My reply To Post by Aslan, Wednesday, June 29 Re reply to Jim on June 26.

What the...? Where on earth did you dream up that completely warped story?

Aslan,I do my own research from English copies of original material. Material that the Roman Church rejected because it did not appeal to their syncretised view of a National Religion. The writings of James the Elder "Protevangelion", Book of Mary mother of Jesus. Ante Nicene Fathers, Apographal and rejected writings of 1 st century not included in the Bible, Josephus, references and allusions to Zechariah in the NT (eg Heb 11: 37), Dead Sea Scrolls. Research his contact and sympathy with the peaceful Essene community.

Lk. 11:51 "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was
killed between the altar and the sanctuary." (Read more in Josephus)

The words of Jesus in John and epistles of John on what identifies one a son of God. Certainly not his physical conception, but his spiritual birth. His conception was never established in NT doctrine to identify he had a miraculous conception that identifies his divinity. He was especially conceived by a virgin to fulfil a prophetic role as a king in the lineage of David. But his personal identity is sculptured in the book of Isaiah. He laid aside his kingship to adopt the righteous servant role of Isaiah 53. The rejected King by his own people cp John 1.

Poor old Philo, Christians with compassion, saving us, the book of mary, Virgin birth. Just the same old rhetoric from the religious wanna be's. Sell's like all other christians wants the goal posts in any debate where he want to put them, why because if they are moved to reality check 1, the religious are out of the game. Theology is the study of illusion, it is like studying a drawing pin, no matter how much you learn about it and worship its ability to hold things in weird places, it still has a deadly pointy end which is its only usefull part. Now that sounds stupid doesn't it, but it describes religion. When one of you god fearing people can come up with any evidence that christianity has been of benefit to the earth and if you want to get more selfcentred as the religious are, benefitial to humans, then I for one will listen. When you can show me that there is a basis of truth in what the christian religion espouses, then I will listen. But if you persist in rolling out the same rubbish, then all we mere mortals can do is laugh at your futile attempts to sustain the unsustainable. Give us some real facts not just bibical drivel. Philo, read some real history, study the ancient history of India and be in for a few surprise regarding your religion. Study the origins of the Gypsy race and discover why they have been so persecuted. If you have the guts, ask yourself why the world is on the brink of major chaos and note what force is behind it and has been behind all conflicts. There is only one thing that causes all the evil and violence in the world, religion.

I can’t believe I’m doing this….

Alchemist. Just on your point regarding the ‘truth’ religions claim (“When you can show me that there is a basis of truth in what the Christian religion espouses”)

Well, how about love, compassion and tolerance? Yes, I know that for a lot of the part, these are hypocritical and contrary to the acts perpetrated by many religious persons (at all levels) AND that these beliefs are not sacred to any religion – that any philosophical, non-religious value system can incorporate these ideals.

However, can you deny that the teaching of these values, wherever they be taught is not a good thing? I know I am probably splitting hairs here you cannot carte-blanche disregard the benefits/good of a religion because you blame it for ‘all’ the evils of the world (“There is only one thing that causes all the evil and violence in the world, religion”). This is really just as bad Christians claiming moral superiority over you for their faith and your lack of it.

Just my moderate approach and I am sure there are reasons I am wrong…

Good point Dan. Love, compassion, tolerance, are not related to anything but life. Those 3 values are seen within most living creatures. Our domesticated animals display those traits and I doubt that they follow religion. The teaching of these values is a very good thing, but again is not religious. It seems to me that they are inherent within all mobile life forms. Wildlife display these values even if just within their own kind. Non believers are very tolerant when it comes to the religious, we put up with having them trying to force their fantasies upon us in whatever way they can. How many indigenous people are left in the world after the genocide carried out by religion. Religious morals are created to control, not enhance peoples lives. I learnt the truth when on active service in the early 60's. Presently, we have the moral religious right, invading countries at will, destroying peoples ways of life whilst they get fat and more corrupt. Ask those that have had crimes committed against them in the name of religion and see what they say. Reality is what it is and no amount of wall paper can cover up the truth. I wish there was a god, then we may at least get some justice in the world, but as long as the religious control every aspect of our lives, then there can be no justice. You will also note, that on the whole, it is the religious that sends people to war and yet not go themselves. The current situation in Iraq is a perfect example, neither Bush, Blair, or Howard have served their country in war, but are happy to send everyone else so that they can gain more power. You can see by the posts here, the religious only want control, not discussion, unless we discuss this on their terms, they pack up. You can see that by Sells statement, “next time, I will be more cunning”, not truthful, cunning. You can't get more pure religion than that.

I must say I have enjoyed reading all the above posts. I would just like to respond quickly to Sells' last post, as it contained one point I really disagree with;

'Populism in theology is the attitude that no special training need take place to understand theological concepts. We do not take this attitude to the disciplines of philosophy, history, chemistry or car maintenance. We recognise that training is necessary. But why do we not recognise that training is also necessary in theology'

I really think that is a very elitist attitude. Are you saying that people who are not Theology scholars are not able to have an opinion on this subject? Surely the mark of a good scholar is being able to distil the essence of their knowledge into a form understandable by any audience? Surely they know what they believe? How can you prove that you are right, and they are wrong?

All of your answers are very esoteric, and I certainly cannot claim to understand Christianity perhaps in the way you do. However maybe your attitude is the problem with modern Christianity, and the reason why people are turning away from traditional forms of worship - the message is now too esoteric and difficult to understand. I recently attended a service at Hillsong church in Sydney, and even though I am atheist, was very impressed by the levels of energy and commitment on display. The message was very simple and very direct - and most of the people were obviously completely taken with the moment. I'm not really sure a huge amount of serious theological thinking was happening however, and I think most of what you have written in your posts would be as incomprehensible to them as it was to me.

So I guess it come down to the fact that if you believe, you just believe, and no-one can criticise you for that. But if you want other people to believe the same way you do, I would suggest you need to make the message much more accessible than it is at the moment.

gw

The alchemist,
It is obvious you have not followed my original argument to my previous post, but have merely reacted and sprouted out your hearts emotive poison about Christians.

Quote "Poor old Philo, Christians with compassion, saving us, the book of mary, Virgin birth. Just the same old rhetoric from the religious wanna be's....When you can show me that there is a basis of truth in what the christian religion espouses, then I will listen. But if you persist in rolling out the same rubbish, then all we mere mortals can do is laugh at your futile attempts to sustain the unsustainable. Give us some real facts not just bibical drivel. Philo, read some real history, study the ancient history of India and be in for a few surprise regarding your religion."

The fact is I have closely studied the history and religions of ancient India - "yes the same old drivel" that pepole like to imagine Christ taught.

The fact is your very mind, attitude, and opinion is of itself a religion that you devotedly follow. That is by definition what a religion is. You have ezangelised in your post your mind, spirit, attitudes and your own brand of religious bigotry. Evaluate how a society founded upon your brand of religion might function. Perhaps your own children reflect the moorings of your particular vision of society. A good functioning society is the sign of right attitudes and belief structures.