Labor could maybe set up a Christian workers union type thing so that Christians can meld their work and faith lives a bit better, pray together before shift, sundays off and so on

The article contains:

"I'll believe Labor is serious about promoting religious values when I see more people like The Honourable Shayne Neumann MP (Labor Federal Member for Blair, Qld), an active member of Baptist Church, promoted in ALP ranks. I'm yet to be convinced their values synchronise with a biblical world view."

What is a biblical worldview? There are many translations of the Bible. Some translations of Isaiah 7:14 say a virgin shall conceive. Other translations say a young woman shall conceive. The Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 has 'almah' which translates to young woman.

If any version of the Christian Bible is chosen that leaves out the Jews whose Bible does not contain the New Testament. If any Protestant version of the Bible is used that leaves out the Catholics who subscribe to the Douay Version which is not used by Protestants.

If any version of the Bible is used, that leaves out the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs who get their religious values from non-Biblical sacred texts.

If values are derived from any religious text, that leaves out the significant percentage of Australians who identify with no religion.

The Labor party as well as any political party must appeal to Australians of any religious belief or none. Australia is a country for all Australians of any religious outlook. This is incompatible with a biblical worldview.

NO! Like asking a donkey to gallop! These folk are a union-owned, divided rabble with no consistent narrative or discipline! Don't have any big-picture people, and folk able to put the national interest ahead of their own political ambitions! It's a big church, they claim but the house of Babel behind closed doors and oft times out in the open!

Leadership is not knowing everything the other guy got wrong and just playing the endless blame shift game!

Labour came to the last election with some good ideas! And to be true to their base and the next generation should stay with them by and large! Yes, that will again make them a big target and they need to stay the course and true to their core principles! What ad who they stand for!

Just add a few new nation-building ideas! MSR thorium, deionisation dialysis desalination, graphene highways, rapid rail, and cooperative capitalism. And with the above, massively turbocharge the economy and claw back our self-determination, independence and economic sovereignty!

And need to undo the ties that bind them to the union movement as its puppet! Advocate public funding of all elections to destroy forever harmful damaging outside influence and special interest issues!

The latter an essential as is getting the cold dead hand of factions off of its political throat and fortunes.
Alan B.

Footnote.

The very last thing Labor or any party needs is to allow blatant bigots and their loudly proclaimed (oft bogus) religious values to drive out secular values!

Politics and religion just do not mix!

If you want to pound a pulpit and espouse what a jolly good person you are, join a church and become a pastor etc. If on the other hand, you want to do something for your fellow man? Join a political party and keep your religious values to yourself!

Albeit, use them to guide your (golden code) decisions and persuasive argument! It's said, an unexamined life is worthless!

So also an unexamined religious belief! And so many! They can't all be right! Or indeed, any one of them!

What we need above all else, to guide political decision making, is the almighty irrefutable truth, not he said she said hearsay! The latter the essential foundation stone of all religion!

What we don't need is some pulpit pounding fruit loop deciding public policy! Given no religion is evidence-based, just relies entirely on faith! Even religious text is the work of plagiarising and embellishing Authors, few of who were eyewitness to what they claim is true.

What all religion seems to have in common is an often obsessive need to control the minds and thoughts of others!
Alan B.

'The very last thing Labor or any party needs is to allow blatant bigots and their loudly proclaimed (oft bogus) religious values to drive out secular values! '

Yeah secular 'values'

killing unborn babies
promoting promiscurity and pervesion
encouraging drug taking
denying the obvious (Creator)
adopting pseudo science for lack of real morality (eg virtue signalling about climate change)
denying biology (babies born with penis equals male)
destroying the role of a father
fatherless kids

Yeah what a lovely lot of 'values'.

People to blind/ignorant to see everything decent in our community originated by those adopting Judea Christian values. We know who the true bigots are and they are very much supported by the abc and the rest of the lying liberal media.

Ah, so Mr Runner! And at it again putting your words into the mouths of others, or as you might say, bearing false witness! Killing any human involves stilling a beating human heart and nobody but nobody does that in the way you infer! NOBODY!

Taking a medical decision to abort a fetus is never ever done lightly but for sound medical reasons and or, just unimaginable economic reasons. Children that are not wanted or aren't affordable often go on to have rat-bag lives that make Nazi prison camps look like holiday destinations. And totally against the do unto others philosophy, you claim to hold and represent!

I judge you, Mr Runner, an incorrigible bigot! Without so much as an ounce of Christian charity in your black judgemental heart! And something you of all people has to resort to, to strenuously avoid looking at the plank in your own eye!

Sir Richard Branson tells a story where he invites a highly placed, Flat Earth official to a free flight in one of his low orbit spacecraft. The man sat glued to a porthole and watched as a round world unfolded before his very eyes. Upon landing, Sir Richard enquired, so, what do you think now?

Whereupon the highly place official replied, and here I paraphrase, the special effects were very realistic and the graphics were almost believable.

And demonstrates a mind just as closed as Mr Runners and able to ignore all and any countervailing evidence that demonstrates, his completely disgraced, personal, stone age, belief system, is far more important to him or her than the mighty irrefutable evidence-based truth!

And given that so continues to not only live a lie, but not satisfied with that, needs to poison and control the minds of others with his demonstrable falsehoods!
Alan B.

take a bex and lie down Alan. Your rants of bile do your health no good.

Dear Runner,

http://vgweb.org/manussa/coreprin.htm contains core principles of secular humanism and commentary on them.

The core principles are:

H1. The only relevant spheres of action for humans are humanity in a collective sense, individual human beings, and the physical environment (nature) in which they operate.

H2. Human beings are not subject to God or any divine agency. They have no obligation to love, fear or obey any such supernatural agent.

H3. All beliefs must be founded on reason and human experience. Where the progress of knowledge reveals that any belief is or becomes untenable it should be abandoned.

H4. All human beings are entitled to inalienable human rights such as those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

H5. These rights inhere to humans from the time the human fetus becomes a viable biological entity capable of independent existence without physical or organic dependence on another human being.

H6. Humans do not have a right of dominion over animals and the environment, it being recognized that humans along with many other species of animals do change their environment by their very existence.

H7. Children shall not be subjected to physical and mental abuse, nor to religious or political indoctrination by parents or others. The rights of children should be codified in a charter of children's' rights.

H8. Civil laws should be arrived at by a collective consensual process and should promote the common good, not the tenets of a particular religion or philosophy.

H9. Special privileges should not be given to any group on the basis of religious or philosophical belief, nor should any group be discriminated against on grounds such as race, ethnicity, beliefs, gender or age.

H10. There is no conclusive evidence that life exists after death so humans should exert themselves primarily in terms of their present life.

continued

continued

H11. The following ethical principles should in general be promoted:

1. Abstaining from conduct injurious to life and the physical well-being of persons.
2. Abstaining from the theft of property of others
3. Abstaining from sexual violence and misconduct
4. Abstaining from falsehood, fraud and deception
5. Abstaining from drunkenness, narcotics and mind bending drugs

H12. Humanism should develop an attitude of compassion to those in a state of suffering from whatever cause that leads to the suffering, and seek to engage in action that alleviates this suffering.

Davidf

Your list of 'principles' are nothing but a cherry picking of contradictory irrational nonsense. Article 3 states 'All beliefs must be founded on reason' .

Something from nothing, denying of complex creation not needing a Creator and making up ones own morality totally defies reason. The pathetic unscientific nonsense you quote in H5 trying to justify killing unborn babies shows how deceitful and ignorance the writer of this nonsense is.

And to think you have the ignorance/audacity to criticise the bible. You seem to have lost your ability to reason. Another way to describe a seared conscience. How the writers of this piffle can include the word 'compassion' just highlights how irrational their were/are.

Dear runner,

To me it seems a good principle that all beliefs must be founded on reason. You have spoken of secular humanism. I thought it might be interesting for you to see what one secular humanist lists as humanist principles. Other humanists might disagree with some of those principles.

For a human virgin to give birth, for a god or for an afterlife there is no evidence. Where there no evidence for a belief it cannot be supported by reason. However, Australia is a free country, and you are free to believe what you like whether or not it is supported by reason.

'However, Australia is a free country, and you are free to believe what you like whether or not it is supported by reason.'

yeah you to Davidf. Just don't be as arrogant enough to claim humanism is based on reason. In fact the opposite is true. Something from nothing?

Thank you Spencer for your Post.

LesP,

<<Thank you Spencer for your Post.>>

Thanks so much for your encouragement. What's your view on whether it is possible for the Left faction of the Labor Party, that seems to be driving policy, to be able to promote a biblical view of God-given life from conception to natural death?

Is it possible for Labor to accept as policy that those born with a pair of XY chromosomes are males and XX chromosomes are females? Where in Scripture do you see anything that looks like transgender? We live in challenging days.

I look forward to your response.

david f,

<<H11. The following ethical principles should in general be promoted:
1. Abstaining from conduct injurious to life and the physical well-being of persons.
2. Abstaining from the theft of property of others
3. Abstaining from sexual violence and misconduct
4. Abstaining from falsehood, fraud and deception
5. Abstaining from drunkenness, narcotics and mind bending drugs>>

From where do you as an atheist-humanist obtain that value system? Sounds awfully like a Jeremy Bentham utilitarianism.

It is no foundation to stop Hitler, the September 11 bombers, rapists, and DV abusers. It's problem, as I see it, is that you choose one of these values but you can's state and reinforce that that value is wrong for me. Utilitarian relativism is a a disaster when practised in any culture.

david f.

<<For a human virgin to give birth, for a god or for an afterlife there is no evidence.>>

Those are your presuppositions. You are void of any understanding of the nature (attributes) of the Lord God Almighty. The God who created (bara) the world out of nothing (Genesis 1:1), made a heart for me to pump blood through the arteries, made nitrogen and oxygen for me to breathe right now, is absolutely capable of causing a virgin woman to become pregnant. It was in his sovereign plan to provide the Saviour who would die for our sins and be raised on the third day.

Your problem, David, is not only your disbelief in this God but also in the words of J B Phillips, Your God Is Too Small, http://thecommonlife.com/files/books/Your_God_is_Too_Small.pdf. Your 'no god' is way too small and a fake.

As for the afterlife, your small view of God has excluded evidence from Jesus' resurrection that provides revelation of what will happen for every person at death, including you David. Read about it in 1 Corinthians 15: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+15&version=NLT

We are dealing with a serious issue. Where will you be one minute after your last breath? To say: 'In the ground or incinerated in a crematorium', avoids the issue of life after death.

These references provide a comprehensive critique of Spencer's pretentious essay, and the dreadful "authorities" he cites to "prove" his case. All of these "authorities" are just Narcissus in "religious" drag - and therefore entirely godless.

http://www.beezone.com/narcissus.html

Pretentious because the kind of institutional exoteric religiosity that he promotes has nothing to do with Truth and Reality, or with the Life, and the Universal Spirit-Breathing Teaching which Saint Jesus of Galilee taught and demonstrated while he was alive.

Furthermore the principal motive/purpose of such institutional exoteric religiosity is the exercise of (self-appointed) power and control over everyone and everything. And of course such people and institutions still have immense political power, and essentially unlimited deep (money)pockets to finance their power-and-control-seeking agendas.

Much/most of the mommy-daddy religiosity that he/they promote is essentially a childish, even infantile phenomenon.

http://www.dabase.org/up-1-2.htm

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/freersex.html

As always the religious fanatics found a way to turn the topic of whether or not a labor party can change its spots? But as usual, go so far of topic to be off the reservation and claiming words written in ancient parchment by who knows who!? I mean most of these documents were penned by scribes and almost always took their lead from the current cultural custom!

Thus ritualized stoning was ordered by God on the back of all too often, the uncorroborated testament of one male!

And so much-revised and edited from day dot to have ay veracity! Let alone absolute verifiable truth, as claimed by a patently fanatical OZPEN!

When there's no substantive evidence! None!

Personally. Someone should give OZPEN a brand new tactical torch so Runner can slide down the beam and escape, then when finally safe on the ground turn it on the window so his running mate the absolutely certain OZPEN can also escape!

Y'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.

Simple question, simple answer - no.

Insulting Leopards isn't really right either ! They're smart, fast & beautiful !

Dear OzSpen,

To repeat:

“For a human virgin to give birth, for a god or for an afterlife there is no evidence.”

Your superstitious belief is not evidence. The Bible is not evidence. Other religions have other sacred books. None of them are evidence. They just encapsulate the legends that support the religion. A reasonable course is to be skeptical of the reliability of all of them.

Christianity has many sects and is one of many religions. There is no reason to accept any of the Christian sects or any of the other religions.

The resurrection of Jesus is myth.

There is no issue of life after death. Human life requires a brain, a digestive system, muscles and other parts of the body. At death these cease to function and start to decay. We cannot think without a brain. We cannot ingest nutriment and eliminate waste without a digestive system. We cannot move without muscles. We cannot live without a body.
You and many others may believe in such nonsense as life after death, but it remains superstitious rubbish.

Shakespeare wrote in a superstitious age. Hamlet was afraid of something coming after death:

“But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?”

Swinburne was aware of modern science. In “The Garden of Proserpine” he wrote of death as the end:

From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.

Then star nor sun shall waken,
Nor any change of light:
Nor sound of waters shaken,
Nor any sound or sight:
Nor wintry leaves nor vernal,
Nor days nor things diurnal;
Only the sleep eternal
In an eternal night.

Swinburne has it right

david f.

<<Your superstitious belief is not evidence. The Bible is not evidence. Other religions have other sacred books. None of them are evidence. They just encapsulate the legends that support the religion. A reasonable course is to be skeptical of the reliability of all of them.>>

You've provided zero evidence to support your statements here. They are your assertions or opinions. They have no more substance to them than the fact they are your presuppositions.

Then add the fact that by dumping your assumptions on us you expect us to believe that ...

+ <<The resurrection of Jesus is myth.>>

+ <<There is no issue of life after death.>>

When you get a comprehensive handle on what REAL evidence means, we'll have a rational conversation. Up to this point, all you've done is dump your atheistic, humanistic, rationalistic presuppositions on us - all in the name of david f's opinion.

When you move from straw man logical fallacies to dealing with ALL of the evidence, we'll have an opportunity to have a reasonable discussion. Here you've engaged in fallacious reasoning, without dealing with the content of my article.

Spencer wants not only write the articles and state the questions,
He wants to mark and answer your questions for you like a school teacher;
And scold you like a child when he thinks your answers don't fit into his own ignorant worldview.

Dear OzSpen,

The fact that belief is not evidence is obvious to any reasonable person, but your superstition overrides reason. I will leave you to it.

Armchair Critic,

<<Spencer wants not only write the articles and state the questions, He wants to mark and answer your questions for you like a school teacher; And scold you like a child when he thinks your answers don't fit into his own ignorant worldview.>>

You guarantee we can't have a rational conversation when you engage in this Appeal to Ridicule Logical Fallacy. You presented your argument to try to make mine look stupid, by the use of exaggeration.

We cannot have a reasonable discussion when you avoid dealing with the issues I raised in the article and here appeal to mockery. You are the one who has made this error in reasoning: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

Now get back to the topic: Can the Labor leopard change its spots in values to make it more attractive to the people of faith, no matter what religion?

david f.

<<The fact that belief is not evidence is obvious to any reasonable person, but your superstition overrides reason. I will leave you to it.>>

You don't seem to realise that when you place your fingers on the keyboard and commit an Ad Hominem (circumstantial) Fallacy against me, you actually proclaim your beliefs - loud and clear.

Thank you for confirming again your atheistic beliefs when responding to my beliefs. My beliefs are based on sound evidence which you refuse to accept. Your beliefs are grounded in faith of atheism.

My beliefs are grounded in the facts of the Lord God's creation of the heavens and the earth, working throughout history, and through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - to offer us eternal life.

The reliable Bible has been established as a credible witness for the Judeo-Christian world view, using the methods of historical investigation. But you don't want to deal with that kind of evidence.

Dear OzSpen,

Asserting nonsense does not make it other than nonsense. Asserting that the Bible is a reliable document does not make it a reliable document. By what process was the Bible decided to be a reliable document? The burden of proof rests upon one who makes an assertion. It is not a reliable history, scientific or guide to morals. It accepts slavery. Most people at this time do not think slavery is moral. The Bible is no more reliable than the Muslim Koran, the Buddhist Tripitaka or the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. The Bible is one document supporting one religion while other documents support other religions. In my opinion they are all superstitions.

The concept of a Judeo-Christian world view is itself nonsense. Christianity is centered around the worship of Jesus. He has no place in the Jewish religion. Judaism and Christianity are contradictory belief systems.

david f.

<<Asserting nonsense does not make it other than nonsense.>>

That is your assertion that proves noting - zero.

<<Asserting that the Bible is a reliable document does not make it a reliable document. By what process was the Bible decided to be a reliable document?>>

I think I'm wasting my time providing you with information on how the Bible is demonstrated to be a trustworthy historical document. The same historical methodology that is used to demonstrate the authenticity of any document from history is applied to the Bible and it is found to be a credible book of history.

Examples of historical research on the Bible to demonstrate its reliability are through ancient historians such as Dr Paul Barnett,

+ Jesus and the Logic of History, http://www.koorong.com/product/jesus-and-the-logic-of-history-new-studies_0851115128

+ Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, http://www.ivpress.com/jesus-the-rise-of-early-christianity

+ Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, http://www.koorong.com/product/on-the-reliability-of-the-old-testament-k_0802803962?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.koorong.com%2F

+ Craig Blomberg, On the Historical Reliability of the New Testament, http://www.koorong.com/product/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-the_9780805464375

+ N T Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, http://www.koorong.com/product/jesus-and-the-victory-of-god-02-in_9780281069798?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.koorong.com%2Fproduct%2Fthe-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-the_9780805464375

+ John Warwick Montgomery: History, Law and Christianity, http://www.1517.org/shop/products/history-law-and-christianity

I don't expect you to pay attention to this scholarly evidence as you are tuned out to historical methodology that verifies or rejects the historical reliability of the biblical documents. The same methods are used in these publications as by Manning Clark in A Short History of Australia, http://www.penguin.com.au/books/a-short-history-of-australia-9780143005056

Dear OzSpen,

There are books supporting biblical narratives and there are books denying biblical narratives. I have not gone into these books you mention, but I know there are places where the Bible is unreliable.
According to the Bible the earth is about 6,000 years old, the sun stood still at the battle of Jericho, slaves should obey their master and it is wrong to combine two different materials such as linen and wool to make a garment.

Do you believe the earth is about 6,000 years old, the sun stood still at the battle of Jericho, slavery is ok and it is wrong to combine linen and wool?

At one time I believed in the Bible outside of the New Testament. One big influence on me becoming an atheist was reading the Bible and history.

When I was a child I heard the story of the binding of Isaac. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God telling him to sacrifice me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. That seemed a sensible answer. A God that asks a father to kill his son is an evil God which I reject.

The Christian religion has an ugly history of oppression of heretics, Jews, indigenous peoples, scientists and others who didn’t fit into the Christian scheme of things.

I find Christian justification of that history in the New Testament. One of the evil sayings attributed to Jesus is Matthew 12:30. He that is not with me is against me.

The logical conclusion is that if you do not believe in Jesus you are the enemy. It is a doctrine of intolerance. You will not be left in peace if you don’t believe. I think it better to accept somebody who doesn’t believe as you believe. Try to be friends in spite of the difference in belief. Don’t act as Jesus and make a person who doesn’t believe as you do an enemy.

Hey OzSpen,

"You guarantee we can't have a rational conversation when you engage in this Appeal to Ridicule Logical Fallacy."

We can't have a rational conversation because frankly you're not really much of a rational person.

You have a poor understanding of how communication works.
That is, you don't control what I can and cannot say;
- But you can make yourself look like a idiot.

Logical Smogical...
- Your so called 'fallacies' are just what you say when you're backed into a corner and tant out like a girl, Spence.

There are no rules in discussions.
I can make whatever points I wish, however I wish (this includes making fun of and humiliation because its a non violent form of correction) and the others will be the judge of whether or not the things I say hold merit.

If you say, do or act in a way that's stupid I'm entitled to point it out, because it serves to teach one not to do said stupid thing again.

There are no rules, Chaos rules.
And that's why you keep digging holes for yourself and backing yourself into a corner trying to control others thoughts and opinions..

"You presented your argument to try to make mine look stupid, by the use of exaggeration."

I didn't try to make your argument look stupid;
I tried to make you look stupid, and I didn't try hard.
- Also I wasn't exaggerating...

"Can the Labor leopard change its spots in values to make it more attractive to the people of faith, no matter what religion?"

You may be asking two questions.
The simple answer is no, they can't change their spots;
- And if you saw the bigger picture in things you'd know they can't and know that it's a moronic question.
Go on, ask me why.

That said, I'm sure they will try to make it appear that they have for ignorant fools who are dumb enough to believe them.

- But it makes no real difference anyway -

Dear OzSpen,

It might be good if you showed a bit of humility and admitted that the Bible is not a reliable document when it maintains that that the earth is about 6,000 years old, the sun stood still at the battle of Jericho, slavery is ok and it is wrong to combine linen and wool.

Rather than citing logical fallacies that you really don't seem to understand you might admit your own fallacy. Those authorities you cited made the case that the Bible gives an accurate description of the history of early Christianity. Citing a contention that a small part of the Bible is accurate does not make the Bible a reliable document.

You asked, "Where in Scripture do you see anything that looks like transgender?"

The answer is nowhere because those who wrote Scripture only had the knowledge of their time and place. One might also ask “Where in Scripture do you see anything that looks like the theory of gravity?"

To assume that Scripture is the source of all knowledge or is even correct in what it does maintain is a very faulty assumption. The Bible incorporates the definitions of sexuality of the culture in which it was written. Other cultures accepted different versions of sexuality. Some of the American Indian tribes had the Berdache which is a form of transgender.

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Native-American-Berdache-Tradition

To limit oneself to the Bible is ignoring the world outside of the Bible.

david f.

<<There are books supporting biblical narratives and there are books denying biblical narratives. I have not gone into these books you mention, but I know there are places where the Bible is unreliable.
According to the Bible the earth is about 6,000 years old, According to the Bible the earth is about 6,000 years old, the sun stood still at the battle of Jericho, slaves should obey their master and it is wrong to combine two different materials such as linen and wool to make a garment.>>

You again refuse to supply evidence to support your claims.

(1) <<There are books supporting biblical narratives and there are books denying biblical narratives>>

You provided not one example to support this statement. You say you want evidence to demonstrate the Bible is reliable. No you don't. You provided ZERO evidence to support your claims.

(2) <<I have not gone into these books you mention>>

That's exactly as I predicted. You are not interested in seeking evidence to refute your view and to demonstrate the Bible contains a series of documents that are trustworthy.

(3) <<I know there are places where the Bible is unreliable.>>

You gave no examples. Again it's your opinion, driven by your atheistic presuppositions.

(4) <<According to the Bible the earth is about 6,000 years old>>

Where?

(5) <<the sun stood still at the battle of Jericho>>

Your presuppositions SHOUT 'I do not believe in miracles. Almighty God does not exist’.

(6) <<slaves should obey their master (sic)>>

It is wrong to say the Bible is pro-slavery. See the article: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-wrong-say-bible-pro-slavery/

(7) <<it is wrong to combine two different materials such as linen and wool to make a garment>>

Plucking a sentence out of the Old Testament (with no reference supplied) is not an invitation for me to engage with you. You are chucking off at the Bible and God's rules for the Israelites (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9-11). See an explanation at: http://www.gotquestions.org/different-types-of-fabric.html

If you come back with any more of your pretentious statements, I will not respond.

Dear OzSpen,

My statements are logical and based on reason. I shall not miss your lack of response. Farewell.

Hey david f,

I don't know if the bible mentions transgenders, but they were dealing with female deities at the time, and significant female religious leadership was not uncommon.

One such example is Diana of Ephesus, and this is mentioned in the bible.

Diana was the Roman equivalent of the Greek goddess Artemis

Interesting the new NASA partnership with Australia is called Artemis.
Diana, often posed as bathing as well as in her traditional guises, became a popular subject in Renaissance art.
She and Apollo were sometimes pictured as a kind of pagan version of Adam and Eve.

The transgender history page on wikipedia seems to suggest transgenders existed, if the information can be relied upon as accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

Dear Armchair Critic,

Not only have transgenders existed in humanity, but non-binary sexual relationships have existed throughout the animal kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

The Christian Bible is 80% non-Christian. It absorbed the Jewish Bible and then treated the Jews as heretics because they wouldn’t accept the distortion of their religion. The Jewish Bible incorporated a hatred of the pagan cults. Many of the pagan cults were more tolerant toward non-binary forms of sexuality. The prohibition of non-binary sex in the Bible could stem from a rejection of those practices by the pagan cults.

Our society has partially thrown off that biblical prejudice against non-binary sexuality by legalizing same sex marriage. That prejudice still exists in the Abrahamic religions which treat those forms of sexuality as sin. One of the features of sexual development among some teenagers is a search for gender identity. To label such search as sin can cause extreme damage to a teenager who is struggling with many other issues at that time of life. Yet that is what a chaplain in the school may do with the Abrahamic religion’s blinkered view of right and wrong.

Ignorant statements such as "Where in Scripture do you see anything that looks like transgender?" is not helpful to a teenager dealing with developmental gender identity.

That is one of the reasons we should not have chaplains in the schools. School personnel dealing with students should be aware of the sexual and social development of that age group and deal with that development in a non-judgmental fashion. In general chaplains are incompetent in that area since their knowledge is based on biblical attitudes.

Dear Armchair Critic,

There is a woman in a prominent position in the Jewish Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah

According to the Book of Judges, Deborah was a prophetess of the God of the Israelites, the fourth Judge of pre-monarchic Israel and the only female judge mentioned in the Bible, and the wife of Lapidoth. Deborah told Barak that God commanded him to lead an attack against the forces of Jabin king of Canaan and his military commander Sisera (Judges 4:6–7); the entire narrative is recounted in chapter 4.

Judges chapter 5 gives the same story in poetic form. This passage, often called The Song of Deborah, may date to as early as the twelfth century BC,[1] and is perhaps the earliest sample of Hebrew poetry.

The suppression of woman in the New Testament is greater than in the Jewish Bible. The Virgin Mary is venerated as a womb. She is not quoted.

Hi david f,

You mentioned many things, I don't know where to start.
I have many thoughts and questions.

"The Christian Bible is 80% non-Christian. It absorbed the Jewish Bible and then treated the Jews as heretics because they wouldn’t accept the distortion of their religion. The Jewish Bible incorporated a hatred of the pagan cults. Many of the pagan cults were more tolerant toward non-binary forms of sexuality. The prohibition of non-binary sex in the Bible could stem from a rejection of those practices by the pagan cults."

I understand that Jesus was the beginning of the New Testament, which made the Old Testament obsolete.
I know that something happened after Jesus was crucified which resulted in the Sanhedrin losing autonomy;
There must've been significant resentment after Jesus upended the table in the temple, standing against their practice of rorting the masses via the temple shekel exchange rate;
- and things spiralled out of control for the Jews the way that it did, the loss of the religious authority they enjoyed.
Jesus was crucified in 33AD and Titus sacked Jerusalem in 70AD resulting in the destruction of the second temple.
I don't know a lot more than that.

"Our society has partially thrown off that biblical prejudice against non-binary sexuality by legalizing same sex marriage. That prejudice still exists in the Abrahamic religions which treat those forms of sexuality as sin."

My personal opinion is based on ethics and the harm principle.
Everybody has the right to live however they choose so long as it does not have a negative or detrimental impact on others.
I have no interest in telling gays what they can or can't do in their bedrooms, but I won't prescribe to the idea that being gay or trans etc is categorically normal, or that they should ethically push this normality agenda onto others.

"One of the features of sexual development among some teenagers is a search for gender identity. To label such search as sin can cause extreme damage to a teenager who is struggling with many other issues at that time of life."

[Cont.]
I don't label it a sin because I'm agnostic;
But I wouldn't promote the ideology because I think you're already assigned a gender prior to birth.
I understand as an example that some kids are girls living in boys bodies, and it's hard to argue they're not born that way.
- But basing larger policies around 'not offending the individual' when the bigger risk is a downward spiral for society as a whole, I won't support, especially when some wish to use these issues to destroy our country for a globalism agenda.

I'll consider the smaller issues, but always in the context of the bigger picture and the greater good.

I just looked up the Deborah story, it says Yael killed Sisera with a tent peg.
Woman fight different to men, this is something that should be acknowledged in approaches to domestic violence, but I won't go into that here.

"The suppression of woman in the New Testament is greater than in the Jewish Bible. The Virgin Mary is venerated as a womb. She is not quoted."

Yes it seems that way.
Whether it was opposed to a female Matriach or Paganism I'm not sure.
Maybe they saw these 2 things as one in the same.

The destruction of the Temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world seems like something ISIS would do, but I suppose they did the same to the Second Temple too, they built them, and sometimes they destroyed them.

Dear Armchair Critic,

I would like to comment on your remarks. From my point of view religion is merely superstition hallowed by time. I believe in neither miracles nor God and do not connect the two beliefs. However, I try to be as accurate as I can be. I have read and studied a lot about religion. It fascinates me.

“I understand that Jesus was the beginning of the New Testament, which made the Old Testament obsolete.”

The phrase, Old Testament, is Christian usage. It is mostly the same as what Jews call the Bible. The ‘Old Testament’ is not obsolete being part of most Christian Bibles and still the Jewish Bible.

“There must've been significant resentment after Jesus upended the table in the temple, standing against their practice of rorting the masses via the temple shekel exchange rate;”

The money changers served a useful function. Jews from outside Judea came to worship at the Temple. They needed local coinage to get a meal or a place to stay. The Jews who lived in the area didn’t need the services of the money changers as they had local coinage. The money changers were like the money changers at the Brisbane airport.

However there were not only money changers, but people selling live stock. Jesus drove them all out.

“When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.” – John 2:13-15 NIV

“I know that something happened after Jesus was crucified which resulted in the Sanhedrin losing autonomy.”

Israel was under Roman occupation during and after the time of Jesus. The autonomy that the Sanhedrin had was the autonomy the Romans chose to give it. King Herod was a puppet king under Roman control.

continued

continued

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/palestine-under-roman-rule/

"Judea was ruled by a Roman procurator who managed its political, military, and fiscal affairs. Its governmental structure was reorganized by Gabinius, the Roman governor of Syria from 57 to 55 B.C.E., who divided the country into five synhedroi, or administrative dis¬tricts. This arrangement was clearly intended to eliminate the age old system of toparchies (administrative districts made up of central towns and the rural areas surrounding them), dating from the reign of Solomon, and taken over in turn by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, and then by the Ptole¬mies and Seleucids."

Jesus was crucified in 33AD and Titus sacked Jerusalem in 70AD resulting in the destruction of the second temple. After the crucifixion there were followers of Jesus among both Jews and gentiles. However, the failed Jewish Revolt of 66-70 resulted not only in the destruction of the Temple but also the slavery or death of most of the Jewish followers of Jesus. This was an important element in the emergence of Christianity as a separate religion rather than merely a Jewish sect.

“I have no interest in telling gays what they can or can't do in their bedrooms, but I won't prescribe to the idea that being gay or trans etc is categorically normal, or that they should ethically push this normality agenda onto others.”

Being gay is normal for the person who is gay. That does not mean it is normal for others. I don’t think they are pushing any normality agenda on others.

“I don't label it a sin because I'm agnostic;

But I wouldn't promote the ideology because I think you're already assigned a gender prior to birth.

I understand as an example that some kids are girls living in boys bodies, and it's hard to argue they're not born that way.
- But basing larger policies around 'not offending the individual' when the bigger risk is a downward spiral for society as a whole, I won't support, especially when some wish to use these issues to destroy our country for a globalism agenda.”

continued

continued

I don’t label it a sin either nor do I think being gay is an ideology. Sexuality is complex. However, I don’t connect accepting homosexuals with a globalism agenda. I don’t really know what you mean. I don’t think giving equal rights to homosexuals will destroy our society. I am a man married to a woman. I don’t see how making same sex marriage legal will affect my marriage.

“Woman fight different to men, this is something that should be acknowledged in approaches to domestic violence,”

I agree and think it may be already be acknowledged in approaches to domestic violence.

“The destruction of the Temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world seems like something ISIS would do, but I suppose they did the same to the Second Temple too, they built them, and sometimes they destroyed them.”

The ‘they’ who built them is almost always different from the ‘they’ who destroy them.

Hey david f,

"Being gay is normal for the person who is gay. That does not mean it is normal for others. I don’t think they are pushing any normality agenda on others."

Being a serial killer is normal for the person who is a serial killer.
Though that's not to draw any sort of connection between gays and serial killers, but I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea all 71 of facebooks different recognised genders are normal.

"Sexuality is complex. However, I don’t connect accepting homosexuals with a globalism agenda. I don’t really know what you mean. I don’t think giving equal rights to homosexuals will destroy our society."

My issue is the gay normality agenda, and it is a part of globalism.
'Gender-Equality' is number 5 on the UN sustainable Development Goals.

I believe in ethics, which means that everyone has the right to live however they choose so long as it does not affect others in an adverse manner.

It's not what they do that bothers me, it's how they can influence others that does.

Gays want equality.
I don't oppose their equality in such a manner that I wish to discriminate against them or tell them what they can or can't do in their bedrooms, my concern is what happens when they say they're 'normal'.
Because at this point, you end up with drag-queen pre-school teachers (yes they will get the job because under political correctness you can't discriminate on a basis of sexuality, and you must support minorities) not just telling little Johnny its ok to be a girl; but putting peer pressure on him that he SHOULD be a girl like them.

And I've got to say I've got concerns about those types of people and their true motives for being around and influencing kids.

I opposed SSM in the referendum, but not on the basis that I care what they do in the bedrooms.
Because they push their normality agenda onto others including kids, as well as deliberately seek out others in the community to vilify (example Bakeries not supportive of celebrating LGBTI)

[Cont.]
This is what 'equality' looks like.
I'm not sure whether or not this is what the people had in mind when they supported it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7346395/Drag-queens-teaching-Australian-preschoolers-inclusion-diversity-storytelling.html

Dear Armchair Critic,

I think drag queens telling stories to kiddies is rather amusing. I don't see it as harmful or worth getting excited about.

I am not worried about homosexuals as a group. You are. We differ.

I believe people of non-binary sex exist in every society. I think it is healthier to allow them full rights than to repress them.