Boaz_David,

yep I have listened to a fair bit of Campolo's stuff, read some books, seen him speak etc. I certainly would not regard him as a "right wing fundamentalist bigot". If anything he seems to fit fairly well my picture of what John is suggesting in his article, not necessarily the views John endorses but the attempt to combine an understanding of christianity with the realities of the world. John Smith does some similar stuff, lots of places where I disagree with them but they look at the world and their faiths with a refreshing honesty. I've always tended to think of both as being somewhat on the left of politics.

The "It's Friday" message was funny but much less impacting than his description of choosing between orpaned kids (in latin america I think) and knowing that he was probably leaving some to die in order to save others.

There are planty of places I disagree with both but they present their social challenges in a way that cannot be lightly dismissed by those who care about the type of world we live in.

If the church spent more time listening to Campolo and Smith and less time listening to ones who get a TV program (or celebate unmarried old men living in spendor and isolation) it's message might be a lot more relevant to the rest of us.

Sorry Mod but I might not be able to help myself here.
Again we see the bigotry of the rabid right of Christianity and it usual attempts to highjack the debate.
Phil how long ago was it that woman in the western world were thought of as less then men? Why do people like Phil think the sectarian violence by other faiths is some how worst then the sectarian violence done within Christianity? As for my friend BOAZ_DAVID you should know as well as anyone that the unchanging word of the bible has in fact been changed and continues to be changed. Devotees have tried to use the bible to disprove evolution, prove the earth centred universe, rewrite recorded history, a round planet, and much, much more. The supposedly rigid rules the Christian have to live by have ebbed and flowed with the local culture. Have a read of peter 3 would that stuff be mentioned at hillsong? I find that the typical leftwing Christian wants to help while the rightwing is all about control

Fiona, historians can give us some insight into whom Jesus might have been. It is hard to breakdown the Jesus composite you mention: However, Edward Gibbon of The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire fame did suggest Jesus was a Jewish Messiah whose human sacrifice aimed to release the Jews from having to continually in indwell in Rites. According to Gibbon (1776), Jesus' idea was to have one, for all time sacrifice, to do away with the all the ritual.

The roots of the non-Jewish Christian church were established during rule of the Hadrian, when the Gentile accepting Christains split from the exclusive Jews, after there had been fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem (nor Rome). Albeit, after the fall of The Temple, the Bishops of Jerusalem actually resided in Pella.

Seemingly, Chistianity, as a Catholic religion, was founded at Aelia Capolina in the time of Hadrian. Many of our Christian feast days are the residue of converted Roman Gentiles reverting to Pagan customs. Moreover, there is evidence that the "Catholic" Christian prelate was the Latin, Marcus, not, St. Peter. Here, I have used the word "Catholic" literally: i.e., universal

Erratum regarding above: the FIRST "Catholic" Christian prelate was the Latin, Marcus, not, St. Peter. Here, I have used the word "Catholic" literally: i.e., universal. Sorry.

"Reading the Bible with a pair of scissors" - Ironic title because this is exactly what Wallis and McKinnon do.

Wallis and McKinnon pick out all the nice easy-on-the-ears stuff in the Bible but ignore the bits about truth, judgment and repentance.

McKinnon says: "The religious Right, according to Wallis, misses the real essence of Jesus’ moral teaching, and in blindly pursuing its two key issues, actually ends up opposing much of what Jesus said."

Strong claim. No evidence or argument, just massive (and baseless) stereotyping. We must be reading different Bibles or talking about different Jesus. McKinnon has an MA in NT, so must have read Romans 1 and Paul's chastisement of the Corinthians! Maybe he needs to go back and read the OT, which the NT depends on.

And how can Wallis and McKinnon pretend to know what motivates Christians on the 'religious right'? Do they really think we are indifferent to the poor? Why do you think so many join the Liberal Party? Because socialism has never gotten anyone out of poverty - it just equally distributes poverty!

Who do they think started all those aid agencies? Worldvision (before being co-opted by lefties), Samaritan's purse, CCF, Christian Blind Mission, MAF etc etc.

McKinnon observes: "This book...is [not] a comprehensive analysis of current US policies...On the other hand it is not a biblical commentary or deep theological work. It is not intended to be a scholarly work but contains plenty of referenced facts alongside numerous personal anecdotes and opinions."

Not surprising. No deep, scholarly, theological analysis which come up with this tripe. Instead, Wallis and McKinnon have tried to "trim" the Bible with their scissors to make it fit their own preconceived socialist ideas.

Unfortunately there are many Christians who hold such syncretistic views. They substitute moral outrage for morality, equality and fairness for justice, and talk about 'right and wrong' but don't know the first thing about truth. They don't understand that the most loving thing you can do for someone is tell them the truth - even if it hurts or offends them...

Boazdavid, we are sailing dangerously close to agreeing on something. A breakthough! a Houston-we-have-liftoff moment!!

ie. that for those who have faith in the bible, the bible IS evidence ("revealed standards" no less). And for those who don't, the bible is just a collection of various people's articles and essays, endlessly refutable, internally inconsistent, tremendously open to many different interpretations from all colours of the political rainbow (the product of countless translations across generations, language and idiom).

You say it's evidence, and you and others keep picking out the bits you favour to support the line you want to champion (and ignoring the less favourable bits and interpretations). Notice that I haven't gone fishing for the ones that favour my views (and there are many of those; see Bishop Shelby Spong in general, and 'Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism' in particular) - because however convenient it might be to my opinions, it still doesn't cut it as evidence.

So it's all about what you have faith in. It's about the 'standards', the ideas and the notions in which you have faith - in your own judgement. It's not about evidence at all.

By all means live your life according to the interpretation you wish to apply to those parts of the bible to which you want to give most weight. May it serve you well. Just don't impose. There is no evidence that your interpretations and opinions are more correct, more proper, more blessed or more morally virtuous than mine. Yours are different, but for my part that is all they are.