing.

There were many writings by the time the Council of Nicea came around but only the authoritative ones were canonised as Biblical texts. So there was some mention of Him in non-biblical sources. Its possible political leaders of the day tried to silence a lot of mention of Him- He was crucified as a heretic and guilty of treason, afterall. I'm not sure how much direct influence He would have had on the Romans/Greeks/etc. seeing as the bulk of His ministry was to the Jews in Palestine. We do have some recordings from Josephus (hellenistic Jew) but we're not sure if some details were added later on.

I think the above post is a reasonable summary of the situation. However, I think that we would probably disagree on the criteria of 'authoritative'.

I would see Constantine's agenda for this meeting being one of the imperatives of state rather than the verification of the testaments for use.

I believe there is some very good reason why the collateral evidence has been in short supply. Firstly, Pilate was on nose with his boss the emperor Tiberius and would not want the attention that a insurrection in his area of responsibility would bring; he would have kept records at a minimum and made sure it was kept from Tiberius. Secondly, those records kept by the temple priests of their contact with Joshua were probably destroyed with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (I think) as would other records kept by private individuals.

There is a significant number of testament scholars who believe that the early testaments had access to the Q document which was probably a first hand account of Joshua's life and times; but which has since been lost.

To YngNLuvnIt from OldnWiser

Philosophy deals with ethics and existence as we know it to be whereas theology is simply a lame attempt to explain what we currently don't understand. Philosophy is factually based whereas theology creates a fiction.

The only reason we scoff at primitive beliefs such as those you refer to in your PNG example is because the science is there to demonstrate the truth. People's belief in a god to cure their ills is simply called the placebo effect

Netab,

Thanks for ignoring my previous queations. Here's another for you: why are you so determined to analyse the 'death' of The Christ? The fact is He lived and He died (which is more then most pagans would even admit).
I can't wait to see your interpretation on His resurrection. After all this is The Christ that lives today... not just then but NOW.

Shanno,

There are levels and relms above and below the "physical". How else would you explain the miraculous? Physicians to this day are still perplexed when a miracle happens in front of their eyes.

coach,
If you looked through the posts, you would see that I have answered all your queries relating to the historical Joshua. In relation to my 'agenda' - its been stated on at least two occasions in previous posts. Finally, I am not interested in discussing issues of your personal faith regarding the resurrection etc; they are articles of faith and I may not agree with them but I certainly respect them.

By the way coach, bland assertions of your faith are not good arguments for the historical veracity of Joshua and his life / times.

Hey Coach,

What about the ascension?

When did the planes crash in to the twin towers? I bet you know the answer. So its fair to suggest that if you'd witnessed Christ ascending into heaven you'd also be pretty clear on the time and date. So Coach, when did Christ ascend into heaven?

Was it on the day of his resurrection as per Luke 24 1:51 and Mark 16: 9-19? Or was it at least 8 days later as per John 20:26? Many days later (Acts 13:31) or 40 days later (Acts 1: 2-3,9)?

Surely if a book were 'inerrant' it would at least be consistent on a matter as significant as the ascension.

Netab says:

"...regarding the resurrection etc; they are articles of faith and I may not agree with them but I certainly respect them."?

How so? I thought you were interested in facts. So why is Jesus' death more important to you when His resurrection was part and parcel of His mission?

I see inconsistencies in your logic. You can't argue one fact and dismiss the other because it does not agree with your un-faith.

Shanno,

You can play this stupid game for ever - but you will never disprove the fact that Jesus lived, died and yes rose again and finally ascended to heaven in front of many witnesses.

You are free to believe or not to believe. That's how God wired you.
Belief requires "faith" but not the kind you describe. It takes WISDOM to accept that there is a greater power and a better plan than "yours" and (gradually or suddenly) submitting to 'it'.

To your (and Netab's) questions of exact dating and timing...my answer remains: who cares? How could that change the facts? How many times did recorded history make errors? When someone dies in a road accident does it matter who was at fault or how many witnesses were there, what account they each gave, which police was on duty that shift, ...? Fact remains: the person is dead.

You would think that no one could deny 9/11 - but believe you me there are many out there who will distort and re-write history - depending on what they "want" to believe. (Just look at the CIA inside job theory accepted by many Muslims today).

Faith is the belief in "facts" without necessarily proving them by our limited intellect. Why do you have faith in other things without demanding absolute proof of their validity or definite understanding of how and why "it works".

Science (observable knowledge) could explain what was once mysteries but the same science could never disprove the existence of GOD (or miracles).

Like one man healed by Jesus said: "I was blind and now I see"... spare me the details...!

Oldn“Wiser”…

“Philosophy is factually based whereas theology creates a fiction.”
I don’t believe philosophy is factually based; it is more opinion based. Also, you cannot say theology “creates a fiction” unless you can verify that fact.

You might be interested in this website: http://www.harvardhouse.com/index.htm . It may seem a little bizarre but it attempts to look at the factual credibility of claims made by theological texts.

“The only reason we scoff at primitive beliefs such as those you refer to in your PNG example is because the science is there to demonstrate the truth. People's belief in a god to cure their ills is simply called the placebo effect”
What is truth? What capacity does science have to claim truth?
In great miracles, the placebo effect cannot always be applicable.

“Luke describes Jesus' departure very briefly. The conciseness of this account is probably because Luke also spends time narrating a departure in Acts 1. It is much discussed whether this event is the same as the one in Acts 1 or is a distinct event. If it equals Acts 1, then Luke has simply summarized quickly here what took place forty days later to establish a literary tie to Acts. The possibility of literary compression makes a choice very difficult to establish (for one event, see Parsons 1987:193-94; for the options, Osborne 1984:137-38 and especially 266-70; Osborne opts for two perspectives on the one event: Lk 24 as theological and Acts 1 as historical).” http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=3&source=1&seq=i.49.24.1

My thoughts…

Coach, I disagree with you that it doesn’t matter “it still happened”. If God is infinitely smarter than us, then surely He wouldn’t make stupid errors in His Holy Book, even if He is using people as His instruments.

Luke 24: Please note this passage does NOT imply His ascended on the day of His Resurrection.
“50And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51 Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven.”… There is no indication that this occurred on the same day(s) as the other events, simply that it happened afterwards.
Mark 16: Please note this passage does NOT imply He ascended on the day of His Resurrection either!

The events of John 20 could easily have fit within Luke and Mark’s narration of the events.

And Acts1: “The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

These passages all fit with each other nicely (please take the time to read them, preferably in context, at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ . I prefer the New King James Version for its literalism. )

YNGNL.uvnlt,
Thanks for your post and as usual, interesting and informed perspective. However, you are slipping into metaphysical games to make some points. Your comment on theology is one such error. The discipline of theology is grounded on a philosophical premise that God exists. Its not unreasonable for Shanno to state that a theological discourse with God, creats a fiction if he deosn't believe that God exists - theology examines the relationship between God, the universe and humanity but it is based on a premise that God exists which is a philosophical argument. If I don't believe that God exists then it is not unreasonable for me to assert that a theological treatise with God is a treatise with a fictional entity.

Clearly your cited reference Osborne (I haven't looked at his work but will) has probably read St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae that argues for different types of truth or theological facts. Again, Aquinas is moving from a premise of a theological fact and for arguments sake, I'll assume Osborne is moving from the same premise. If that is the case, this distinction of theological facts from historical facts becomes problematic.

I once read a book that stated in its final conclusion, that establishing the identity and nature of Joshua is the equivalent of entering a room. You see a indent on the couch where someone has sat, the coffee cup on the low table table that has warm residue of coffee at the bottom and that overiding sense that door on the opposite side of the room has just closed as you entered.

Dear Shanno...
You're right, its not a 'fight' but it is a struggle,I suspect you are simply referring to some 'skeptics' document or "50,000 contradictions in the Bible" of some kind rather than reading the verses you quote carefully.

2 points.

1/ Re your last post, have a REAL close look at each passage and read them in full context and see IF they are truly saying as your post claims. I await your subdued and muted reply :) (By the way, the Gospels do NOT always put things in direct chronological order)

2/ Regarding secular attention of Jesus and Christians.
Wikipedia is a great read, and from what I can see, quite balanced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Ask yourself this.... "How many times have you heard about or seen major headlines about say Jehovah's witnesses in the past 12 months" ?
Then..."How many times have you heard about extremist Muslims in the news during that same period" ?

Simply put, JWs probably zero, Muslims probably every week. Whats the difference ?
JW's may have some whacky ideas, even cruel hearltess ones, and some quite false interpretations of the bible, but they don't form terrorist squads and try to accumulate explosives or plan to assassinate the Prime Minister and his family.
GUESS WHO DOES ? and this should answer the question about say why the Hansard has next to nothing if anything about JW's but PLENTY in it about 'another' group.

Same with the early Christians. There was an insurgent among the disciples, "Simon the Zealot" but clearly he left his dagger behind after folling Christ, so, no political waves.
CONCLUSION "No political waves/ No Headlines"

David,

The Gospel of Mark is pretty clear that Christ only spoke to the disciples once before being teleported into heaven. John's gospel however is clear that he spoke to them twice before Capt Kirk pressed the button - the 2nd time to accommodate the concerns of doubting Thomas. Its amazing to think that anyone can read this stuff and not acknowledge the clear contradictions.

Dear Shanno,
the Gospels are deliberatey selective and do not report every single incident of our Lords activities, nor to they report them in exactly the same order.
Some 'seem' to report the same incident differently.
One has 'a blind man' while another has '2 blind men' woooo..thats scary :)

You are trying to put a chronological straightjacket on the gospels in the interests of finding fault mate. I freely concede there are textual difficulties/controversy over the long ending in Mark, it doesn't change my total faith in the reliability of the 4 Gospels to inform us about Salvation through Christ.

To debate each 'contradiction' so called, would fill volumes. The best place to start is with an open mind, not a mind where the conclusion is settled before the evidence is weighed.

cheers mate.

Boazy: "The best place to start is with an open mind"

Coming from one of the most prolifically bigoted Islamophobes and homophobes at OLO, that is truly funny.

David,

Let me get this straight. You were born an atheist (just like every other human being) then one day when you could read you decided to read the gospels and despite all their contradictions and requirements for considerable leaps of faith you decided that what they said was true and despite the lack of any corroborating non-biblical evidence decided that a person called Jesus was your personal saviour. Boy, how could I be so dumb as to not take on your faith!

Now please don't spoil this story by telling me that between your birth and ability to read the gospels in a rational way that you, like the overwhelming number of other Christians, were influenced to believe in Christianity by those around you. Please don't tell me that you were born into a Christian family and were indoctrinated into the faith. Please don't tell me this otherwise I'll have to inform you that there is a strong possibility that you, like most other Christians, are living a delusion.

I do have an open mind which is why I was able to deprogram myself and revert to the human default condition - atheist. Believe it or not I had the same beliefs as you (wrt God and Chistianity) but through a fair degree of personal reflection came to realise that I was deluded.

Shanno,

Man is not born Atheist – the default position as you put it. We are all sinners and in need of God’s Salvation. What that means is our default position is - by design - a relationship with The Creator of the universe. But because we are born in sin (separation from God) with all have a spiritual void that only God can fill entirely.

Of course that void can be filled with other man-made gods or spiritual beliefs and I agree with your last post that people are mostly the result of their environment. You can be born into a religious family/ county and therefore end up following that trend.

Not so with Christianity though.

At some stage in your adult life you have to make a decision about who Jesus really is. Gathering the facts about Him is a combination of intellect, experiences, and reason. But the decision to believe the Jesus accounts – AND accept Him as your Lord and Saviour – requires faith.

You call faith in the existence of God a delusion. So you have already made up your mind about the non existence of God without the critical requirement of "faith". Naturally you have gambled your life away by not engaging faith in your decision making. (what if your are wrong?)

You can develop a thick skin and reject the Bible and its message – and the ample stories that support that message – with your own critical analyses and philosophies. But without faith it is impossible to know God let alone discover the truth.

Faith is a gift from God alone (same as Love and Wisdom in their true meanings of course)

You don’t have faith because you haven’t accepted God’s gift.

The way back to God is by letting go of your ego and asking God for faith.

coach,
Your argument is based on a series of personal assertions regarding the existence of God. They might be true for you and I respect that spiritual maturity but its not mine; the problem is that you don't respect the right of others to approach this spiritual mystery from a different direction. I worked in the east kimberely region of WA for 16 years and mostly with aboriginal communties. It meant walking a cultural line between two cultures and maintaining a sense of the self over a long period. The aboriginal culture proposes in its dream time concepts, a series of philosophical / spiritual questions of identity in relation to the mystery of existence. It does not resolve that mystery but it does explain our relationship with our immediate environment in terms of a holistic mystery whose nature we understand but not meaning.

Jewish culture has much in common with Aboriginal culture, as do a number of other cultures but not christianity. Christianity requires deterministic answers to this mystery which limits its ability to evolve understanding of a dynamic mystery. The phenomena of the existence of a universe which itself swims in a void where neither time or space exist, is beyond our level of understanding but it is our spiritual journey. Christianity has failed for me because it has become spiritually egoistic in that it claims to know the answers before it has developed knowledge.

The fact is that when you rely on a book, that is the result of secular decisions based on idealogical imperatives at different ages; it is a long way from the issues of a universe floating in a void.

Do you realise that a Moslem could take your argument and simply by substituting god with allah, Mohammad for Jesus, Koran for bible and Islam for Christianity the argument would be equally valid as a defence of Islam? Needless to say if a Moslem were to use the same argument you'd accuse him of being delusional. Of course, the Moslem would also accuse you of being delusional. At least one of you must be wrong. A rational look at the data suggests you both are - but it would be delusional of me to think you will ever see it that way. Religion, however, will eventually die through natural selection.

As to the question 'what if I'm wrong' re the existence of god. What's the big deal? If there is a god responsible for the origin of the universe as we know it why on earth should I believe it is anything like that described in that book of fables written by ignorant men in unsophisticated days? Am I really to believe that this so called god created a man from dust and having forgotten to give him a means of procreating then took a rib and created a woman who in turn from the advice of a talking snake ate an apple which in turn meant that those of us who don't believe the story are to be confined to the bowels of hell? Give me a break!

Actually Coach I'm surprised you have the time to respond to any of these posts, afterall with all the homosexuals, adulterers and naughty kids in the world you really must have a lot of stoning to do.

Is attacking a Christian's faith really time well spent? Once the leap is made, the leaper is fairly impervious to criticism from outside, even civilly expressed criticism. I don't mean we stop thinking, I mean the way we think becomes so different. We can listen and engage, of course, but it's difficult to dislodge us or disconcert us. Yet, so much energy (and often, fury) is devoted to pulling the rug out from under our belief. In particular, I've noticed we are often attacked with rationality, as though it were an effective antitheist weapon. Yet, the way we think doesn't strike me as irrational at all. Meanwhile, there might be some things we can agree about and co-operate on.

Dear Shanno, you and another olo poster 'Robert' seem to have the same experience.
I gave my life to Christ as a result of an increasing sense of enquiry and urgency to make sense of life and to experience personal renewal. That was in my mid 20s. I had a number of quite amazing experiences along the way, too many to mention here. One that always stands out in my mind though as a 'seed' event was the loss of my school bag at the Aspendale train station. I had been attending a youth group at the local methodist Church, and so God was on my mind to a degree.
When I lost my schoolbag it was like the end of the world, so many important thing were in it. I searched high and low,...nothing. Then in desperation, down in the subway underpass with not a soul around, I prayed. "Oh God.. please bring back my schoolbag" you could have blown me over when a station person came around the corner and asked "Is this your schoolbag"? :)

Yes, I know, coincidences do happen. But you will have to simply trust that I'm old enough now to be able to weigh up trends, coincidence and the miraculous.
I reflect on the Gospels because I find a living Christ in them, you sound like you had a 'bad church experience' or that someone you loved and respected as a Christian role model let you down. But for you to say now you are an atheist, but 'once held the same beliefs as me' stretches the credibility a bit. Even if I WANTed to be an Atheist for either moral or economic reasons, I could not, Christ's reality is too compelling. I might end up a disobedient or backslidden Christian but to deny Christ? -Unthinkable!

Goodthief, I have no intention of deconverting the converted. When someone is deluded, the change process must start from the inside. My motivation for posting here and on other Christain or religious sites is to do my bit to ensure a counterview is present to try and prevent others from buying in to the delusion.

So I am not attacking a Christian's faith I am attacking the faith of Christianity. And yes it is important because there is a group of people out there, the Christian Right, who are using this faith as a basis to buy into the secular political process. It is they who have made your faith a legitimate political target.

If Christians and other religious groups simply went to church on Sunday then there would be no problem. I can see how some individuals actually get a great deal of joy in living a deluded life. But when these people, particularly Christians and Moslems, attempt to have their infantile beliefs thrust upon the rest of society then its time for people to take a stand.

Thanks Shanno, that's pretty clear. I think I understand how you feel about the Xian Right and aggressive evangelism: many Xians like me feel the same, except we also feel embarrassed by our troubled and conspicuous siblings. Then, we find that we are collateral damage when critics like you attack all of us. Why not critique their behaviour? Xians like me critique the Xian Right all the time: there is a constant debate. EG Tim Costello taking a shot at Hillsong. We do this as a necessary matter of house-cleaning (frankly, we do it for Jesus' sake). Then, having failed to watch our back, we get a rocket from behind from people outside bombarding all of us indiscriminately. Ah, c'est la guerre!

I know you think we're deluded. If you're an atheist, you have to think this, don't you? But why bother saying so? It just insults and irritates. Naturally, I don't see myself as deluded at all. Even if I were, telling me so, without reasons I am able to address, doesn't enlighten me. And repetition makes no difference.

Why do we have to agree with you?

Pax,

Shanno - my thoughts exactly and I would add that our christian citizens need to understand that if they stand in judgement of other religions and cultures, then they will be judged.

good thief, the list of cross's you have to carry, almost reduced me to tears; indeed the lamb like bleeting of your troubles had the all the consistency of the spiritual syrup served up at a Hillview singalong. Another bleeting paranoid christian clown; you and others like you, remind me that the universal designer does have a sense of humor.

I'm a bit disappointd with your fellow christian clowns; they don't adhere to the business of turning the other cheek - could you talk to them about that? Otherwise you are most welcome to join the orchestra of bleeting sheep.

Goodthief, that was a really neat response and I thank you for it but lets try to make things even clearer…

You say that you don't approve of the Xtian Right - but the problem you need to understand is that the Xtian right are using your belief to try to push through their agenda. In other words you are a part owner of their weapon of mass destruction. How do I attack their weaponry without hurting you? Frankly the problem is all yours. The fact that you have failed to bring your brethren into line is sad but let's face it you've had a couple of thousand years to get your house in order.

I do have an idea however - why don't you get all your moderate Xtian colleagues to put out, say, a 'Put Family First last' leaflet at the next Federal election. That'll certainly get people like me thinking maybe we got you wrong.

Of course you won't so I'm afraid you're going to have to put up with our attacks. But at least our attacks are only words unlike… well I'm sure I don't need to fill in the gaps.

To Shanno and Netab. This thread is taking an interesting turn here.

What “is” the ‘Christian Right’ ?
Any Christianity affiliated person standing for political office in a democracy ?
Do you blokes have any problem with people saying “Here I am, I am a Christian, I stand for this and that value, I offer myself as a candidate for this election, to represent you in our government and to seek to advance these values (list provided)”

When a secular person, or an atheist or a Green stands for office, are you suggesting they are not standing for specific values which might be just as abhorrent to Christians (or Muslims or Hindus) as ‘Christian’ values are to themselves ?

There always seems to be a very one sided spin on this ‘Christians in politics’ thing. If ur Christian, then you are ‘IMPOSING’ your religion on others. If you are ‘athestis’ you are ‘representing freedom and liberty’ ? :) come come.. none of us were born yesterday, nor were we behind the bushes when brains were handed out. We can spot a croc a mile off.

If Christians were saying “The Law of Moses MUST be our basis of law and we intend to enforce it LIKE IT OR NOT” then... I would agree you have legitimate grounds for serious protest. This is the approach taken by Abu Izzadeen the radical sheikh in the UK (recently arrested) who said “Islam is going to take over UK whether you like it or not”.

My response to Mamdu Habib standing as an independant and Hilali’s rants about forming a “Muslim” party is to ramp up my own activism and counter this with solid argument in as many forums as I can.(along with public physical protest presence) Ur welcome to join me at the ‘Islamic Information and Support Centre in 19 Michael Street Brunswick and we can both cry out against ‘religious intolerance’ :) (better wear your protective cup though, never know what might happen) Then we can goto TradesHall and cry out against corruption and greed in the Union movement. (protective vest,headgear&SelfDefense_training supplied:)

David,
You remain a disappointment, despite my efforts to correct your ways and lead you to revelation. However, your bleeting indicates to me that you do have a desire for public forum martyrdom whereas, the latest lambs to join the flock, have a bleeting noise that sounds like a neoconservative line dance on a floor of nails. They hold forth with a syrupy sense of their own righteousness with little bleets of reason to support their ridiculous rhetoric - David, they need to be reminded that they are here to suffer for their faith and the pagan congregeration is getting bored with its lack of divine work.

You know exactly where I come from and I'm not wasting my time or yours reiterating it for the fourth time on this thread!

As for the relationship between me and others on this thread who are critical of the bleeting noises coming from the neoconservative, righteous religious right flock; I wouldn't have a clue who they are except that we share a concern about the intolerance being preached and translated into the political arena and ultimately effecting our lives. This US evangelistic drivel that seeks to introduce its dark age theories of universal design into schools and uses fear to mesmerise its adherents, will not be coming here and i think quite a few on this thread share this determination.

Shanno: Okay, I asked, you said No, so that's done and I'll expect the occasional rocket.

However, I still don't see the point of accusing the Xians, or theists generally I suppose, of being deluded. Especially if you don't take the trouble to establish that they're deluded. It's just name-calling, isn't it? For Forum, read Creche. Anyway, it's your rage, and I suppose you'll direct it where you will.

I agree with Boaz - as it is not convenient for me to rip into his arguments just now :). A democracy under the control of a particular group - in this case, people like yourself Shanno if you are an identifiable group - who determine who can and can't participate is a strange democracy to recommend. I know democracies are actually like that, but to recommend it is strange - especially when the people you propose to exclude are a part of the discussion. Or, perhaps it's to your credit that you're not very good at megalomania.

Did I hear the bleet of the latest offering for the pagan festival - indeed it is; its goodthief himself. You have my view of your contribution to this forum and your place in its virtual reality. Lets extend your profile a little.

Firstly in keeping with the thread, lets look at little goodthief in his chosen user name. If you look to the thread, you will find a argument that the myth of a good thief is under doubt for historical reasons. Now, I realise in the mealy mouthed rubbish that they pump out of Hillview that reasonable doubt is beyond comprehension but there are some of us oldies that believe in the old sciences of philosophy, history and politics.

But I diverge; what does this paradox of a user name mean about the personality behind it. Well, our bleeting lamb is goodthief, who has offered himself up in this public arena beside his lord to endure his pain (that will be an absolute pleasure in your case) and provide solace to the lord and master at the end. My heart bleeds.

'I agree with BOAZ - as it is not convenient for me to rip into his arguments just now' Strangely enough I respect BOAZ, he is a battler like me who has developed his views from life's experience. But a pimply little nationalist youth leader, contemporary christian style; starts to stretch my sense of humor.

Your slimey reference to sub culture and general pomposity, is going to make you a very tasty bit of lamb indeed!

Boaz: The line that has offended Netab on your behalf was a throw back, and across, to the welcome which you extended to me on 22 April at 6:32:39pm on "Why Hilali must go, and go now". I remain grateful for the welcome.

This item is a great example of people reading something that is not there. Where did Hicks come from? Not from the author. Just imaginations of some.

Sharkfin displays a level of knowledge not claimed before, anywhere, anytime. His statement re Jewish priests, I must ask how the clergy of other religions survive? Exactly yhe same way Sharky.

Aqvarivs, the word of God would have been written by..... God. The Bible wasn't. It wasn't even written within a hundred years of Jesus's life. Not that he died when the Bible says anyway.

If the Bible is the gospel truth Aqva, where is the rest of the Earth's history? Oh, sorry, it just appeared 2000 years ago, right?

Gospel truth? Give us a break Aq. No man ever writes the truth about anything poitical and Jesus was certainly a political problem. You certainly don't and neither do I. Why? Because we don't know the truth of course.