Last night, I viewed a dvd "The Pledge" staring Jack Nicholson as a retired Detective.

It was a wonderfully crafted story with an edgy plot and masterfully woven together to bring us to the edge of our recliners, gasping for breath.

And that's the good news.

THE PLOT. A serial killer, viciously rapes and brutally murders young girls of approximately 9 yrs of age. They all have red dresses and blonde hair. The killer lures them with f'ship and chocolate, and once isolated, he goes his grisly work.

SUB PLOT. It is also a beautiful but eventually tragic love story of the most sensitive kind. (Nicholson and a single mother)

THE VILLAIN. At first, we are led to think the villain is an Indian man with an intellectual disability. He confesses to the crime, but after confessing, grabs the policemans gun and committs suicide.
Case Closed..... or is it?

Jack Nicholson, who has taken in an abused single mother with an 8 yr old blonde daughter, is convinced that the Indian was not the perpetrator. He does some research and it become very clear that he is right. Other girls in different areas (not too far away) have also been murdered and raped and the pattern is evident.

His investigations reveal that the last girl murdered did a drawing of the perpetrator the 'Porcupine man, a giant' who drives a black car. The focus ends up on a whacky religious weirdo, who is portrayed as a 'fundamentalist Christian' who used 'Jesus' as a means of disarming the childrens defenses. He invites Nicholsons partners daughter to 'Church'.. Nicholson finds out, races to the Church, gun in hand only to find all is well.

Then.. we see the 'preacher' approaching the girl and talking about 'Jesus' to her..... as he arranges to meet her alone at a picnic spot.
The events are so chilling, and horrific that the connection between 'Those who mention Jesus' and.. 'serial rapist killer' is strongly made.

Does this kind of repeated message have an impact on how people who speak about Jesus are pereceived? I think so.

Boazy, it's unlikely that you will change that kind of portrayal. You can possibly make a difference a bit closer to home.

- Start with your own double standards of your attacks on other belief systems whilst ignoring similarities to your own. Planks and specks. Old territory for us and I've said enough on this in the past as have others.
- Be a bit more willing to challenge the way out there posts from some of your fellow christain posters on this site. Gibo's posts spring to mind as a starting point where you could make it clear that not all believers are that far out there. If you think that movie was bad imagine what Gibo's flying saucers do for the image of christianity. Plenty of other material being posted here by people claiming to be christains which makes your faith look extremist and founded in fantasy.

R0bert

The similarities with clowns are astounding. Nobody likes clowns much anymore and it looks like Stephen King has a hand in it even though it's not really his fault.

I think R0bert said it pretty well.

We hear so many calls for moderate muslims to differentiate themselves from extremists, which is fair enough.

Regrettably, I think too many religions focus on the power they have as a united front, instead of rejecting the uglier aspects of some of their followers - lets face it, any major world religion is going to have some bad eggs. That's just the nature of man.

Gibo's commentary about the evils of Harry Potter and the existence of demons and flying saucers make it all too easy to realise there are christians out there with views that are not only backward, but unsettling.

Hi there team.

Well.. on Gibo... he is indeed colorful, but nothing I'd worry too much about. I don't agree with some of his takes on some things, but I sense his heart is sincere.

IF....he was advocating we take up arms... start bashing Homosexuals.. Muslims.. etc.. I would surely take him to task.

This film by the way.. I didn't regard it as a bad movie.. as movies go it is exceptionally well made. The sting though is in the continued and ongoing portrayal of "Jesus" people as freakish, child killers.

I mean..I've claimed a lot of things about Mohammad, but serial child killer is not one of them. It can be argued on the basis of substantiatable evidence that he did kill a TRUCKload of people... no one denies that.. not even you blokes I'm guessing, but the point of departure is this.....

I say he had carnal and very human motives, yet you blokes just say I'm 'whacking mozzies'. All I've ever asked is that you actually look at and evaluate the available evidence, and that from universally recognized sources. (The Quran) You can (as F.H. does) dispute the validity of the hadith, but the problem there is that they are in fact the basis of much Islamic law.

The thing is... I'm not aware of any basis for criticizing Jesus, in any remote way that the Christians are accused, abused, and portrayed in such horrific ways, such as this movie.

Does anyone (like say Bugsy for example) ever ask "Am I so anti-Christian because of this oft repeated image"....

One of these days, I hope Bugsy, Ginx and others actually take the time to carefully explore the life and words of Jesus, and try to forget all these negative stereotypes built up over a long period of time.
CJ actually seems to regard Jesus as 'ok'.. which makes me wonder why he does not seek a more meaningful connection.

There have been plenty of films with similar themes of homicidal religious fanatacism (Kevin Spacey in "Seven" for example) because this is probably what drives a lot of serial killers and where many get their misguided personal justification.

Although Hollywood in particular is responsible for a lot of religious myths, such as Christians being fed to the lions in the Colosseum and tales of early mass persecution and martyrdom I don't think this one is part of a trend.

Historically the film villains have always been contemporary with political propaganda - the Germans, the Japanese, the Communists, the Chinese, the South Africans (during the apartheid era) and the Muslims.

When it's not an international setting then local groups can be targetted - Mafia (Italian and Russian), Triads, Gangstas and so on.

When hostilities cease with one group, former enemies somehow become the hero's loyal sidekick and they join forces to fight the new foe.

Then of course there are the deliberately religious films, from as the Charlton Heston epics to the "Name of the Rose" Spanish Inquisition type of dramas. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a blatant retelling of the Jesus story.

I'm guessing that this is more a psychological thriller than a deliberate propaganda piece or part of a trend. I wouldn't be too concerned - it's all "just pretend" anyway. Entertainment for some, history for others.

By the way, that giant spider in "Lord of the Rings" was not real.

boaz, I suppose the reason why modern christianity has been successful is largely because of its tolerance (even those to some, that is becoming an ugly word) and the fact that it has allowed free speech over dogmatic religious rule.

I suppose the chief thing that concerns me in comments such as those by Gibo, is that he finds something like Harry Potter evil, and said that were he able to make the choice, he thinks it should be banned for promoting witchcraft.

I'm getting at issues related to free speech, and there's a key difference here to usual Christian rhetoric.

Take another related issue - pornography. Even though I disagree with christians who are pushing to have this banned, I can see that some of them are making their stand from a societal standpoint. They feel that pornography degrades women, harms the family unit and leads to a breakdown in society. At least, however tenuous I may feel it is, there is a basis for what they are saying, which can be argued, is not simply derived from dogma.

On the other hand, this dislike of witchcraft and Harry Potter is nothing less than one faith wanting to prevent people from looking at or being exposed to another belief set, because they regard it as evil.

Yes, it seems nonsensical, but this opposition is based wholly and solely around a dogmatic vision - in vision, it is not far from the Islamic extremists who regard other religions as infidels.
Of course this is a far lighter example, but it's still extremism and intolerance.
I guess I can understand some of the anti-muslim sentiment insofar as it's a reaction against the hyperactive intolerance displayed by the extremists of that faith, however I don't accept that we should retreat into similarly intolerant attitudes as a consequence, we just need to make it clear that people are welcome to practice whatever beliefs they wish, but the moment they start attempting to clamp down on others they've crossed the line. It's pretty simple really.

Boazy: "CJ actually seems to regard Jesus as 'ok'.. which makes me wonder why he does not seek a more meaningful connection."

Easy Boazy - I'm a bit like Gandhi (at least with respect to Christianity):

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.' - Mohandas Gandhi :)

I've seen 'The Pledge' - it's an excellent film. But then I'm also a fan of Jack N. The film to me was a thriller - I didn't see any hidden message in it about religion. But I suppose it's all in the eyes of the viewer.

In countries where one faith is dominant, the minority often feels intimidated. Those many societies who are inclined toward a more secular outlook or who practice a minority faith may worry that the moral views of the religious majority will be imposed upon them. And, in the U.S. many fear that the constitutional barrier between church and state is breaking down. Perhaps that's what the director wanted to depict - beware of religious fanatics...
Ex-US President, Bill Clinton said that the question comes down to whether we are willing to admit that we are not in possession of the whole truth, That is, he said, "The whole shooting match, the whole shebang." It is OK he added to say you believe your religion is true, even truer than other faiths, but not that you are in possession in this life of a hundred percent of truth.
Therefore if you accept that you may not know everything, it is harder to feel any kind of joy in hurting others. I guarantee that those who burn down mosques or destroy sacred places do not think they know only in part. Everbody should fess up - we don't know it all.We'd be better off with an honest dialogue about our differences.

Damn well said Foxy.

BD, I dont see this sort of film as being a set against Christians in particular, just a warning that there are wacko's of every persuasion out there. There may also be a subtle message that for most of us there are more dangerous things closer to home than terrorists. And that's a good kind of message to remember now and then.

CJ, I hadnt heard Gandhi's quote before, but I like.

Its a pity people like Gandhi rejected the free gift of salvation because of what he saw and perceived in others. If he could of seen the depravity in his own heart as well as others he would of run to the only One who could of cleansed him.

wobbles,
"The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Fifties sci-fi is Jesus? Please explain.

Concise Macquarie Dictionary: "depraved. adj.
corrupt or perverted, esp. morally wicked"

Yup, Gandhi was a truly depraved human being.

What a warped worldview you have, runner.

Rache - some fairly obvious points are -

Stranger comes down to Earth.
Peacefully walks among us, demonstrates his superior wisdom (to a scientist).
Performs a significant miracle.
Dies.
Comes back to life.
Returns (back up) to where he came from - but not before he delivers a judgement and a warning to all mankind. (Change your ways or suffer the consequences).

Not enough?
And what was the name he randomly chose for himself while here?

Carpenter!

Cheers.

the ghost and the god is created by the aliens

The follow is some achievements I have achieved:
1, established the theory of “the ghost and the god is created by
the aliens ", I think the ghost and the god like the god,ghost and
the Buddha is made by a height flourishing civilization,they
made this kind of virtual person’s society in the Earth.So Man
can’t see this ghost’s society include the God.
2, established the scientific dialectics , negated the former of
Materialism and Mentalism of human being , correct many
blemishs of the old dialectics , established scientific
Philosophy,correct all weakness of the old philosophy.
3, established the theories of Great Harmony’s Political system,
promote the spirit of the Great Harmony of human being, found
the greatest humanistic and scientific ‘s regime system in the
whole human being ‘s history.
4, I have made a specially important creative achievements on
the medical science, negating the pseudoscience that persecute
the human being so long time, the modern psychiatry is a
pseudoscience , this creating a happiness life for the whole
world.
5, launched "the new culture movement",this is the most
influential and a global movement of Revival of Learning in the
human being’s history, this is the first renaissance in human
being’s history that could be developed in the whole world.
My email: worldoyj@tom.com worldoyj@163.com

INTERESTING INSIGHTS HERE...(thanx)

TRTL said:

>>At least, however tenuous I may feel it is, there is a basis for what they are saying, which can be argued, is not simply derived from dogma.<<

Actually, TRTL, may I draw your attention to the preaching of John the Baptist ? I hope you will take a moment to explore this, and you will clearly see mate.. that the 'impact' of the Gospel, was to address very real social issues, even though this was not it's primary direct purpose. The premise behind the Gospel is 'New men=New society' but the foundation for that newness in the heart is simply that we be reconciled with God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=3&version=31

FOXY said:

>>"And, in the U.S. many fear that the constitutional barrier between church and state is breaking down. Perhaps that's what the director wanted to depict - beware of religious fanatics..."<<

Actually mate.. if you look closely at the history of the US since the 50s, you would notice that the natural and historical closeness of State and Church/faith is what has been eroded systematically since that time.
At one time, prayer in schools was 'the norm' and no one saw it as a clash between 'Church and State' it was just plain 'normal'.
So, I find your comment most interesting, as it reflects a new 'normal' as you see it, presumably a generational thing ? :)

CG said:
>>I dont see this sort of film as being a set against Christians in particular, just a warning that there are wacko's of every persuasion out there.<<

True indeed CG, but I confess to having a vested interest in preferring to see the 'wicked witch' type of bad guy :) in this case, it was a direct parallel, but the evil was connected to Christ.
The children were lured with 'cute gifts, and sweet chocolates'... sounds like Hansel and Gretel who were lured and 'fattened up' by the witch who wanted to eat them.

I didn't see it as a direct onslaught against Chritianity either, it was just the para message/outcome from the structure of the plot.

Dear BD,

In the discussions that I have had with American friends and colleagues, I have solicited thoughts about the impact of religion on current events. Their concerns are - how can we best manage events in a world in which there are many religions, with belief systems that flatly contradict one another at key points? How do we deal with the threat posed by extremists who, acting in the name of God, try to impose their will on others? We know that the nature of this test extends back to pagan times and is therefore nothing new; what is new is the extent of damage violence can inflict. This is where technology has truly made a difference. A religious war fought with swords, chain mail, catapults, and battering rams is one thing. The prospect of a nuclear bomb detonated by terrorists in purported service to a Higher Power is a nightmare that may one day come true.

The US President says that "Liberty is a gift to everybody.' What people in the States are concerned with is the implication that The President feels that God appointed America to deliver that gift. They feel that it is a mistake to mix religion and foreign policy.

Boaz, the ultimate point of that post was that in attacking Harry Potter and witchcraft, gibo's having a go at free speech based not on safety or cultural considerations, but a simple "my religion's better than yours."

Regardless of whether the bible has bits about social justice is a moot point in this debate - it only underlines CJ's point about the gulf between Christ's inspiration and what is has created.

And runner: "Its a pity people like Gandhi rejected the free gift of salvation because of what he saw and perceived in others. If he could of seen the depravity in his own heart as well as others he would of run to the only One who could of cleansed him."

Now you're having a go at Gandhi?

To that I say:

"It's a pity people like runner rejected the free gift of peace and understanding of other peoples, because of what he saw and perceived in others. If he could have seen the depravity in his own heart as well as others, he would have run to the likes of Gandhi as one who understood kindness and peace above dogma."

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Gandhi was an inspirational human being who stood up against oppression but never used violence.
Now simply because he doesn't choose your Christian fundamentalism, you're saying there's depravity in his heart. That is truly disgusting, and that post was a fine example of the judgemental side of christianity that is so different to Christ, as CJ pointed out via Gandhi's words. This is what turns people away, and this is what truly gives Christianity an image problem.

Well said, Turnrightthenleft

Boaz, I don't really get what you are whingeing about yet again; Christianity through the likes of our pollies and many others achieves a very high profile and positive spin here. I seem to recall some fundy mozzies who got all rank about a cartoon ... once again you have sunk to the same level as those you love to diss.

Perhaps you could just be a bit thankful for a change and be aware of the fact that a nation that accepts many diverse people, films, books and opinions also tolerates you.

Hi JR
well.. I'm not exactly 'whinging'-I'm raising what I believe to be an important issue.

When it comes to Christianity, and as TRTL pointed out the 'Inspiration' of Christ.. has turned into something else, but hasten to add "in some cases and some places at some times"

I truely hope it will be recognized that at the most fundamental level, ie. the source material, (Gospels, New Testament) it is difficult to fault the Lord Jesus. I mean.. in terms of violence to achieve his 'political' goals. In fact.. what should also be abundantly apparent is the ABSENSE of political goals in the Gospels.

Jesus did not seek to overthrow Caesar.."give to Caesar that which is his".. he did not join the 'Zealot/insurgent/anti Rome' movement...but in stead took "Simon the insurgent" into his close group of trainees/Disciples.
Jesus never disputed Matthew's position as 'Tax Collector' but following on from John the Baptist would urge "collect only what you are mean't to".

So.. rather than see my topic as 'whinging' I'd rather you all see it as raising awareness of why the image of "Christians" and attitudes to the Church have deteriorated so much. No question about the 'sexual abuse' contributing greatly to this. The problem I guess is that I would be on the rough end of the intolerance stick should this image of Christians be continually promoted (as in the movie)

If someone says "Christians are very stubborn, intolerant of other faiths, believe they have the only truth from God"..I can accept this, because it is definitely our belief. I don't mind getting a bit of stick for that.

I just don't want 'stick' for things which are simply media generated.

Boazy says - "it is difficult to fault the Lord Jesus. I mean.. in terms of violence to achieve is 'political' goals"

Correct if you are willing to ignore that christain fundy's tend to believe that Jesus was one and the same with dear old dad who quite clearly was not adverse to the odd spot of violence.

So if you think that Jesus was just a man then then he appears to have been a good one and hard to fault, if he was one with his dad then it's easy to associate him with extreme levels of violence. Past and apparently future if those revelations are to be believed.

Robert

Yeah, but boaz, what say you to things like runner's claim that there was depravity in Gandhi's heart?

I realise that it's most likely runner is making the point that there is evil in all men's hearts.

I know the christian cure is to 'allow christ' in there, but quite frankly, all too often that seems to be permission to talk the talk, without walking the walk.

Where is the respect for the people who don't need to talk the talk of christ, and instead walk the walk - such as Gandhi?

I'll give runner the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant that Gandhi was an example of man and all men have depravity in their hearts, but to be honest, the tone of a post such as that, comes across as being that Gandhi was flawed simply because he wasn't a christian. I wouldn't like to believe that he honestly thought Gandhi was any less decent because he simply wasn't signed up to your club.

Quite frankly, any god that regards the label as more important than the contents would have a difficult time convincing me to sign up..

To the rest of us boaz, a comment with the tone of runner's stinks to high heaven, because there's millions of christians out there who have theoretically let christ into their hearts, but their actions couldn't hold a candle to somebody like Gandhi.

The whole world could turn christian but seeing the way many christians behave, it would still be a violent place. If everyone behaved like Gandhi did it sure wouldn't be.

Far too many christians, if not the majority then certainly a significant fraction, of christians act as if simply being a christian is some kind of get out of jail (or hell for that matter) free card. Worse still, some allow themselves to think that this makes them better than other people.

Which is so far from the christ described in the bible it's sickening - and that, boaz, is what gives the faith an image problem.

TRTL.... on Ghandi.. you might like to do some research :)

'slept with little girls' (ostensibly to 'test' himself in close proximity to temptation)

'was a racist' regarded blacks as inferior or something.

But that aside.. whether true, untrue, or partly true... yes, he was 'depraved' in the Biblical sense..just like Mother Theresa..and me, and you.

We attach a rather strong meaning to 'depraved' in our vocab, but all it means is that we are self centred.. away from God...and following the ways of this world by and large.
Perhaps a better term for one as high profile and peace loving as Ghandi might be simply 'fallen' as part of fallen human nature as a whole.

There is not a lot to be gained by comparing the goodness or works of mankind... sure we can learn from them...so in that sense its good, but the Biblical view is that we are (except for God's forgiving grace in Christ) alienated and fallen.

ROBERT... I totally see your meaning and reasoning there.
Perhaps there is another way of looking at this.

1/ Jesus and the Father are 'one'.
2/ The Father destroyed multitudes in the Old Testament and will at Judgement day.
3/ Thus, Jesus himself was and will be the 'destroyer'.

It all follows logically.

I guess the biggest question here is "Why did God change track in His dealings with Humanity in Jesus?" Why did Jesus not destroy the enemies of God in the same way?

And...of course my totally satisfying answer is.... :) No..I don't have one.
I can argue, as others do that in the OT God was not destroying 'people' as much as 'evil'.. judging sin, which raises the question of why He then altered course in Jesus "I came not to judge the world, but to save it"

Maybe... the incidents in the OT are in fact part of the same process?
After all..God did not destroy ALL evil.. ALL sinners. He was very specific. Nor did He command Israel to go and wipe out all nations which did not embrace the covenant

Maybe God just has multiple personality disorder. Or Bipolar.

boaz, I think you'll find those sordid claims about Gandhi come from less than reputable sources.

And your comment: "There is not a lot to be gained by comparing the goodness or works of mankind... sure we can learn from them...so in that sense its good, but the Biblical view is that we are (except for God's forgiving grace in Christ) alienated and fallen."

Is at the very core of the problem with Christianity. There is everything to be gained from comparing the goodness and works of mankind. This is what I meant when I said the contents were infinitely more important than the label.

Why waste time categorising yourself into a religion, when the priority of any remotely worthwhile god would be for you to 'walk the walk' as I mentioned earlier.

Answer me this simple question - which is the higher priority:

a) making yourself a good person who cares for others and attempts to improve the world.

b) becoming a christian.

I realise you can do both. I realise you believe both are important. I realise that you believe it's important to become one with christ or whatever the terminology is. I've heard all these various justifications before, but instead of contortionist responses or lines of scripture, I'd like a simple a) or b) from the question above.

Because I am, and will always be, of the opinion that comparing the goodness and works of mankind is far, far more important than seeking some ephemeral belief set. In fact, I think to do otherwise is shirking our responsibility to our fellow man, and yes, I believe that responsibility is far greater than to any god, and if there is a god out there, I can't believe it would think any differently.

Boazy wonders why Christianity is depicted negatively in some contemporary media. Then he and his even more deranged Christian cohort, runner, go on to try and impugn the character of one of the world's most universally respected figures of the last century, presumably because Gandhi wasn't a Christian.

True to his usual form, Boazy engages in innuendo about old men and "little girls". Is there anybody of whom Boazy disapproves who doesn't get tarred with his 'paedophile' brush?

The answer is quite simple, really. A major reason that Christianity is portrayed as the wellspring of deranged psychopathology in films etc is that there are more than a few Christians of a similar mould to the Boazys and runners of the world.

Complete and utter frootloops with nasty obsessions about sex. An awful look for a religion, but grist for the mill in popular culture.

Keep up the good work, Boazy and runner :)

CJ's last post perfectly illustrates the very point I've been making.

Notice how he uses this terminology to describe myself and runner...

DERANGED. fortunately I guess, I am the lesser deranged of the two :)
Thanx for that heads up CJ. I suppose 'less deranged' is better than fully deranged. hmmmmmm

So.. such terminology adds to the total impact of image.

TRTL here is something of Ghandi and his ways. (not 'my' words)

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082003/king_and_gandhi.htm

>>Gandhi was a very cunning man. He was not satisfied with the title of "apostle of peace", he also wanted to project himself as a holy man, which for a Hindu required the practice of celibacy. He was a married man and proclaimed to be celibate at a relatively young age under forty. However, he used to test his celibacy by asking young girls to lie over him to find out whether he was in full control of his sexual feelings. I leave up to psychologists and psychiatrists to analyze what was in Gandhi’s mind and what happened to the emotions of those poor girls! He was always surrounded by women.<<

Questionable source ? or... just the voice of one who experienced the rougher end of the Ghandi stick and sees things rather differently.
He actually used the word 'depraved' about Ghandi.

But that aside, the condition of humanity does not depend on how accurately people portray one individual like Ghandi.

BIBLICAL POSITION. Humanity is alienated from God, estranged, cut-off. (apart from those who have repented, and placed their faith in Christ)
So... I cannot really enter into a discussion of the merits of 'human goodness' outside that framework.

C.G. you need a poke :) for being a bit mocking there. *poke*.
I urge you (and Robert) to spend some time contemplating Christs death for us, and his resurrection, and then... maybe seek to understand the other hard issues in terms of those events.
Remember, Jesus was not forced to the cross, he went willingly.

Fraid it's not a reliable source there boaz. Give me something with a little more substance, before you go impugning Gandhi, of all people.

You said:

"BIBLICAL POSITION. Humanity is alienated from God, estranged, cut-off. (apart from those who have repented, and placed their faith in Christ)
So... I cannot really enter into a discussion of the merits of 'human goodness' outside that framework."

And this is precisely the problem. This is what's known as a 'copout'.

A so much needed Christian forgiveness.

An interview with Hans Bigge on Sky News brought up the period over four years ago when as chief of the UN Hans fought to prevent the attack on Iraq which now rather than capturing Islamic hearts and minds in the name of democracy, has turned out a historical laughing stock with America openly but obviously tactfully turning to Saddam’s Baath Party Sunnis for help.

Apart from the way he was treated by people like Bush, Blair and Howard, Bligge was still surprisingly tender about it, saying that since WW2, we must look at nations such as Germany and Japan, when compared to before WW2, they have completely lost the thirst for conflict.

It was surprising that Hans should think that such a change in only two important nations should be a reason for a change for the better?

Right now, unfortunately, the conflicts are far different from those which were simply angers percolating from a previous war as Maynard Keynes stressed so much about with the rise of Nazi Germany, and with Japan backing Germany in the hope that a Nazi victory would also allow her as a self-expressed elitist nation to take over nations not so clever.

To be sure after the defeat of Germany and Japan in WW2, it was the message from a dying Maynard Keynes during the Bretton Woods Agreement that brought on the wonderful Marshall Plan, its message of forgiveness for former enemies which is so much needed in the Middle East right now.

Possibly the only example that has come in existence since has been Nelson Mandela’s forgiveness to the South African white supremos - though some say Pope John helped spread the message - and in many ways, the earlier victory for peace of Mahatma Gandhi over British India, and what is now Pakistan

Logically, our differences should not matter so much. People of diverse nations and faiths ought to be able to live in harmony. However, the gap between what ought to be and what actually is has been a recurring source of drama throughout human existence.

Social conflict is an inevitability in human history, probably to its very end. Good and wise people might seek to prevent catastrophe, but they would likely be no match for the fears and ambitions that drive groups into confrontation. The pursuit of peace will always be uphill.

Our inherent shortcomings notwithstanding, we can still hope to create a better future. And we know that the right kind of leadership can do much to prevent wars, rebuild devastated societies, expand freedom, and assist the poor. If God has a plan, it will be carried out. That's sheaven's jurisdiction, not ours. If, however, one believes that creation has given us both life and free will, we are left with the question of what to do with those gifts. That is both a practical challenge and a moral one.

ooops a typo. It should read, "That's heaven's jurisdiction, not ours." sorry.

I'm mocking you BD, not God, so go poke yourself :)

In all seriousness though, one of the problems that Christians face in explaining their faith, is the concept of the Holy trinity. How can a God that is so loving on one hand, be so destructive, nasty and petty (think of poor old Lot here) on the other. I havent had anyone been able to explain this to me with any clarity, apart from the usual copouts. I do consider myself Christian (although I fall far short of the standards set by Christ), but hold a lot of suspicion for any organised religion, and this is one of the concepts that I struggle with (as I can explain away a lot of the biblical nonsense by reference to the fact that the bible is merely man's understand of events, not necessarily the utter truth). The only thing I can think of in relation to the trinity concept, is that the new testament has had many exclusions and no doubt many embellishments over the last 2000-odd years, and that some aspects of the trinity nature have been exaggerated (perhaps to assert the authority of the Church), or maybe just plain not understood at the time, and therefore not accurately expressed.

TRTL

Thanks for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt. You were spot on when you interpreted my post 'he meant that Gandhi was an example of man and all men have depravity in their hearts'. If their was any other way for man to be forgiven than through Christ then He would not of needed to die the horrible death He did. A person believing and receiving Christ has the start of a long transformation process. Even Jesus apostles showed great signs of weakness arguing with each other and having doubts. Gandhi like every other human was in great need of forgiveness which could only be found in Christ.

Hi Country Gal,

I too am a hopeful Christian (RC - actually), but also an inadequate one, with doubts. I respect other religions because I think they are reaching for the same truth though from a different angle. Having admitted uncertainty, I can hardly say that fundamentalists must be wrong, but I am fairly sure they are not wholly right. Evangelicals accord scripture a high degree of authority; fundamentalists go beyond that to insist that every word in the Bible is literally true.
To believe that of the Bible or any other holy book is to assume too much about the ability of human narrators to rise above the subjective influences of their time and place.

The scriptures are full of politics. To me, that is why the core teachings, not the minutiae, carry the weight of what a religion is about. I am particularly impatient with those who, having cited a few quotations, conclude that women should not be allowed to lead in church or that homosexuality is an abomination to God - who, after all, created homosexuals. As a practical guide to moral life in ancient Israel, a book such as Leviticus may have served well enough; but a piece of writing that accepts slavery, authorizes the sale of one's daughter, prohibits the trimming of beards, and bans the wearing of garments made from two different kinds of thread is neither timeless nor flawless. Jesus was not a fundamentalist, either. He was condemned by Pharisees for working on the Sabbath, sharing meals with a tax collector, and coming to the aid of an adulteress. He broke cultural taboos by conversing with a woman he met at a well and by taking children seriously. He explicitly rejected the doctrine of 'an eye for an eye.'

Boazy: "CJ's last post perfectly illustrates the very point I've been making"

And what point is that, exactly?

I see that runner's explained his miserable position, which makes sense within his abject worldview, I suppose. However, Boazy persists in trying to besmirch one of the greatest men to have lived in the last century.

II think that it's creepy, sexually obsessed fundies like Boazy that are the source of the literary trope of the deranged Christian.

Hmmmm...interesting dialogue here :)

*ouch* good 1 CG.. but glad you are mocking 'me' rather than 'He' :)

Bushy... A few points.

1/ Most of what you said was wise. but... qualification needed.

a) Marshall plan.. they are trying day in day out to re-construct Iraq.. Al Qaeda and Iran are the problem, not the Iraqi people.
b) Mandela's forgiveness of 'white' surpemo's..... Well I was considering doing a new topic.. NEW APARTHIED IN STH AFRICA where the current victims are the colored. The peck order now is as follows:
i)Blacks
ii) Whites
iii) Colored.
Ask the drug gangs among the colored group why they are resorting to such means of survival? "aparthied" where now it is not the blacks but THEY who are left to scroung around the tip for survival. Forgotten by the blacks.. ignored by the whites.. they are the new 'victims' of a very real aparthied.

TRTL.. we can always discuss the human condition. No problem there. But what I cannot discuss very meaningfully is the idea of mankind pulling themselves up by their moral bootstraps to a point of acceptability before the Almighty. Sure there are some wonderful people around. But if you dig deep into their minds and hearts, like Ghandi, you will see that they are not universally praised. So, they are not perfect.

You question the critical source about Ghandi... and yes, I agree, that Sikh bloke is surely biased. But why? Because of how Ghandi's policies impacted HIS people. Of all those qualified to criticize Ghandi, say out of me, you, runner and that Sikh, I suggest he is the most qualified to express valid opinions.

But this is not a 'crucify Ghandi' exercise, so lets not 'run' down that path ok :)

CJ.... :) ur a terror arn't you. The...*point* was your use of very colorful adjectives of an extremely negative nature.

"Deranged"
"Sexually Obsessed"
"Miserable Position"
"Abject world view"

I was not trying to besmirch a great man, I was showing that Runner was not simply grabbing stuff our of the deep recesses of his head when he criticized Ghandi. There are many critics of Ghandi. So? show me a man, however great who does not have weakness or points to criticize. I've not said anything 'myself' about Ghandi, I showed what others much closer to his world say about him.....rightly or wrongly.

CG...back to you :)

2 major issues appear to trouble you about the Bible/God/Christianity.

1/ Trinity.
Let me try :) the approach I take is this.
a) The 'trinity' is a human doctrine. It is not mentioned in the Bible.
b) There are 2 verses which are often questioned in regard to the 'Church' having 'embellished' the source material.. only 2 that I know of. One has a strong case, the other does not. The questionable one is 1 John 5:8 (please read)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=5&version=31
see the footnote. "a".
The textual position is quite strong, in that any such modifications are actually KNOWN... and the more important issue is.. "how do they effect the final result"? Pretty much 'zero'.
My approach is NOT to begin with the doctrine of the Trinity. I begin with the Lord Jesus... if you simply put the 'Trinity' out of your head, and come to know the Lord from the Gospels, you will come across this "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" (John 14:1-13) and many similiar verses.
The Church constructed the doctrine, because of many heresies which arose, which defined Jesus as either "Only" man..or "Only" God.. when the true picture is "If you have seen me, you have seent he Father" ie... both. The best solution is to put down accumulated 'Church' or denominational baggage, and goto the source :

Boaz,

You said:
“The Church constructed the doctrine, because of many heresies which arose, which defined Jesus as either "Only" man..or "Only" God.. when the true picture is "If you have seen me, you have seent he Father" ie... both. The best solution is to put down accumulated 'Church' or denominational baggage, and goto the source”

A couple of questions:

- Are Jesus sayings to be taken literal or contextual? Doesn't the Bible also quote him saying: “you people have not seen or heard God” even though they were staring right at him.
- Muslims Holy book contains verses like “he who obeys the messenger, obeys God”. Why aren’t Muslims worshipping Mohammed? Similar quotes can be found in the Jewish books re their prophets but not Jewish person I know consider Abraham, Moses or David as anything more than prophets.

PS: pre Roman Catholicism (325, 381 AD), the followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be a mighty prophet. Why did you label all early Christians as ‘heretics’?

Care to clarify?

Peace,

"show me a man, however great who does not have weakness or points to criticize."

That could be a man who the only things we know about come from the words of his followers. Someone who's followers have held a lot of power for almost 2000 years and who are quite strident in their attacks on criticism of him.

Clearly we know the man was not universally popular in his time, he was executed with some form of public support. Not normally the mark of someone with no critics. The voice of his critics have been silenced by time and by the actions of those who will not hear criticism of one who must be considered blameless.

Boazy, if I spend some time comptemplating his death will you spend some time comptemplating the nature of a father who would set things up so that the only one who qualified was his son and who then required the death of his son to make things right. I won't take much time comptemplating his death as it's had plenty of my time in the past and there are countless others who have given their lives for others who I could also spend time thinking about.

R0bert

boaz, I'm not deifying people to the level of god or anything of that nature - what I'm getting at, is how belief can be regarded as more important than simple kindness.
This has enormous ramifications for issues like fundamentalist Islam and Christianity.

You often post about the dangers of extremist Islam - setting that aside for a moment, and focusing on the better aspects of the human condition, we see that there is another aspect of fundamentalism.

I asked you earlier - which is more important:

a) making yourself a good person who cares for others and attempts to improve the world.
b) becoming a christian.

In speaking of this fundamentalism I'm not equating extremist christianity to extremist Islam as many relativists have done.
I realise that on the violence side of the equation, these days at least, Christians are less fanatical.

On the good side however, I see a distressing belief that being a christian is in some way, just as important as being a good person. This has extensive ramifications for relations between faiths.

Which is why I ask - to you boaz, would you have more respect for somebody who honestly let christ into their heart, but lived a simple existence looking after his family, or alternatively, a secularist who lived among the sick and wounded, and spent his life healing them.
Which would be the higher priority, and which is more highly regarded under your god?

You began this thread to discuss the image problems with christianity - this issue, far more than any movie, weighs on the minds of those outside the faith.

I know you probably have a variety of biblical tracts you can pull on, but to be honest, when you seek to engage with someone, this is offputting - I'm trying to discuss this with you, a believer, not the bible.
Have you ever rung up an insurance company or transport service and instead of a person, you've had to deal with a machine as an automated response?
This is what the bible tracts are like for the rest of us.

Golly... all of the last 3 posts deserve a 2500 word essay to respond :)

But.. the 'torah' here says 350 only.. so I will abide.

FH. you said "The early Christians" aaaah my friend.. you need to pay close attention to 2 things:
1/ Your own sources for this view.
2/ The real story :)

The point you made well was.. "There are apparently divergent verses describing Jesus in the Gospels" and this is where the doctrine came from. Apparently, there were those who could not accept that there was 'more' to the Lord's real nature than their perceptions and predispositions would allow. Hence, they latched onto one set of verse, OR...the other..and ran with them.
Refer Wiki on 'Nicene Creed, Athanasian creed, apostles creed, early Christian documents, Church councils of the early church for some info.

TRTL.. *bingo* :) you absolutely hit the nail on the head. But please forgive me.. I just HAVE to use scripture to support your case.

That is exactly the issue which Jesus encountered, and it is a pivotal issue in the nature of faith.

'Is it more important to be a good person'...OR.. 'to accept Christ'.

The pharisees had the view that it was more important to hold to their traditions, than look after their parents. Jesus attacked this without mercy.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=15&version=31

Please take the time (1 minute) to read those first few verses. You and the Lord are on the same page.

It can never be a 'which is MORE important' question. One relates to the human realm alone, and the other both the human and eternal.

Eternally.. the most important thing is to repent..and place our faith in Christ. This then... MUST translate into acts of kindness and compassion as per James "if a brother is hungry and cold and I say 'be warmed and filled' withouth meeting his need, is my faith of any value?"

Its so very very clear TRTL.. that the Bible is very much 'pro' what you are saying, but it also recognizes the human condition of sin from which we must be saved.

Boazy started this thread with the question "Does this kind of repeated message have an impact on how people who speak about Jesus are pereceived? I think so."

I think it's the kind of repeated message that we hear ad nauseum from Boazy and a few other Christian frootloops that gives rise to the common literary trope of the deranged 'Christian' psychopath. It's certainly not normal Christians like CG or Foxy who are the model for this kind of character.

Boazy objects to my description of the outlandish practices of the lunatic fringe of Christianity upon whom the literary figure is based. I find it odd that he asked the question, but doesn't seem to want to know about the answer.

The hate of Christ and what He stands for is nothing new. It is obvious from these posts that several of the posters create a god in their own image. Much of the media and especially Hollywood have been anti Christ for a long time. They are happy to blaspheme Him on a daily basis and yet to gutless to reproduce a cartoon featuring Mohammed. They ignore the biblical revealed Jesus and make up their own new age type character who tolerates the intolerable. Often it is those practicing the intolerable who rail so hard against Jesus words. Jesus Himself did not leave us the option to include Him with equal standing with other religous identities. Many are happy to have Him as some great peace philosopher but not acknowledge Him as the Coming Judge. There is no other name under heaven where man can be saved (from God's wrath) than the wonderful name of Jesus.

no runner, it's more that your 'fire and brimstone' Jesus doesn't sound at all like the guy in the bible.
I like that guy.

Unlike the modern rigid christians, he was happy to sit down and have a yarn with folk like prostitutes and lepers.
That's not some namby, pampy new-age interpretation either.

Though, perhaps we can all see a reflection of ourselves in how we interpret what jesus was like.

runner, may I ask, when was the last time you had a nice, down to earth discussion with a prostitute?

Funnily enough, I doubt you'd be capable of doing it without casting judgement or aspersions. Your posts indicate that you're quite good at that.

And boaz - I find it interesting that you can say that god values those who who do good, but you can't prioritise whether it's more important to be a good person or a christian.

All too often, they're not the same. Attitudes that favour judging people from the pulpit instead of reaching out to help people don't help either...

TurnRightThenLeft,

I have not sat down and had a conversation with a prostitute although I have had many conversations with people caught up in any number of vices. You implying I have no compassion for these guys is totally wrong. I realize that I need the mercy of God as much as any prostitute or druggie. Thankfully that mercy was provided for by my Savior and is provided to anyone else who makes Jesus their Saviour also. Jesus made it clear that the prostitutes were entering the kingdom ahead of the self righteous because they knew their need of a Saviour unlike many of the self righteous ones who think they will get to heaven by their good works or by comparing themselves with others. Peoples judgement will be based on the fact that the Light (Jesus came) but men loved their darkness more than the Light lest their deeds be exposed. You would probably be surprised at some of the friendships I have. It does not mean I condone all behaviour.

Religious doctrines if followed blindly and without regard to other teachings, are written in blood. History has left little emotional padding between and among the major religions. It doesn't take much to lead groups of people with extreme views to believe that their faith is under attack and that their duty is to defend it by every available means.

I find it troublesome that some people construct a dogma out of a few quotations - that's misleading. As I wrote in another post - A reader trolling the scriptures for language sanctifying intolerance (and war) will find it whether the texts are sacred to Christians, Muslims, or Jews.

However, to be understood fairly, each of the holy books must be read and studied both comprehensively and in the context of its place and time.

That is why generations of scholars have laboured to highlight core passages, explain contradictions, clear away discrepancies, correct mistranslations, and detect the significance of obscure phrasings.

No CJ... I don't object to you describing a lunatic fringe of so called Christians.. what I struggle a tad with is you identifying ME (and runner) with that lunatic fringe.

TRTL yes, Jesus did encounter prostitutes and Tax collectors and publicans and all manner of people in his ministry.

Taking the example of the woman at the well. It's quite instructive.

1/ He showed her 'acceptance' (not for her sin, but for humanity)

7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?"

Just be "speaking" to her.... he showed something wonderful...and she knew it:

9The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])

2/ He showed her HOPE.

10Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

3/ 'Source of Hope'
He then dialogues with her.. and she realizes.. she wants the 'living' water Jesus mentioned.

"I want this water so I don't thirst"

4/ Barriers to Faith.
Jesus was a master at unravelling peoples condition. "Go find your husband".........OOOPS... she doesn't HAVE one... she is living with a man...just the current one of a line of blokes.

He could have said "You are living in SINNNNN" but he didn't... he let her know her condition with a simple question.

5/ THE CRUNCH....

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

At this point...she is probably looking this way and that.. red faced, thinking "Oh.... my.....God".....

She realizes this bloke is very special.. and is reminded in her mind about the Messiah....

6/ The Encounter with Truth.

26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

WOW !

In addition to the "image problem" caused by fundamentalist Christians who prattle on incessantly with biblical quotations, more grist for the cinematic mill is to be found in reports such as this from today's 'Age':

"AN ELDERLY Exclusive Brethren man who is a former church leader and trustee of a Queensland Brethren private school, has been charged with sexual offences against a child.

It is the third incident of alleged sexual abuse of children to emerge from the secretive sect in the past 12 months."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/brethren-man-on-sex-charges/2007/11/12/1194766590239.html

Hi CJ... well no argument from me there. I guess it would have been better to simply mention that he was an 'elderly man' .. I don't see what special significance the 'Exclusive Brethen' has to do with the issue.

No.. I'm not playing 'victimized muslim' complaining about being vilified in the press .. complaining about the ethnic tag....

I have no argument with the 'ethnic' or religious tag being used WHEN it is relevant.

a)In cases where the description of a fled offender is helpful to the investigation "of Middle Eastern appearance" is crucial, just as 'of caucasian or asian appearance is equally as vital.

b) When the RELIGION in question actually TEACHES that it is ok to molest children...such as the 'Children of God' sect of the 60s.

Other than that.. it is outright wrong to mention the mans religious affiliation.
Unless you can enlighten us as to how it is in fact relevant ?

In cases where children are molested across Australia... do we have 'a rotary member' or.. "A member of lions" mentioned ? no..of course not, because it is not relevant. So...it supports the very point of this thread.. VILIFICATION by association.

And..as Pesky Pericles is often laboring toward me.. YOU are part of the problem :)

Boazy, so we can expect to never again see you commenting that some thug (or group of thugs) are muslim when their actions are a reflection of social conditions rather than a clear teaching of the faith of their parents.

We can expect to see an end to attempts to associate an interest in child abuse with pretty much every belief (or non belief) system different to your own.

I look forward to seeing your apology to all those groups whom you have villified by association in previous posts when you attempt to respresent your own twisted interpretations of others beliefs as the norm and then using misfits behaving badly as your proof. Maybe even an apology to those who you've attempted to villify by association and added a "?" to the comment to excuse your behaviour.

I'll end this post at that, there is a quite impressive aerial display by a group of pigs flying backwards past my window which I want to watch for a while.

R0bert

boaz, what if the social practices of the exclusive brethren led to an environment where the molestation was able to take place?

'exclusive' by its very nature, leads to secrecy.

Unless you know the particulars of the case you can't say whether it's relevant, but given that exclusive brethren lead such different lives and exclude themselves from things like schools and government organisations that may have detected the molestation, I'd say it's damn relevant.

and runner, if you do indeed genuinely assist people of dubious background, then I concede you may indeed surprise me.

My entire point in this thread is that actions speak louder than words.
Calling yourself a christian is just a word. You can claim that actually 'being' a christian is what's important, and that christians do good in the world.

If that's what you genuinely mean, then I can only conclude that many christians are christians in name only.

Why is the 'turn the other cheek' part of Christian philosophy appear to be harder to see in the comments of fundamentalist Christians?

Boazy, I suppose the relevance of the media mentioning the paedophile's membership of the Exclusive Brethren is that they are a secretive Christian cult that has been in the news lately because of their devious actions and bizarre practices. The cult's prudishness is an extreme version of Christian sexual represssion, which has long been implicated in the numerous examples of priests, preachers, ministers and even nuns enagaging in sexual abuse of children whose trust they gain via their pastoral roles.

Which is, of course, why the figure of the sexually deranged Christian nutter features so prominently in film and literature. Strangely, given your babbling about Islam's supposed approval of paedophilia, we don't hear anything of the sort about imams, muftis etc.

Robert.... you said:

"your own twisted interpretations of others beliefs as the norm and then using misfits behaving badly as your proof."

Now.. thats not quite right. I've not done that to my knowledge if ur referring to my Anti "Islamic" posts (in contrast to a generalized anti "muslim" approach)

In fact, I've attempted to specifically AVOID that line you are trotting out. I've spoken about the dangers of Islam as exemplified by the likes of Hizb Ut Tahrir, I've shown many examples of passages in the Quran which I believe are quite correct contextually and historically.. I've referred to specific acts and behavior of Mohammad, which are easily verifiable historically also...
I've also mentioned that 'most' Muslims are not aware of such things, and are simply getting on with life.
So my focus has been the ratbag, violent, aggressive mob, and my major theme has been that such groups influence the rest by shaming and by intimidation. I've shown real world evidence of these things.

I've even maintained that a responsibly selective immigration policy would be wise and some special attention to values compatability be addressed when it comes to Muslim would be migrants.

So.. unless you can show me evidence to the contrary, I don't see any need for an apology to anyone.

CJ... and TRTL. You would need to indicate specific social practices which would be conducive to child abuse and ALSO show how this might be connected with their doctrinal position.

What does the "EXCLUSIVE" part of the E.B. name mean?

1/ Historical. They followed the teachings of J.N.Darby when the Open Brethren took a more open approach.
2/ Doctrinal. They emphasise true repentance and the evidence of it in the life of those who wish to embrace their tradition.

Point 2 is specially relevant as it would exclude the idea of child abuse or ANY abuse which is contrary to sound Christlike living.

SECRETIVE?
http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/default.asp
http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/meetingrooms.asp <- I don't see much opportunity for child abuse here.