Peter makes some god points in this piece but in other areas he is way off. I really don't know where to start. So I'll pick one I know the most about Peter say's.

"But there is another side that is rarely acknowledged, the whole structure of Western culture built on an egalitarianism that only Christianity was able to produce."

I think it should be "Western culture was able to break through the religion barrier where other cultures have failed because Christianity is morally bankrupt".

I know this will get the Christian up in arms but think about this. The so called ten commandments have been revised and rewritten several times. The ones that are common to all versions are the very one that Christian on a whole ignore.

Well said and written Maggie Dunphy. Actually our country as are most democracies have just enough residual Christianity from our past to keep us fairly decent.Yet we as a people are changing and no one Church of today is the one right or correct Church, so no one Church can "lead" in the morality stakes, look at them and their child molestation etc. There is an 'Invisible'Church as I see it. That is in all Churches there are those who have been chosen or given themselves in one degree or another to God. One day God and a spiritual Church will reign. Then and only then will we have honourable Government. Fancy no grubby deals, no deceitful ugly lies. no corruption - one day!! As for politicians claiming religion recently. I am a cynic, I think we should see how our politicians act and speak not too what Church they go to or visit -ONLY - during election time. At present all or 99.9% are coniving miserable liars. Straight after the opening prayer, always the same dreary moaning unfeeling prayer,then starts the degregation and lousy brutal, very childish abuse hurled across the chamber one to another. Then begin the miserable lies one of course is the demeaning 'Dorothy Dix' questions, usually asked by the parliamentary idiot or a government party under-achiever.
One Day though and it is a day worth waiting or even dying for we will have the righteous Government of Almighty God. Regards, numbat

The last thing we want is the actual Church itself getting involved in politics. The various Churches in this country are just as political as any political party. The problem is the Church is less interested in the welfare of man than it is in enforcing dogma. If you want proof just have a look at the pressure being applied in the US for the teaching of creationism in schools. Nothing unusual about that, they've been going on about it for years, but now they've got a government who's willing to lend a sympathetic ear. Belief in creationism has nothing to do with the betterment of mankind. It's just the enforcing of one groups "correct" agenda onto us all. Sound familiar? Whatever side it comes from, it's wrong.

If the kooks are allowed to get a toe-hold where does it end? Secular laws against adultery, sex before marriage, blasphamy, enforced religious instruction in school, the teaching of the Bible as history, and I'd sure hate to be a gay or lesbian Muslim single parent.

Christianity has alot of beautiful and eternally true philosophies that would make the world a better place if spread with respect and tolerance. Unfortunately history has proven that when powerful, the Church is much better at spreading fear and oppression than harmony and brotherly love.

cranky: Religion is an invention of man, usually the male gender - and doesn't that show eh??.Christ bought a way of life and grace. Mankind built cathedrals,mankind invented the silly dresses for their clergy and the funny hats, smoking purses, tinkling bells etc. etc.and stupid laws. There is no wedding ceremony as such in the Bible, another ploy by the clergy to control us. In the old days a couple decided to marry, told everyone then went to bed and they were man and wife in the sight of God,(as did Joseph and Mary) though some did have a celebration or party. No O/Testament patriarch had a religious wedding ceremony, and that was not because there were no clergy either, it was not necessary. Regards, numbat

Good one Pete. You've confused me here.

At this particular moment, I think I'm agnostic and I'm facinated by the dilemma that on one hand I don't follow or understand theological thought, and I don't "believe", but on the other hand I accept the argument that democracy and the rights of the individual are founded upon Christian principles. I want the principles but not the faith. I think there's a bit of that in the other comments too, though it is easy to point to examples where man-made Churches have fallen well short of their own ideals.

One problem I have trouble with is that of potential conflict with other religions. Islam of course. Both evangelistic faiths. I am not in least bit attracted to Islam, but I don't mind if other people are. I like the best principles of the Christian values, even where the best of those values leaks across into politics. How can I stay clear of intolerance towards Islam when I am virtually a non-believing or non-practicing Christian? This is in no way meant to be an arguement for a Crusade, but I am glad I live in what is fundamentally a Christian society.

The concept of "God" is a childish manifistation that yearns maternal comfort.That is why it has so much appeal.The "Father",Mary the "Mother".We have to grow up and use the well founded moralities that have contributed towards our survival.Our religion should be our striving to become more intelligent and aware beings.It is not about power over others,but control over ourselves.We can have morality without fear of enternal damnation or sucking up to an all powerful being.There should be more depth to our psyche.

There are a few points I would like to take up. The first is the constant demonizing of the church that we get in this comments section. One would have thought that after the bloodiest century ever, our ire should be directed towards secularization that brought us communism and the purges, cultural revolution, gulags, millions starved in Russia, the holocaust, two world wars, Cambodia and the killing fields, not to mention environmental degradation and the dumbing down of Western culture in the name of the bottom line. All these things, may I remind you, were carried out in the name of some ideology or other that was and is opposed by the church. The evidence is mounting that secularization that is cut free from the church is a monster. In the face of this evidence I do not understand the hysterical and irrational attacks on the church.

Secondly, I wish you would read me more closely. The foisting of so called creation science into the school curriculum in the US is exactly a case of the sacred moving out of its realm into the secular to the damage of us all. I am really a bit sick of being portrayed as some kind of Christian fundamentalist warrior in spite of my material. If the comments section of Online Opinion are to carry any weight then we must read more closely before we give our usual knee jerk anti religious response. I expect comments to cost as much to their contributors that the articles cost me in depth of thought and research.

Well said Peter... 'amen' :)
I applaud your point about the juxtaposition of the king and the prophet. That is really what the 'Political Christian' should be aiming at. The prophetic call back to righteousness of the government.

I wish to also speak a bit of truth in love to those who seem to be suddently spun out into a mental twilight zone with little spirals whirling around in their eyes as soon as the word "God" is mentioned .. specially so if the word "Christian" is associated with it. The blindness which only ever sees the 'ugly' side of the Church is also apparently blind to the vastly greater 'sins' of humanity perpetrated in the name of secularism (communism in particular) as you listed in your response.
I was reading an article referred to me by a commenter about 'cosmology' purely secular, where one scientist is 'out of order' by claiming the Big Bang didn't happen, and was confronted by a conspiracy of collusive stone walling by the 'objective' scientific establishment which had a mountain of research and grants and personal effort to defend by saying it DID happen.
C'mon u guys let GO of your pet hates about the Church, and look at what Peter has actually WRITTEN as he bemoans.

Some have tweaked to the truth of the fact that Jesus taught some wonderful things, and even though they might not agree with our understanding of His death and resurrection, recognizing that what He taught as being noble should immediately ring the 'go figure' bell when u see different stuff happening in some elements of 'The Church'

Peter,
well written. As someone who is concerned about the potential impact of groups like "Family First" it is refreshing to see someone from within the church stepping outside the labels of "christian" and thinking about the issues.

The church and it's people have a valid role in our communities (just as other groups such as the environmental lobby do). The bit that concerns me is the numbers that can be brought to bear in support of a propisition because of the label "christian" rather than because of the validity of the proposition. I know that problem applies to almost any interest group, I do suspect that other groups tend to attract smaller groups of people who are more focussed on the political ambitions of the group.

Thanks for writing, keep up the good work, try not to be to distressed by those who misread what you say (probably including myself).

Peter, you carp about folk who don't invest the same energy in research that you claim to, but I notice that you are pretty happy to indulge in a few dodgy generalizations of your own.

Your claim that "the church" opposed all those nasty regimes sounds good, but you have to dig pretty deep to find any seriously anti-Nazi proclamations from Pius XII, to give just one example. Simply pontificating (sorry) about peace, as Benedict XV did during the World War I, merely puts religion in the same boat as pacifism, which is a nice and warm place for the righteous to sit.

But perhaps I misunderstood, and World War I was "carried out in the name of some ideology or other that was and is opposed by the church." Which ideology did you have in mind?

But I'm afraid you lost me completely with your wild, outlandish and wholly unsupported claim that "the whole structure of Western culture [is] built on an egalitarianism that only Christianity was able to produce."

This may well be your belief, and that is a very fine and fair thing. But you then draw upon it to justify an even wilder and more outlandish position.

"...honesty in public work and service, a legal system that is not just founded on vengeance, protection of the marital bond and the care of the disadvantaged in society and we have a very sound argument for the positive outcomes of Christian society. But, we are told, all of this must be abandoned to some other way of deciding our fate which turns out to be the simplest pragmatism. We are invited to abandon the riches of a tradition that has brought us thus far to opt for a severely reduced view of the world."

Who is telling you this? Why is it axiomatic that pragmatism requires us to embrace (for example) a legal system founded on vengeance?

Such arrogance of argument, and from someone who complains about the forum's tendency to "knee-jerk".

Peter, I obviously didn't express myself well. My point was of the problems that can occur when the Church moves into a powerful role within government. My example of creation teaching was used to illustrate that point. With all the good teachings contained within the Christian religion, it's dogma such as this that is pressed by the Christian lobby.

The excesses of secular government do not justify, lessen or negate the excesses of Christian power. The history of the Christian Church (as opposed to Christianity or Christian people)has not been a pretty one. It's a history of intolerance, cruelty, greed and lust for power. The history of the Christian spirit within individuals is much different, as evidenced by people such as Mother Teresa, incredible charity work performed by individual parishes and people, down to the person whose Christian beliefs help them in loving their neighbour and "being a good person". These are the qualities that should be the face of the Church.

Walk down any street and ask people the question, "Would you be comfortable with the Church having power within government?" I can guarantee that the majority of people would answer in the negative. I would suggest that secular impressions of the Church centre around stern, humourless autocrats detailing "Thou shalt nots'" and the punishment to expect if thou shalt. It's up to the Church to take action to change these perceptions. The Evangelicals have gone a small way towards this, as is shown by their growth. The problem they face in my opinion is the current of fanatical fundamentalism that flows not far below the surface.

For the mainstream Churches to regain any lost relevance they need to make themselves spiritually attractive again. They need to effectively put the teachings of Jesus into a practical, modern perspective. People have to be able to trust the Church before they'll listen to it. The Church has to stop bashing the Bible and start giving the message.

So basically Peter I'm just echoing what you're saying, albeit from a different perspective.

Holdenute you need to read the bible again mate, democracy and the rights of the individual are not founded upon Christian principles. The bible says slavery is okay (exodus 21:21 is a good read) and that is just one point. Sure there are some people who "reinterpreted" the bible into whatever it is they want but if you actually read it rather then interpreted it it’s a pretty evil little book on the whole. I’ll give you a hint the Greeks and a few other cultures were mucking about with various of version of it well before some used cart salesman’s got delusion of grandeur.
AS for Sells comments get real secularization did not lead to the bloodiest century ever. Two things caused your so called bloodiest century ever 1) Mans inhumanity to man which has been going on since we got opposable thumbs. 2) Mans new and improve weapons of war. We now have the ability to kill each other in large numbers. Just think what the thirty years war would have been like if they had twentieth century weapons?

There should be no separation of God and Politics because both the Old and New Testament teach alot about the government, finances, economics, morals, and leadership. Furthermore politics without faith results in a lack of morality in fiscal and monetary policy, as well as civil and social legislation. Politicians that don't have (christian) faith fail to govern and lead with the integrity of the values of Christ, and the New Testament.

Teresa van Lieshout
Author
Faith and Politics: A Framework for Australian Social and Political Life.
http://onenationwa.tripod.com/

Kenny: The old Testament has guidelines for us of today, though mainly we read it to see the prophesies for the Christ and see their fulfillment in the N/T, but it was written for and given to the Israelites not us Gentiles. Of course we Gentiles never had slaves, we never had to have permission from the Creator God, or any lesser god to have them either eh?
Read the O/T for what it is Kenny.

Kenny
your glib and sweeeeeeping 'The Old testament says slavery is ok' man ! If your computer science is of the same standard as your Old testament understanding, heaven help the clients mate. Such a statement of yours, pre-supposes an idea of slavery already existing in our (your readers) minds, and that this image is same as slavery in the old testament, and is therefore 'bad', hence by implication the Old Testament is also 'bad'.
The reality is, that the image of slavery in most peoples minds today is that of the harsh treatment of the American and 'slave trade' days of the 17th/18th centuries. Fortunately, the picture in the ancient near east was very different and much more complex.
I strongly recomment u study up on this subject before u ever speak about it again. (I would rather ur credibility remain in tact, I wouldn't want others to tease u :)
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
By the way, the greek philosophers had some very unhealthy ideas about 'slaves', u might do well to read on that also.
The pattern of government in the Old Testament, before the emergence of kings, was Theocracy, when the kings were appointed it was the end of Theocracy. Under Theocracy, Social welfare, and caring for the 'alien, foreigner, widow and orphan' were high on the priority list.

I do agree with the observation of some here that when the Church gets big and powerful, and becomes part of the 'state', things go downhill, and the church becomes corrupt, because of human nature.
I do support political 'influence' by Christians in a prophetic sense, as I do with their right to act responsibly in a democratic society, which includes appointing leaders and policies of their preference. To deny this to them, is blatant discrimination.

If I wrote my previous post 150 years ago,I would have been hung or burned at the stake as a heretic.Religion has no place in politics since it is based on faith,blind ideology,and often defies all logic.
Religions have done a lot of good but they have also done some horrendous things in the name of God.I respect peoples religious needs and beliefs,but don't try to inflict them on others.I have an open mind on the subject.My children go to a catholic school and they know how I feel.I just tell them that religion is a very personal thing,and to keep an open mind on the subject.I see it as an evolution of our consciousness.We are just beginning to grasp the universe and it's laws.Perhaps there is a supreme consciousness but it doesn't mean we are that important to be included in the grand scheme of things.We can have morality without fear ,damnation and empty promises.Unless all the religions progress beyond their static
dogma,and progress with the discoveries of science and resultant awareness,they will be doomed to irrelevance.

While his article is a good exposition of a Christian view on the relationship between his religion and some aspects of Australian politics, Peter Sellick strikes me as just a little bit precious when he talks about "the constant demonizing of the church that we get in this comments section".

Firstly, since I've been engaging with these often stimulating and interesting forums I've encountered more godbotherers per capita than anywhere I've known other than in some benighted Pacific nations. It's really quite an ethnographic event.

Secondly, it seems to me that the disproportionate amount of Christian 'preaching' that occurs here textually invites, if not 'demonizing', then a thorough howling down for the utter twaddle that much of it is. The prolific Christian 'preachers' on this site should expect robust responses from those of us with a broader worldview than the victims of their evangelistic predecessors.

Fortunately, I guess, most of us couldn't be bothered :)

Kind regards,
Morgan

So BOAZ_David and numbat believe the bible has never been used by Christians to “prove” that slavery is ok. That is a very interesting revision of history. There a church groups in the US right now that still maintain slavery is ok.
Can you show me a passage in the bible (KG version please) that clearly states slavery is bad ? I made no comment on how Greeks views on slavery (which was simular to most peoples then) or even the type of government they had, I was merely countering the authors statement that Christianity brought us democracy which is clearly wrong.
BOAZ_David I’m very familiar with the treatment of slaves in many cultures in many time periods the link you provide was not worth the pixels sorry try again. The only rule about the ownership of slaves in the old or new testaments is that Jews can not keep fellow Jews as slaves. This leads me to my next point that Christians who maintain this belief as the author does that their religion is the reason that western culture is were it is today are no better then white supremacists and funnily enough use the same evidence to support their claims. The fact is Christianity is going in the direction it needs to go into the pages of history. Just one last thing BOAZ_David makes comments about how wonderful the Jews Theocracy treated non Jews. To give people a idea of what Jews thought of other people at that time read numbers 25:6-9

Part of the blame game that has been used by secularizers is to accuse the church of terrible deeds. It is true that terrible things have been done in the name of the church but it is reasonable to make a distinction between the gospel and what is done in its name. It can hardly be held that Jesus was a promoter of war, the burning of witches and the suppression of women. Indeed, Christian pacifism is based on Jesus walking into the final conflict and prohibiting his disciples to defend him. Phrases like “love your enemies” and “those who live by the sword also die by the sword” are hardly instigations to violence. We may not, of course say the same of Islam. Although we all regret and confess religious intolerance and violence done in the name of God that does not empty the gospel of its truth.

I would like to defend my point about secularism being responsible for the violence of the 20C. The second world war was perpetrated in the name of blood and soil by the Nazi, a pagan idea. Communism was a direct outworking of the radical Western Enlightenment which placed mankind in the place of God. The idea that religion is really the problem is a lie perpetrated by the secularizers to hide their own complicity in the woes of the 20th C. We need go no further than an examination of the French terror to see that secularization is not all sunlight and roses. The problem with secularism is that it lacks a deep theological critique of itself and thus falls easily into all kinds of idolatry. In our days those abound: managerialism, free market capitalism, the idolatry of the self, human rights as a replacement of justice, life as lifestyle. These are all distractions from what are called to seek: the face of God.

Kenny... I was NOT saying 'Slavery is ok' I was attacking (justly so) your sweeeeeping generalization. That link is VERY worth the pixels, but if u are in 'don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up' mode, then of course, it will not be very effective in your personal pilgrimage towards truth :) I was saying that 'your' statement was so shallow, and simplistic, and should never be uttered as u uttered it in a forum intended for balanced and intelligent comment.
I cannot show you 'one verse' which says "slavery is bad", nor can I show you a verse which says "free your slaves" (as a matter of fact, Islam does have something along those lines) I can show you a verse which in the context of the day would remove completely the harshness and cruelty of slavery and turn it into something more akin to a family relationship than forced servitude. You can search urself about it seeing as u think my links are worthless.

The whole tone of the New Testament is so anti slavery, and anti injustice of any kind (as is the Old, see Isaiah) so your point is in my opinion moot. Pol Pot was the epitomization of naturalistic atheistic communism at work. He was actually quite faithful to his presuppositions. There is NOTHING in this world apart from the Word of God, which has any authority to condemn acts such as his, and this includes your opinion ....which has no more authority than 'the next blokes'. Can you point to any ?

As for the rest, I refer you to Sells post just prior to this one.

Peter, there you go again, being carefully selective in the examples you use to justify your indefensible generalizations. There is a well respected argument that much of the impetus for the Third Reich was the triumphalism and vindictiveness contained in the Treaty of Versailles. To carefully skip this step and move directly to the earthy nature of Nazism as the cause of WWII is like blaming the bullet rather than the gunman.

I suppose that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but why do you insist on seeing absolutely everything through the lens of Christianity? The proposition that communists are godless, communism is a harsh regime therefore harsh regimes are the product of godlessness is a failure of logic at primary school level - yet this is what you propose... "[c]ommunism was a direct outworking of the radical Western Enlightenment which placed mankind in the place of God" Could there not be just a tiny corner of the Revolution that was based on the dignity of the working man? Or is that to you merely another aspect of the radical Western Enlightenment?

And can you not see the circular nature of your proposal that "[t]he problem with secularism is that it lacks a deep theological critique of itself" Well, as my young niece would say, duh.

Pericles

By your appellation, you may well be one of those who consider all times between the Greek Classical age and the "dawning of light" of the Enlightenment, as being an age of darkness. The reality is that over the last 2000 years ago a movement that came to be known as Christianity formed and has moved through history in alignment with the magnificient unfolding of human consciousness, that has accelerated over the last 160 years. This unfolding of a newer era (the last 60 years) is happening so fast the blood has drained from our collective brain.

The age of our human story you have committed to the scrap heap started when something extraordinary happened 2000 years ago, with a band of men and women, generally "outsiders", re-gathering after the unjust and cruel death of a man whose message touched them and who they believed was still with them. Just as I can believe today; of course this is a great insult to rational man, as he is narrowly constituted today, but maybe not for your ancient Greeks.

Peter's article needs to be read thoughtfully to appreciate its message. If we ignore it, then the Bishop's mitre will indeed continue to be passed onto the various heads of Tribunals, Counsellors and indeed of late, football executives, as they endeavour to correct and make good our naughty, silly, unloving ways.

BTW: some facts of the bloody secular 20th century....

Survival of Fittest, as a corruption of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, was a mantra for the ruling elites and their militarism of early 20th Century. A credible secular truth, with a vicious sting in its tail for the ordinary bloke in the early 20th century.

The secular Italians vetoed the Pope from the planning of Treaty of Versailles; perhaps a small voice of Christian forgiveness and mercy would have benefited the next generations of the ordinary bloke.

MJB

Democracy: government by the people or its elected representatives; the practice of the spirit of social equality;

Theocracy: government by deity or priesthood.

As many writers here have made clear, the religious right seeks theocracy not democracy. Like the communists and fascists before them, they seek to replace democratic process with a narrow dogma based on unquestioning idolatry of 'scripture'. Not content to leave the judgement of 'sin' to God, these theocrats seek to use the state to make this life Hell for all those who don't share their beliefs. Witness the long history of religious activists using government policy to punish those whose 'lifestyles' they disapprove.

While it's certainly unreasonable for any state to ban the religious from participating in democracy, the state does have a valid role in protecting democratic freedom by forbidding the state to impose religion.

Those of us who value democratic principles should be very cautious about the apparent convergence of the economic right (money/the market is God) with the religious right (material wealth is sign of Godliness). The priesthoods of both schools crave control and fear liberty, and thus represent a potent danger to democracy.

Homo NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
hope that got your attention :)
'We' don't want 'theocracy' in the social/governmental/political sense... we want the prophetic voice made plain and clear,and brought to bear on behavior just as Nathan rebuked David as per Sells article.
Our calling is to be 2 things SALT (to preserve) and LIGHT (to show the way) no matter how arrogant or wowserish that might sound, may I say "As for me and my house, we are on the Lords side" (that was what Joshua said when the Israelites had been partying around the golden calf when the 10 commandments were given and Moses gave them a 'clear and present choice').

Morgan, u vote Green ?! (calls the witch burning team).. grrr..that explains a lot :) the 'godbotherers' are in fact, a significant proportion of this world brudda.... your mob, the 'secularists, agnostics,atheists' etc, consitute the massive number of around 14% So, with all respect, please stop referring to 'us' as if we are some fringe minority.

But Morgan, u did actually come up with some rather compassionate sounding material in one of your posts, and ultimately, no matter what our positions may be, a caring approach to our adversaries is a worthy goal for all of us, it's CERTainly a Christian ideal, though in the heat of passionate debate, this may not come thru, especially on some well known issues.

David, it matters not what you believe in terms of an after life.It is the struggle to understand and improve the human condition,whether it be social,intellectual emotional or economic.This is what religion is about.You don't have to believe in God to be religious.Life is about the journey,the moment of joy or enlightenment,under an umbrella of discpline, courage, learning and love.
When a person after 50 yrs of marriage ,fails to recognise their spouse due to alhiezmers,the awful reality of our mortality and limitations strikes us.If you can't remember while you are alive,is death going to be any better?We are but the sum total of the memory of our experiences and are as only good as our last perception.

MJB, I read your post three times without finding a shred of meaning in it. Just another example of someone using another's comments as a peg upon which to hang their own sanctimonious twaddle. "[Y]ou may well be one of those who consider all times between the Greek Classical age and the "dawning of light" of the Enlightenment, as being an age of darkness" Pray, where did I say anything of the sort? And, as is typical of your sort, you state that "[c]hristianity ... has moved through history in alignment with the magnificient unfolding of human consciousness," as if one were the cause of the other. Piffle, sir.

"The age of our human story you have committed to the scrap heap.." - which age, which scrap heap? Are you sure you were referring to something I wrote?

But of course you weren't. You were just gasbagging from your pulpit, weren't you?

And if you think for one moment that the pope would have had any influence on the outcome of the Treaty, you know less about the papacy at that time than you think you do, and a good deal less about what went on at Versailles.

Pericles. With my first post I made an erroneous assumption based on your chosen pen name.

I contributed "sanctimonious twaddle", as you ungenerously labelled it, as your comments offer no proposition with which to argue; you contribute quotes of another then a question or a comment on the form of argument. But I think I understand your underlying position; is it nothingness?

You delivered an answer to your own two questions about what you said, with your own comment " as if one was the cause of the other. Piffle, sir" on the fact of the Gospel message being carried by the Christian peoples, and their emerging social structures, through the last 2000 years being the foundation of all that is good in our western liberal democracies.

This not a matter of looking at life "through the lens of Christianity" as you previously put it.

Christianity is. Followers of Christ are in every age. This is a human story which is threaded with good and evil throughout all of its institutions and their spin offs. But one in which goodness prevails whilst there is a sense of Immanence, that God is amongst us.

Pericles, to avoid becoming another wasted civilisation as your ancient Athens, we need Jesus and his Gospel. Individuals do not have to believe, but there needs to be a critical mass to keep alive the truly egalitarian notion of each of us being born naked and in the Image of God (Imago Dei), with consequential dignity, respect and solidarity.

Those who prefer to deny and disparage this heritage essentially have nothing to say. It has been exhausted in the killing fields of the 20th / 21st century, and reduced to nothingness in the Market, Academia and soulless social policy.

For the rest of us we need to know what the carpenter of 2000 years ago was about, what has happened within his Church to learn of its revelation of Truth as well as its errors, and to bring forth Jesus's message into and for these new times in a direct, loving, liberating and redeeming way.

Pericles, regarding MJB's comments, in which u find little meaning. I have to say I found them quite meaningful. But to your mention of Peters 'generalizations' and your comment about "triumphalism and vindictiveness contained in the Treaty of Versailles" - I did a google on that phrase to see what came up and the only result was your own comment in this forum. Can u point me to some actual source about this argument you are referring to ?

The sections I read from it were very fair I feel. Reparations did not seem too oppressive. The Germans did regard their treaty to respect Belgiums neutrality as a 'scrap of paper' and Britain honoured her treaty obligations when Germany invaded.

Harsh regimes 'are' a product of godlessness, even if they happen to exist under a banner proclaiming God. Because, every prophet called kings and nations back to love and respect and justice. It would be unfair to say 'all' godless regimes are unjust, though many of the just ones are indeed harsh. Regimes which have no 'Divine mandate or Foundation' are subject to the whimsical ideas of the monarch or powers to be. Pol Pot. "This is the year zero, all counter revolutionaries will now be liquidated" and 3 million corpses later-

Peter was making a point about God and Politics, where Political powers need a prophetic restraint. He illustrated this with such examples as Thomas Abecket etc. You can nitpick about some of the examples, but I think that is to miss the point of the article.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, u know this, I know this, we all know this. Hence, the need for the prophetic call to bring powerful people back to real justice and Godly living.

MJB >> your comments offer no proposition with which to argue;<<

My proposition was that your remarks are sanctimonious twaddle, but I will leave it to you to decide whether to argue the point.

It does however illustrate a basic problem of communication that we have. You - and a number of your fellow-travellers - believe that simply by repeating the same christian mantra ad nauseam, you are arguing your corner. The reality is that you are merely fulfilling your purpose of evangelizing your faith - which is fine, except that you employ these tactics at the expense of logical and rational argument. The result is exactly that we just experienced... I perceive your ramblings about 2000 years of a sense of immanence to be vacuous tripe, while you take me to task for not buying into your beliefs.

Read this sentence of yours again, but this time try to put yourself in the position of an impartial onlooker:

"Those who prefer to deny and disparage this heritage essentially have nothing to say. It has been exhausted in the killing fields of the 20th / 21st century, and reduced to nothingness in the Market, Academia and soulless social policy."

None of this is factual, all of it depends upon your spiritual leanings, which then proceed to guide your opinion. If I am accused of not offering "propositions with which to argue", you have to accept that neither are yours, however much you wish they were.

Having spent a bit of time sniffing around this site now, I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Pericles, and concur with his proposition that much of what the 'godbotherer' contingent posts here is 'sanctimonious twaddle'.

Endless repetition of a false proposition does not make it any truer, and endless repetition of a belief does not elevate it to the status of truth. While I found the sheer preponderance of sanctimonious, misogynist, racist and otherwise bigoted posts very off-putting at first, I'm somewhat heartened that correspondents like Pericles, Grace Pettigrew, Kenny and others have consistently provided intelligent and rational comments since these forums were launched.

While the godbotherers who use this site as pulpit from which to preach their outdated superstitions are undoubtedly entitled to do so, they should be aware that they are not participating in a 'debate' - rather, their persistent 'evangelizing' actively works against both critical thought and rational, polite debate.

On the other hand, maybe that is their object.

Morgan

Boaz, your comments give away more about your approach to argument than you realize. I had suspected as much from previous posts, where you asked for, or were provided with, the URLs for various references, but I hadn't twigged exactly how entrenched this habit has become.

>>I did a google on that phrase to see what came up and the only result was your own comment in this forum. Can u point me to some actual source about this argument you are referring to ?<<

My friend, the reason that phrase googled back to me was simple. I researched the topic from a number of different angles, assessed the material, and came up with my own opinion. I then found a form of words that a) reflected this opinion and b) was consistent with the material I had uncovered. I am aware how this concept - i.e., not simply piggy-backing on someone else's output - might be confusing to you, but it is a great way to learn. It is necessary, however, to keep an open mind while undertaking the exercise, just so that you might be ready when new ideas present themselves.

A suggestion: type into Google the words treaty and Versailles. This should give you access to around a quarter of a million documents. Read the full text if you feel up to it, but only after digesting some of the statistics - how Germany, for example, had lost two million soldiers. Then do some more research - if you are a google person, try WWI and cause - and compare the beginning with the end. This - plus, as I say, an open mind - might lead you to use words similar, but not exactly the same, as the ones I used. The you too can be accused of being original.

See what happens when you go away for a few days.
I find it interesting that only bad things can be done in the name of the church. so the rule seems to be

Good things are done by the church bad things in the name of the church.

But the God squad on this site would have you also believe that is rule doesn't apply for any other religion, political or social movement. No the rule that applies to these groups is.
Anything bad is because of a lack of Christian values and anything good is because of Christianity’s influence.

Mmm makes you wonder doesn’t

As for the nazis well Hitler was a good catholic and in the best traditions of the Christian faith stole pagan ideas and corrupted them to his own needs (Christmas, Easter?).

BOAZ_David if you read the bible through rose colored glass’s then of course you only see the bits you want to see.
As for the slavery angle well what can I say, I read a review of a book written by a Pastor in the US that believes that same “almost family” attitude towards slavery in the US.:)
Now about the NT believing all love and stuff let’s set aside Paul’s views on Crete for a minute and talk about examples of intolerance in the NT.
John 1 2:15-22 I could go on but to keep the slavery theme going I’ll finish on this one Luke 12:46-47 Hebrews 10:30 tells “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God”.:o

Pericles,
I've done it, and it just confirmed my long held belief that any triumphalism that the treaty of Versailles pales into insignificance to the real reasons for all wars, which is human pride and greed, coupled with the understandable desire to maintain power balance in favor of nations survival.

The many alliances formed between the various nation states of the day was the fuse in the powder keg, based on the often secret nature of those treaties. Only the trigger event was needed to launch those alliances into action, as happened for WW1.

Now, to you and morgan's vitriol about we godbotherers and our 'repeating something over and over ad nauseum' does not make it true. Well, that is a difference of opinion that we have already covered, and which as far as I can see, left you and morgan with very little by way of answers to the human predicament. We maintain that the death and resurrection of Christ, and the associated renewal that mankind can experience through this, (i.e. thru genuine faith) "is" the solution to the wars and human problems society faces. As far as we are concerned this is 'the' truth. We know this by our experience and by history. We also know the warts which grew on the historical skin that occurred when 'The Church' in its various manifestations strayed from where it should have been, at the foot of the cross in humble submission to Christs will and example, washing the feet of those who love Him.
Just as you guys give your 'un' sanctimonious twaddle (as we see it) we can give our 'sanctimoneous' twaddle as you see it, thats life. In the end, we have an answer, you guys don't. You just speak about 'the journey' etc. Well, as I pointed out elsewhere, that view is represented by about 14% of the worlds population, the rest are quite 'sanctimonious' in their own way, rightly or wrongly.
But nevertheless, I feel blessed with the interaction, and being regarded as an oft repeating sanctimoneous moron is a small price to pay :)

BOAZ_David “I do support political 'influence' by Christians in a prophetic sense, as I do with their right to act responsibly in a democratic society, which includes appointing leaders and policies of their preference. To deny this to them, is blatant discrimination.”

Agree – Christians acting as individuals –

I also agree with arjay - “If I wrote my previous post 150 years ago,I would have been hung or burned at the stake as a heretic.Religion has no place in politics since it is based on faith,blind ideology,and often defies all logic.”

We need to separate and embrace people as individuals (a human trait which is universal) regardless of the their religious denominations, dogmas or beliefs (which are not universal). I personally have a deep suspicion of the real motives of a highly structured and authoritarian religious organisation which still, today, maintains an office of the Holy Inquisition.

What we support as a political system (not party) needs to have universal support - democracy (the ones who actively challenge this, we know as terrorists).
It cannot be so limited as to believe, as some “Muslims” do, that we should be regulated by sharia law.
Likewise some “Christians” consider themselves “a exclusive brethren” and separate from other individuals and others that individuals can be excommunicated for challenging religious dogma.
Such notions have no place in democracy. “Theological” authoritarianism (embodied in the existence of the “priest class”) challenges the universal equality of and therefore has no place in any democracy.

MJB – the Treaty of Versaille was largely a result of French intransigence – I doubt whether the Pope’s intercession would have made any difference – but for the reasons above – he has a voice as an individual – but Roman Catholicism held Gallileo a heretic for daring to question their teaching and through the centuries has accumulated more blood on its hands than Hitler.
It is the embodiment of despotism, an authoritarian organisation with no claim to a place at the “secular table of democracy”.
So to with every other religious creed.

Peter, I found this article very interesting. But I wonder whether you have misread Family First. If a person's political views (which has implications for social, economic, cultural policy) are motivated by their faith, whatever that may be, and this person wishes to get active in politics, they have every right to argue their case in the public sphere. I'm sure you agree. But many traditional Christians probably haven't had a party they felt comfortable with until Family First. This is because Libs have been seen as uncompassionate (economically speaking) and Labor has all sorts of nasty policies that Christians would oppose. I assume that Democrats are not an option for any practicing Christian.

So why can't Christians form a party and get active? Government should be about protecting the weak and vulnerable. Christians are charged with this - not just preaching, but providing people's basic needs. Christians must seek justice. Family First haven't been operating under false pretences - they have been advocating sensible and just policies for families and especially children, and also indigenous people. Don't accuse them of trying to fuse church and state until they actually start to do so.

I'm sure you're not saying that Christians shouldn't have time for the family, and that they shouldn't be involved in politics. How can you expect Christians to set their faith aside when they get involved in politics? Or have I misread you?

Ruby,
You raise a fine point. Of course Christians should be politically active. What I was trying to say was that it is dangerous for us to assume that there exists a particular program for society although, as you point out, the protection of the weak from the strong is pretty basic. My point is that Christian pressure groups necessarily forsake the dynamics of the church which lives and breaths only by the power of the Spirit. As I stated, Christian pressure groups try to accomplish aspects of what they see is the kingdom by means of the powers of the world. When that happens we have theocracy on our hands and the end is not good. I know this is a difficult point, I am finding it hard to explain in different words and it does seem to offer only a kind of religious quietism. We must remember that it is the gospel that is the truth and not what we derive from it. I have been thinking since I wrote the piece that it lacks a well worked pneumatology, we must understand how the Trinity reveals how God works in the world. When Christianity becomes just another ideology it loses its freedom (the freedom of the Spirit) and becomes the antichrist. What the secularisers fear above all is that a new tyrany will be imposed in the name of Christ and I agree with them. This does not hamper the individual politician from working from a stance of Christian faith. But let us not call parties "Christian" it makes me nervous.
Peter

The State-Religion question was more scope:

Churches and priesthoods have their roots in earlier practices and mythologies pre-dating Christianity. Religionism as distinct from Shamanism probably arose around 4000-5000 BCE.

Humanity in the Middle East moved from being nomadic through a period of semi-nomadic Garden Cultures to establishing permanent states. Later, in Sumer, the ownership of land was an issue. In this frame, priesthoods were formed to administer the Land on behalf God. So, it was in the financial interests of the emerging religions to control of secular resources.

The Christian religion was formed possibly as a reaction to Jewish fundamentalism. Nonetheless, the Romans would have perceived the Christians as a Jewish Sect. Despite, the fall of the Second Temple, Roman occupation and the terrorist activities of the Zealots, Rome respected the Jewish religion's antiquity. Further, the Romans would have been more tolerant of the early Christians had the Christians:

(i) Made sacrificial offerings. (The Romans were superstitious and worried the Gods would punish them for non-observance.),

(ii) Not Framed two associations with cannibalism; i.e., transubstantiation and the practice of digging-up an eating dead martyrs, and

(iii) Stpped catechumen running riot before their adult absolution and Baptism. Last minute sins!

Around the later years of the sixth century, Christianity encroached onto tribal Arabic states. A little later, Mohammed c. 620 CE, wishing to organise the Arab tribes noted the Jews and Christians had "prophets" (Jesus being demoted), but the Arabs did not. Not surprisingly, shortly thereafter, Islam emerged, as another monotheistic religion, with its very own prophet.

For centuries afterwards and maybe into this century, there has clash between the Christian and Islamic monotheistic religions. Herein, when the State and monotheism are too close, and, there is mutual intolerance between rival States the situation is dire. Especially today, given the proliferation radiological weapons and other nasties.

In summation, there must be wide separation between the Church and State. Moreover, religionists need to be more tolerant, accepting their particular faith or belief is a postulation. Contrarily, the existence of the State - and the people in it - is a certainty.

My arguement is that we should be using the moral teachings and philosophies that religions have evolved over the centuries.To simply label people as "God Bothers" achieves nothing.It is a throw away line such as"heathen" It is better to believe in a lie and be a constructive being,than to believe in a reality,show no respect,and strive for nothing.Morality and values are about the common good and thus survival of our species.Presently we are facing a real dilemma of a society wth diminishing morality,religions with decreasing credibility,and nothing to fill the void.

Oliver
you tried to do a 'theory of everything' with that post, and I'm afraid that u covered material which requires just about a LIBRARY of books to fill in the HUGE gaps that you OVER generalized and very inaccurate posting gave us. U can eat an elephant if u eat it one bite at a time, NOT when u try to swallow the whole thing in one go as u did there. Reduce your post to just ONE major contention, and we might be able to engage with you.

KENNY mate.. u leave me absolutely speechless, for a bloke who claims a reasonable education, you did much worse than a first year apprentice on his first day butchering a newly slaughtered beef, chopping wrong bits off here and there, - to be honest, you handling of a serious issue of Biblical interpretation was atrocious and grossly off the mark. You selected just a few words of one complete parable, u used it out of context, and that my friend, is a PRETEXT. U just gathered a few convenient words and used them to hang your biases on :) sorry but true.
Now.. IMPORTANT.. do u have an email address which is non threatening ? if not, can u open one, I want to send you a photo which is most instructive (taken just days ago) in Borneo, and I'll show u something about slavery. I'm a great believer in 'facts are mightier than conjecture'

MORGAN and PERICLES its clear to me, that when the word 'Church' is mentioned, (this is for Kenny also) an image of some large beaurocratic organization seems to come to your minds. You can only see that image, and hence ur fear about 'Powerful Churches' imposing their will. The Biblical picture is not of a huge political/powerful group, but of people, renewed, living under Gods Kingship, speaking into the society in which they live. I am as opposed as YOU guys to a powerful 'Church' of one flavor controlling the state. That is not what I am advocating. Lets talk more about this

BOAZ

The very point of my posting was that the original author should be looking at his topic more generally. That is, one can understate the intricacies of huge issue of Church and State from the narrow perspective of the Bible and the West. I plead guilty to gaps, as I too hurriedly edited the postng back from 650 words. As for inaccuracies, not so. Explicit and subject to refutation - yes. Little is known about the life of Jesus. However, much is recorded about Roman History. The Bible is a book more like the Collected Works of William Shakespeare (i.e., there were several drafts of Hamlet). That is, the Bible is a selected compilation of works written after the fact. It is far better to study normative behaviour in society. Herein,the Jesus sects were uncharacteristic were uncharacteric of early Roman Times. As for known periods of "apparent" cooperation between monotheistic states, if that is what you are thinking, BOAZ, this behaviour is what evolutionary biologists call "by-product mutualism" and "reciprocal altruism". The benefits of zero-sum games were known to merchant traders long before mathematicians (Nash Equilibrium.

BOAZ, there is a lesson here for both of us. I should write more succinctly and articulately for a limited space. You need to learn not to write "a priori" with regard to using the Bible as a guide. Step back from your topic. As Confucius said, "you can't see the face of the mountain from inside the mountain"

Oliver
thanks for your response. I know the feeling, 350 words is not nearly enuf. You said:
"Little is known about the life of Jesus. However, much is recorded about Roman History"
Agreed. We know most about just 3 yrs of Jesus life, but it is that 3 yrs which most concerns mankind. I write from a conservative evangelical perspective, and a relationship with Christ which never ceases to amaze me, so you will see where I'm coming from.
It's probably better not to try to describe the Bible from a secular perspective to a believing Christian :) it just does not work. We appproach the scriptures sympathetically, and not as a scientist would do, because of its essential nature of communicating the Word of Grace. Only as we encounter that Word, and react to it will we have one or another view of Scripture.
In regard to the point of the arcticle, it boils down to the Christians in community (of any tradition) seeking to shape the community as they desire, using the democratic process, as it also does for those persuaded to a different social agenda.
We are generally against abortion, homosexual behavior, and sexual permisiveness in general, and we support a responsible approach to the environment and strong family values. We believe the most basic family will usually include a man and a woman, maybe children. (single parents with children are of course families) We firmly believe that a society will never survive its own decadence, and on that score history is our ally. We claim that decadence is definable and that we have a calling as preserving Salt and illuminating Light. The alternative is an anchorless ship in the rolling seas of moral relativism.
To believe in Christ is an experience 'of peace which passes understanding' and in anticipation of 'sure sure pat pat' :) pls read Pauls first letter to the Corinthians chapter 15.
Keep up the enthusiastic contributions

I always look forward to Peter's writings on these pages. I don't always agree with all his work, but I find his thoughts on the rise of fundamentalism insightful. Peter's articles have a common thread of examining the place that belief and Christianity, in particular, has in Australian life.

Political decisions are not made without reference to society and its morals. To pretend that "rational" decision-making free of personal values is possible is, to me, not rational.

Well said Anthony !
the rather 'silly' view (and I really mean that) that some seem to hold (like Kenny) is that its only we 'godbotherers' have 'values and morals which we want to impose on others' when the reality is that EVERYone has their own, and they bring them to the party. Further, whatever people bring to the democratic arena, it is totally unavoidable that SOMEone or other, or some group will feel irritated, annoyed or marginalized. The tendency I note is that we (Chrsitians) tend to want 'less' freedom in some areas, (Abortion, seuxal permisiveness etc) whereas others want 'more' freedom. But freedom always comes with rules and consequences, however slow they may be in coming. I don't agree with Sells that for Christians to support candidates and policies which promote Christian values is 'theocracy'. Its simply democracy at work.
Funnily enuf, the only 'hate' I sense in all of that debate, seems to come from the 'other' side of the fence. We are firm and resolute in our views, but that doesn't mean we hold those views with any serious ill feeling toward people of opposing views. We just plain disagree.

Boaz, I believe I have asked before, please don't put words into my mouth and then argue agaist them. It is most impolite of you.

"...PERICLES its clear to me, that when the word 'Church' is mentioned, (this is for Kenny also) an image of some large beaurocratic organization seems to come to your minds"

It may be clear to you, but only in your own imagination. There is nothing that I have written here that can be construed in such a way.

My angle, if I can be conveniently pigeonholed, is that I am concerned when individuals can only see a situation, or conduct an argument, or adopt a position, through the distorting lens that is their version of religion. It doesn't matter a tinkers cuss which religion this happens to be - I would be just as frustrated with any other flavour.

David,
If you read the parrables of the kingdom it is obvious that it is not a power in the world as other powers. It is like leaven, when mixed into the dough levens the whole batch etc. It works in secret. When we try to produce Christian political parties we ignore the very essence of the kingdom. That is not to say that we should not vote for people who share our stance, that, as you say is just democracy at work.

I'm quite amazed at the believers in "God"can live in denial of realities that confront them.It seems to be a common human trait.I was taught by priests and a few were pretty screwed up and ended up expelled as mentally disturbed.A lay teacher who taught me 30yrs ago, committed suicide in the 90's, after being accused of molesting young boys.For hundreds, may be thousands of years, the clergy have indulged in institutionalised paediphilia and sex abuse.What sort of God would allow this to happen to innocent people?Are we going to blame this on original sin?The believers in god cling too much to their power source of collective agreement,rather than the realities we face in every day life.

Pericles, you are officially now removed from the 'axis of evil' :)
Sorry if I misrepresented your view. I allowed a cumulative impression to build up over time, but must have experienced a bit of blurring and overlap of your views with those who have a similar 'tone' but who you appear to differentiate yourself from.
Arjay, my sunday school teacher used to go home and beat the daylights out of his wife. The Senior elder of my OWN evangelical church, just after smilingly sending me to Borneo as a missionary with the 'unanimous blessing of the Elders' dumped his wife and took up with another woman. Nice stuff. How easy it would have been for me (alone, broke, in a foreign country) to just spit the dummy and 'blame God'. But then, I have one problem with that, no matter what I see in the lives of others, even those close, I know my Redeemer lives, its a real relationship. As Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna said as he was tied to the stake to be burned, when asked if he would deny Christ "Eighty-six years have I been His servant, and He has done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King who saved me?" Whereupon he was burned alive.
I was never molested by any priest, but some priests really concerned me (for their sakes) when I began asking them about Christian things. Arj, to be blunt, a mature and clear thinking person would NEVER hide behind the malpractice of a representative of an idea. If ur serious about seeking truth, look at Jesus, not at priests. To do so is as silly as condeming America just because the local ambassador did something wrong.

SPECIAL FOR SELLS ...Mate, I fully realize the situation of the parables and the kingdom 'growing in secret'. My position is that we are not 'building the kingdom of God' through political means, we are simply building the country we desire 'as Christians' thru democratic means. The kingdom will continue to grow in the hearts and minds of people as God wills.

The kingdom is not growing it's getting smaller and smaller, ;)

Kenny.. 'in ur dreams' :)
where is that email addy huh ? c'mon.. confront the issues as they REALLY are rather than in the dark recesses of your mind. Let me shed some light by showing you a pic of a former slave owner with 2 of her slaves .. just a week old mate.. err your not afraid of it are u ?

Just to underline that point I made for Sells. The "Christian in Democracy" has as much right as any other party to influence the texture of the community. It so happens.. 'we live here too'.
The kingdom of God is an unstoppable force, 'resistance is futile' :)
Mainly because it comes from God Himself, as Sells said, the yeast, effects the whole loaf, the smallest seed can become the largest tree.
The kingdom of God is NOT the kingdom of man. When God rules in our hearts, THAT is the kingdom of God.

Kenny, your jibe about it getting smaller.. man.. the early missionaries to China buried more of their own children than they could count in converts, even after a lifetime of work, but look at the church in China today (the real one I mean, not a 'structure') its counted in tens of millions me boy. It consists of people of various traditions, who know and love the Lord as Savior.

If the traditional 'structured' church fades and dies, it might be a good thing, so the believers who are true can be seen apart from any cultural icons. We are everywhere, we meet in homes, in hired halls, in the coffee shop, in rallies, in newer chapels but no matter where we meet, we always have a vote :)

Boaz_david, this sounds like old ground and probably is but I think that it is quite relevant to this thread and the original article.

In a recent message on this thread you posted the following
>> The kingdom of God is an unstoppable force, 'resistance is futile' :)
>> Mainly because it comes from God Himself, as Sells said, the
>> yeast, effects the whole loaf, the smallest seed can become the
>> largest tree.
>> The kingdom of God is NOT the kingdom of man. When God rules in our hearts, THAT is the kingdom of God.

and on a previous thread

>> "The" church, is that body of believers "within" the identifiable 'Church'
>> (the organized expression of it) There are many traditions, Anglican,
>> Methodist/Uniting, Catholic etc Jesus did not establish any one tradition,
>> he established the 'rule' of God (Kingdom) in the hearts of people. It is
>> not a cout de tat of our free will, this is where you are stumbling.
>> You are projecting a 'corportate' view of the kingdom of God into the Church,
>> and that is a square peg in a round hole, it just cannot be done.

It looks to me that when you get excited about the rise of christian political parties and their growing influence on the government that you are projecting a corporate view of the kingdom of God onto such parties. You argue stridently that God should not be held accountable for actions taken in his name and that individuals will continue to act as individuals and not necessarily follow the will of God but at the same time appear to consider the rise of a christian party as a manifestation of the will of God.

What stops the individuals involved in christian political parties acting of their own free will rather than as instruments of the will of God? There is some history for that kind of occurance strang though it might seem.

Separation of Church and State? Correct.

Seperation of Christians and State? I don't see how that can be proposed in a democratic system of government over an autocratic system, that is, a system where the people rule over where and individual rules or a small group of men rule.

If Christians have a right to vote, as I understand they do in a democratic system such as the one under which we're blessed to live, then it is only to be expected for Christians who realise their responsibility to be the Salt and Light of the world around them to conduct themselves in such a manner and to vote accordingly. To expect them to act otherwise is strange and just plain bizzare. It is, in essense, to expect them to bow to Ceaser before God.

Those who disagree with Christians regarding their worldview are entirely entitled to their opinion. They are not entitled, however, to deny Christians the prerogative to exercise their worldview through the ballot box. Democracy allows this of them.

Dave Allen died yesterday.He made us laugh at our stupid insecurities.He was deeply religious because he understood our common humanity more than any pontificating power hungry clergy.If there is a god,he will be closer than any saint.May his courage in facing reality enlighten us all.

Brazuca .. well said.

ARJAY any 'power hungry' clergyman is not walking with Jesus, full stop.

"so he (Jesus) got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

6He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

7Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

8“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”

Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

From John 13

---
Hey wait a minute, the "Church" is supposed to have CHANGED all the bible to 'suit its purposes' hmmm but its purpose to 'gain power and control' ?... er.. gee, looks like they forgot this bit about humble service. Better get on the phone to the Vatican and let them know.
---

The 'user manual' is often quite helpful in trying to understand what is 'Christian' :)

In looking over the above posts....

Psalm 53:1a (from the Bible) says:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Saying there must be a separation of religion and politics is about the same as saying there must be a separation between politics and women...or politics and homosexuals...or politics and the Labour Party.

Slammer,

Obviously, politics and religion will interact in every society. Herein, please envisage the interlinking rings like the Olympic symbol or the Audi badge. Separation of Church and State means the amount of common intersection is small. In Islam, the circles would virtually cover each other.

Interpretations and approaches can be different. For example, your Biblical quotation is self-referencing. To prove/assert the existence of God one should quote scripture? No logician would have a bar of any argument having a similar contruction. Christians and perhaps many other religionists would be very happy with your use of the statement, whereas, a student of argument or scientific methodologist would not. Here, again, we have dissimilar perspectives.

Oliver, your warm hearted way of putting things is again noticed here.
With regard to the quotation from Psalms, bear in mind, such writings arose from the living history of Israel in the context of its experience of that living God, in our day it does seem self referencing to quote it, but the question of God being real in those days was simply not an option, it was more a matter of 'which' god ?

Your experience of Asia would probably give u such an insight, very similar over there.

Usually, it was the struggle between the pagan fertility deities with all their attendant debauchery and cult prositution etc, or Yarweh, the living God who delivered the Israelites from bondage. I would not be surprised if that psalm was written on passover, when they remembered the exodus from slavery.

We live in that same stream of history, albeit from the New Covenenant of "I will put my law in their hearts" (Jeremiah 31.31)

Your analogy of the olympic rings is quite apt, in fact, such an idea quite describes the concept of the prophet and the state. As the state comes more into line with the will of God, the prophetic word is overlapping more on the community. But the prophets were always calling to those in authority to live as God intended, they did not goto the king with the threat of a sword and order him to do so. They warned, and foretold, and sometimes were very badly treated.

Some, like Micaiah had a sense of humor. When the king asked him "Should we goto war against such and such"? he said "Sure..sure.. and u will win" (tongue in cheek) have a read of 1 kings 22 whole chapter, its quite good.

Boaz, I much enjoyed your studied and erudite post. I certainly will follow-up on the suggested reading. Further, I do agree fully with your “which” god comment. Herein, the Canaanites would have seen Yahveh as a God. More particularly, the Canaanite Baals presented a hierarchy of Gods, with El, the El (ahem) Supremo (God of Justice). Yehveh was the Canaanite God of Mercy.

In the formation of states in the region, in the second millennium before Christ, peoples coalesced into principalities based on family lineage: e.g., the Amurru princes. Thus, familial tribal connections were very important to survival. Also, scattered people or Habiru were also known.

The Habiru were wanderers. Often, the Habiru were tradespeople, without broad kin affiliations and therefore highly vulnerable folk. Within this context, one might note the Kenites traditionally were both metalworkers and traditional descendants of Cain. Wherein, the Old Testament scriptures say, “the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who come upon him should kill him”. This mark was meant to be a mark of protection not a bull’s eye.

Now, please stay with me:

The Hebrew Habiru, who were not initially monotheistic, felt themselves under the protection Yahveh (A Cain-like connection here). Some Hebrew Habiru settled in Egypt. Many Hebrew people were expelled, from Egypt by Ahmose I in 1567 BC, but others remained for about 250 years in a state of oppression. Circa. 1300, Moses (Egyptian name) married the daughter of a Midianite priest of Yahveh. (There is another important connection, here.):

A “social” group was formed and left Egypt for Sinai (not Canaan). Here, at Sinai, history would have the start of the Hebrew conversion to monotheism. When this originally “social” group reached Canaan, it was now a monotheistic “religious” group led by Joshua under the sole protection of the God, “Yahveh”. Later, the previous stateless (principality-less?) Hebrews formed Judea and Israel. Afterwards, following the “period of Judges” (i.e., David and Solomon), Judea and Israel merged to form the more militaristic Kingdom of Israel: a Temple State where Church and States were not separated

What is the difference between teaching creationism and the idea of promoting homosexuality as a self-perpetuating sexual identity?

When kids ask "Where did HIV come from"? In Britain they are going to be told it is a classified secret.

They have worked out how it arrived. Teachers now have to make sure that the lifestyle is not singled out for 'blame'.

It is not about being gay, it is about being gay with more partners than a Roman legion. Best to censor the news.

The world is flat, or it is round. Global warming is happening or not happening. Pornography is healthy etc.

Oliver, thanx for your kind words.
Abraham, being founder of the 'habiru' if by that the hebrews are meant, had a father who was polytheistic, yes, Abraham himself was true to the One God, Yahweh, "I am who I am". The Israelites always waxed and waned toward or away from obedience to God, and so its quite possible that depending on the 'time' that various artifacts relate to, it may have been a period of spiritual declension.

Given that the cities of Sodom and Gomorah, were thought to be 'mytholgical' because of lack of external support, and being only mentioned in the bible until of course they FOUND the external evidence, I prefer to hold to the Biblical accounts first, and archeology 2nd :) I'm not aware of any serious dispute over OT issues that worry me, including the Walls of Jericho, I'm blessed to have a rather experienced Archeologist in my church "Dr Clifford Wilson" (do a search)
On the topic, I see the Church as having a prophetic role, preserving and enlightening, but as for the prophets of old, the most we can do by and large is warn, and when 'it' hits the fan, I hope they don't blame us :) but they usually do anyway.

Oliver, have a loot at Dr Kangs article on age of consent, I'd be interested in your take of it.

keep up the good work.

Cadiz,

Genetically, promiscuity is a two-edged sword. Having many heterosexual and/or homosexual partners is playing viral roulette, wherein, the virus' DNA is propagated across human hosts to the often fatal detriment of the human host. Having many heterosexual partners provides the chance of passing one's own DNA. Having exclusively homosexual encounters provides zero opportunity to fuse DNA, create a zygote and ultimately perpetuate a mutualised lineage.

It follows, that the more exclusive the level of heterosexual behaviour the less personal risk and the greater the chance of propagating the species, but, exclusivity narrows chances regarding one's own personal DNA transmission.

Even one-partnership exclusive homosexual coupling is a non-adaptive behaviour response to genetic competition, albeit, perhaps,a in personally gratifying in a loving relationship. Thus, homosexuality, in contemporary humans, contrubutes less to our species' continuance against competitors than does heterosexuality.

Regarding Creationism or the Big Bang, neither are truly explanatory the Religionist cannot say HOW any supposed divinity made the Universe. Likewise, the Cosmologist equally cannot explain THE CREATION owing to the breaking down of Physics across Plank Time.Thus, the first "confirming" link alludes both Religion and Science

Boaz,

THE WALLS OF JERICHO

That's a hard one. I fear the ability to create sufficiently high volume, low hertz frequencies and at known (knowable)the renounce mud-brick would test state of the twenty-first century technology, far, far beyond WWII technology, let alone the technology of the Hebrews. Moreover, the sound waves could not be permitted to propagate forwards, else, the city would be levelled, nor, backwards, else, the Hebrew earthenware may (if, at the same frequency as buildings) have been zapped.

In modern times, in a sinilar vein, some scientists suggest the uncontrolled, release of low frequency submarine sonar upsets the natural sonar of whales and dolphins. With Reagan's Star Wars the low focal range of LASER beams proved problematic. With sound, I think, we would have the opposite problem, too wider sound propagation. Maybe, the inner powers of the Western Alliance could bring down "just" the walls of Jericho (not the city), but, technologically, it would make a Los Almos a picnic (Any OECD country with access to Uranium could have levelled Sodom and Gomorrah. The Walls of Jericho, as in the Bible, are much harder.)

It would follows, that, if the Walls of Jerich felled in manner discribed in the Bible, a mediating variable, at least as as powerful as today's ABCA (America, Britain, Canada and Australian) military technology alliance would have be present thousands of years ago. This leads to three competing conclusions, (i) God did it, (ii) an incredibly advanced society did it to help the Hebrews, (iii) the Hebrews attacked and succeeded by some other means.

Occam's Razor, to me, suggests, the following ranking of likelihood, (iii), (i) and (ii). I would need to double-check, but, I think the Canaanites took a foward position guarding the water supplies, while the Hebrews, took a dryland route to Jericho catching rain water in specially lined vases. Thus, Jericho was not well guarded?

p.s. Nonetheless, it is highly interesting a pre-scientific people related an account of the destructive power of sound.

Oliver, I don't even begin to speculate on the 'technological' means of the walls falling, I'm obviously drawn to conclusion (i) .. i.e. God did it. Though, by way of scientific note, when I was in the Air Force and we went on Bivouac marches, each time we crossed a bridge, we had to go into 'random' step, or the pounding of 30+ feet in unison and of regular intervals was considered dangerous to the structure.
The whole point of the biblical account, was the sovereignty of GOD over 'other' gods, and the fulfillment of the promise of the Land.
Interesting to see how God dealt with the Israelites in the subsequent battle for Ai. In that case they sent few soldiers, because they were full of themSELVES after Jericho, but they were defeated. On another occasion after the land was settled more, and Gideon was called to save the nation, and he gathered some largish army, God told him to 'prune it down, u have too many' ! It was whittled away from around 3000 to 300, which was nowhere near enough humanly speaking, but they kicked butt. The point of course, was the relationship of the people with God. In one case they deliberately used few, (Ai) because of pride, and lost. In the second, they used few and won, because they were in right relation to God. (humility)

2 Chronicles 7:14
"If My people who are called by My name will humble
themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their
wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive
their sin and heal their land."

Zechariah 4:6 "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord"

They are the keys to life :)

I am writing to let the world know about how do the bad priests live in Rome,Italy.
In a place call Convitto S. Tommaso (Via Degli Ibernesi 20, 00184 Rome, Italy Tel: 0669791601)
The bad priests team up and cover up for one another. Here are what bad things they did to the general publics and against the general law and orders:
1. The Philippine Sister sleeps with the Fathers in Convitto S Tommaso in order to keep her job to stay in Rome not return to Philippine.
2. The head of the Father ( Father Luke) regularly calls the Sister to sleep with him in his room at night.
3. The head of the Father (Irish Fahter Luke) also lead every priest in Convitto S Tommasso drink. Every priests enjoy drinking unlimited supply of both white and red wine during their lunch and dinner time with plentiful and luxury supply of foods served by Philippine servant. Fathers are chatting women issue, travel Europe issues, and eating issues during their meals time with laughters.
4. Those Bad Fathers team up to cheat the tourists and innocent youngests money, valuable possession in Rome.
You can find those bad fathers hide those cheating and stolen GOLD AND JEWEL somewhere in Convitto S Tommasso.
5. The bad Fathers against the Italian Law without feeling guilty - the walk into the public transportation often without paying ticket.
6. They use dirty tricks to decieve teenagers and kids to have fun sex with them.

Those bad priests students from Convitto S Tommasso have learned that committing a crime is okay in Rome and the other Fathers will help them to cover up.
Therefore,when they return to their own country, they just go on what they did in Rome - continuous to do bad things to harm to the general public and the society!