Garra, you made the classic mistake of jumping from 'We hold there are absolutes, Biblical ones" to ==> "They want to IMPOSE this on us"

There is no connection between the two. We DO hold there are absolutes, ultimate truths, "God so loved the world, that he gave His only son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life" is one such. How are we 'imposing' this on you ? It is enough that we hold the position, proclaim it, the rest is up to any hearer to do what they wish with it. I resent strongly the attempt to classify and categorize myself or Aslan or any Christian here in the box "You want to IMPOSE your truth on us" .

Firstly do 'impose' such would be unbiblical and a denial of our very faith.
Secondly, as the kid who was told to SIT DOWN by his father at the dinner table, began smiling, and when asked by his dad WHY he is smiling after such a stern rebuke, replied "I'm sitting down on the outside, but on the INside I'm still standing up" ! :) So, imposing truth simply does not work.

We are expressing our view, which is that without a valid and enduring foundation, most choices for 'good' in the field of human endeavor are wishful thinking or sentimentality. We proclaim Christ as "The Way" yes, the only way to salvation and to reconciliation with God. This is not suggesting we are 'superior'- if anything it is a confession of our own sinfulness and recognition of our own need.

Such liberty cannot be imposed, it can only be shared, spoken of, made known.

Aslan,

The raw data you quote cannot be disputed: Agreed.

However, it is risky to assume prolific equates with reliable. Equally, some might say the “Thoughts and Words of Mao” is prolific, but that does not really attest to its reliability. External reliability is best measured by the triangulation of various objective dispassionate sources.

Written Christian scriptures, to the best of my knowledge, first appear a generation after the death of Christ. Pauline writings and the Gnostic gospels much later still. Next, we have the Council of Nicaea (321) trying to sort things out:

Aslan, it is your right to believe what went into the Council of Nicaea equalled what came out of the Council. However, to me, it would seem that “many” gospels were written after the time of the Ebionites and during the time of the Gnostics. Moreover, there were several pre-Nicaean “versions” of the Synoptic gospels.

Further, an interpretation of an inflection can have significant consequences in meaning: e.g., what is bound on Earth by St Peter, and, yes or no to transubstantiation. Likewise, a word, say “alone”, or, more to the point two words, “Sola Fide” can completely change the means to salvation and the concept of “righteous justification” and “substitutionary ransom”. So, it is really not just as insignificant as, did Moses have horns or rays (Just my “testable” example)?

What must be appreciated is, there are “multiple interpretations” of the reasons for The Crucifixion. Moreover, very early Christians were Jewish. There was a schism post the fall of The Temple… later in the time of Hadrian, whereby, Christian Gentiles took one road and the Jewish Christian sect took another road to obscurity. According to accounts by Eubenius, Constantine I (partly?) converted c. 313 to Christianity, after the Battle of Pons Mulvius. Constantine proclaimed 25 December, Christmas Day, in honour of his win and in parallel with the pagan feast of the all-conquering sun god.

To understand what happened, we should not just cite numerous biased, concentrated sources. We must evaluate multiple divergent accounts, testing our position(s) against other findings to better understand history.

It appears the debate has gone off the rails and descended into strongly held and irrelevant opinions that do not tackle the subject of right and left wing political opinion; and what should be a true Christian position on politics. On what are the primary values of relevant Christian based Political Party's philosophy?

It is irrelavent to debate if the Bible has Divine authority, the established authority is the evidence of a life lived to the highest ideals. As Jesus said, "He that has the will do shall know the truth". Truth is enlightenment that releases the mind for the greater blessing of all. It is life giving, it is best known practise, and optimum function. True Christian based life is energetic and passionate about demonstrating the divine graces of character that enhance others wellbeing and improve the function of society. Ideally Christianity is not a dogma, or doctrine or a ritual, it is relationships functioning for the blessing of even an enemy.

Poverty a mind-set
If we observe how two starving men behave if given a bag of grain and a tin can, it will give us a clue as to their attitude and future independence.

The one with a poverty mind-set will store the grain in a safe place and will each day take a handful and boil it in the pot of water and make porridge. One year later he will again line up at the charity distribution for another bag of grain. This man will take no risks, but will sit back till his grain runs out. He did not sacrifice his grain to the elements. His attitude is selfish!

The man that saves half his grain in storeage and scatters the other half in the soil he has cultivated and watered each day, with the tin can, will in six weeks add to his diet green vegetable and in four months a yield of grain ten times the amount he sacrificed to the ground. The next year he gathers twenty times the amount of his needs and is able to assist his neighbour who has just made breakfast with his own grain for the last time, and sell the rest. His attitude is generous!

What has been the difference in the attitude of the two men? As Jesus said he that preserves his life will loose, while he that sacrifices his life will save it. Overcoming poverty means taking risks, and hard work.
Think:
1. Does he give one/tenth to his neighbour as charity so they both have food?
2. Does he sell half his harvest to the neighbour for his neighbours land?
3. If his neighbour steals half; does he put his neighbour in jail for stealing; and feed him porridge?
5. Does he allow his neighbour to starve because of his slothfulness?
6. Suppose his neighbour try to kill him to inherit twenty years supply of grain?

7. Or suppose his neighbour is killed in the struggle?
Who deserves justice? Is the possession and sale of goods a sign of greed as the socialist left imply?

Philo:

Humanism, compassion and empathy are all high human values. Herein, you are correct, we don't need to assert divinity. By your yard-stick, the Gods of Abraham and Moses would not have achieved the standards reported of Jesus' teachings.

So,

The Gods of Abraham and Moses: To the far right

Jesus: The compassionate left

Pauline representations: The compromised left.

Remember, Paul would need to have kept the Greco-Roman Corinthians on short-leads, lest they believe in a truly personal god, without a church.

Oliver
Abraham is very much like Jesus, see his attitude in regard to Lot and the selection of grazing area for their growing flocks. Lot was the 'right wing capitalist' and Abe was the 'compassionate lefty' :)

To see the heart of God the father, have a read of the book of Ruth, it's not only romantic but VERY informative on a cultural social level. You will discover from that book why I use Boaz as my nick here.

If I may digress a tad, in regard to the reliability of oral tradition and the gospels. The traditions were oral initially yes, but guarded by eye witnesses who were present and living. Only as these began to die, were the scriptures recorded in writing (this may not be entirely true, there may have been written ones also). Again, the truthful ones were guarded by the eye witnesses and/or those who knew them well.

This process is quite well illustrated by the Islamic Hadith. There are what they call 'chains of narrators' and the reliability of a particular hadith was based on the same result coming down through different identifiable chains. i.e. different people.

The more one scrutinizes the New Testament specially, the more one will be amazed at the trustworthiness of the documents. I've heard some irrational criticism from VERY scholarly people suggesting that such and such a letter was not written in "Paul's style" so could not be authentic, yet at the end of the said letter, we find it was actually written by an emmanuensus, (secretary) I mean 'duh' :) how flawed is it to say "This is not Pauls style" when the letter openly states its written by his assistant, who gives a personal greeting among the greetings of Paul to the listners.