Sorry folks but dropping out of this thread. Problems with language is plain just from how often we're misread, or read into.
Yuyutsu, I didn't say Christianity was related to libertarianism.

.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You remarked :

« I'm not sure if Peter believes in an afterlife. It's not terribly clear which of the usual Christian doctrines he accepts. »
.

As I have invited both Peter’s and George’s comments on my previous post to George, perhaps Peter will seize the opportunity to clarify his position for us.

Naturally, my interest goes beyond their personal belief or understanding, or (to adopt George’s vocabulary), “interpretation”. I am also interested to know what they think of the question I raised regarding the moral responsibility (in suicide bomb attacks) of the Abrahamic denominations which promote or condone belief in “afterlife”.

I note, for example, that the American Christian publication, “Ecumenical News”, reports in today’s edition (25 November 2014) :

« The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the World Council of Churches have expressed shock and sadness at the killing of 85 people at a church in Pakistan by suicide bombers. »

The article concludes :

[ Bishop Peter said, "The attack on All Saint's Church is the total failure of the new government of KPK (Pakistan People's Party) and government has failed to provide security to the minorities in Khayber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar Pakistan." ]

There is no suggestion that the doctrine of “afterlife” which the Church shares with other Abrahamic denominations was instrumental in this tragic event and that, consequently, it should assume it’s part of the moral responsibility for it occurring.

Nor did the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the head of the World Council of Churches seize the opportunity to denounce those who make false promises of so-called “afterlife”.

Here is the link :

(http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/anglicans-pope-denounce-pakistan-suicide-bombing-christians-protest-22459)

.

“Can You Feel It” by Michael Jackson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW1fXL3s7bk
Notice the intro and the 3 words stated:

Deceive
Inveigle
Obfuscate

??

Both Michael Jackson and Morrissey have been hounded by the press. But why do they both have many followers?

Morrissey is more obscure, and many people have never heard of him yet he has been voted by the British public as the second most favourite living icon after David Attenborough in Britain in a BBC survey.

“Return to Innocence” - Enigma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_sAHh9s08

“Sadeness” – Engima
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFLRHPUWBI8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F9DxYhqmKw

"Much of it is certainly not true if the model of truth is … what actually happened."

LOL - so it's not actually true in the sense of it being true. So in what sense *is* it true?

"We might also say that the whole of Scripture is a lie that tells the truth. This is similar to the way that modern novels are completely made up stories that take us on a path of recognition and exposes the truth of the human condition."

So it's a s true as what it is trying to say. But what *is* it trying to say?

"Similarly, the representation of Mary as the virgin mother of Jesus is obviously a made up tail … But it points away from itself as historical reality to another unseen reality that this Jesus is the Son of God and hence part of the triune nature of God."

Only if you already believe that. Plenty of people read that same passage without at all thinking "Ah ha! This clearly means that God is triune!" It took hundreds of years before the trinity was officially a thing. For an omniscient being, God sure does a poor job of explaining things.

"It is proclaimed in Genesis that God made man in His own image. This means that all people bear the image of God and are thus sacred."

Except for the people drowned in the flood, the Egyptian firstborn, the Canaanites - the list goes on. And on. And is still going on today.

"We could go on and mention the establishment of schools and universities and hospitals, all of which had their origin in the Church."

As we all know: no non-christian civilisation ever had a school or a hospital.

Pfft - why does anyone bother replying to this drivel?