Grim

There is the possibility that there might be an objective entity, though invisible, that created everything. Such a possibility would be like reading science fiction, only this time it would be non-fiction.

We can scarcely understand the meaning of taking vats of water and "turning" them into wine, or taking a few loaves of bread and pieces of fish, and turning them into five thousand or so loaves and thousands of pieces of fish.

Turning molecules of water into molecules of wine (skipping the seed, vine, grape stages) is something a creator can do.

We are hard-pressed to believe, since we cannot do these ourselves. We have no basis to measure these acts of God by. There is the possibility that our notions of god do not apply.

You may be familiar with Elijah, one of God's chosen spokesmen, who challenged the priests of a man-made religion to a contest. Elijah told the people of Israel that only the true creator would (or could) send fire from the sky to the earth to light the separate sacrifices prepared by each side. He was referring to the creator who as creator is in control of the laws of physics which he also created.

Elijah flooded his sacrifice with water to overcome the doubts of the audience, should God send fire to light Elijah's sacrifice, which of course he did....

There were more than twenty eye-witnesses to Jesus walking about after he was killed, something someone in control of the very molecules could do -- resurrect the dead. Lazarus was in a state of putrefaction when he was reassembled DNA up.

So, if Jesus as god makes an offer of forgiveness of all sins,

l) it must be important that sins be forgiven i.e. there must be an aggregious consequence if they are not (the wages of sin is death/human mortality);

2) all humans must be committing sins.

If you notice all man-made religious dispense with sins (they kiss up to the human preference for sinning). Jesus as god doesn't put up with us in that respect.

"If you notice all man-made religious"

should be

"If you notice all man-made religions"

Quick definitions
(values)
noun: beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)

(morals)
noun: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong .

(immoral)
adjective: violating principles of right and wrong
adjective: morally unprincipled (Example: "Immoral behavior")
adjective: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good
adjective: not adhering to ethical or moral principles

I think some are wandering a tad off-subject.

The article proposed that Jesus was then, and might still even today have cause to be, considered immoral ( by those who had 'ultimate' power over human life and death and who had the greatest say into what was officially 'right and wrong' for the general populace).

For those without the wit to tell - the author was trying to raise debate about what our current values are based upon and he did so using the established literary practice of irony. He was not trying to prove Jesus was morally unprincipled, but that he violated the principles of right and wrong imposed upon the people by both an occupying army of Rome and by the rich and unscrupulous religious leaders of the Jews.

I feel that many of Australia's leaders and community voices are corrupting what is 'right and wrong' in our society by slavishly acquiescing to those values of the leaders of other nations, such as America, and are claiming 'Christian' moral high ground when they in fact fail to follow even a single principle the True founder of Christianity has been reported to have possessed as shown by his deeds and actions - not just his words.

As Jesus showed - (I am the Way) we are bound to follow, through our own hearts, the will of Our Father over the will of hypocritical leaders interested only in power, position and wealth and to not just do what others tell us is right.

I'm not familiar with Australia's leaders and community voices. Can you fill me in on their corruption?

God does keep an accounting of each human. That would be called Judgment Day, when ALL are judged (and not by humans). At the same time, Jesus came to save all humans, not just some. So he makes the offer, to the good (so-called) and the bad, to have their sins washed away, forgotten by God, provided they make the choice to believe/trust in him, who is God.

Humans, on the other hand, like to compare who's better/more righteous and who's worse/less righteous. This is something to which Jesus says -- don't do it. Why? Because no human is righteous in God's eyes.

The only way to be right with God is to borrow his own perfect goodness, which he, as Jesus, is willing to lend us if we have faith in him.

So where does that place the student who saw the unnamed film and made a comment about Christian morals? I don't know. Don't know the film, can't ask the student why she made the comment.

Humans would like to think there will be no judgment day. Humans hate to be judged (because then they would have to consider the idea of "sin"). That, of course, would be contradicting God's word which says there will be one (Revelation), but it will be God who does the judging, not other human beings who are equally sinful (do we, for example, really Love our neighbors as ourselves (the second commandment
of the two that sum up the ten)?

The reason Jesus hung out with sinners is that that's who we all are -- the entire human race, bent towards sinning, after the original Adam and Eve who rebelled. And we are rebellious , without God's help. The hypocrites are humans who don't think they are still human.

Without the help of the spirit of God, God's gift to those who agree to be born-in-the spirit, we remain enslaved to sin, bent towards harming others, and ourselves.

God never had to hang out with us to make the offer, but he did.

Yes, got to love those redneck talkback callers, and fundamentalist Christians.

Never seen any examples of this though, and suspect it's just an invention by the herd mentality that makes up the far left.

Whenever I've heard 2GB, which isn't often, and it's an issue about Muslims or whatever, most people are just concerned parents upset their kid was beaten up, or stabbed, by a group of middle-eastern males.

No one can deny it happens often. I even heard some Lebanese Christians ring up the day after Australia day, talking about how the night before, on Australia Day, packs of middle-eastern youth were walking the streets looking to bash Anglo's on their national day, to show who's boss.

They were lucky they said because of their appearance.

What is this country coming to?

You could have spent your article writing something serious, that needs to be said, about Muslim intolerance towards women, or better still, Christians.

In all your attitudes of discrimination of what Christ would face, you could have said what would have surely happened to him in a Muslim country, where churches are regularly burnt, Christian priests occassionally murdered (where they are allowed to practice that is, in many nations, they forbid churches) and followers attacked, robbed, kidnapped.

Why didn't you? Easier to attack fundamentalist Christians perhaps?

What fundamentalism, that they don't agree with abortion? Try talking about abortion to an Islamic person, it isn't even mentioned in their community.

Come on, get real. You've wasted an article.

Try writing an article about Mohammed, even tongue in cheek, you'll still be killed by redneck Muslims.