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