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