And surely you realise the Christian churches focus pretty well exclusively on the New Testament in their formal teaching and liturgies. And it is highlighted in the practise of their Divine Liturgies.
I really don't know but, tell me, do the Hebrews include Christ's New Testament as passed on by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in their bible or liturgies?

I do know they do not even celebrate Divine Liturgy which of course is one of the common underlying tenets of all Christian communities.

Boazy: "hey Stabinthedark.. that was no random 'stab' there mate... your post was 'SMACK ON' .."

Erm, Boazy - did you actually read what StabInTheDark wrote? The bit you seem to have picked up on was actually a quote from mickijo, who seems to be one of your fellow Islamophobes.

What SITD said was:

"What the hell are Australian values? I take offense at being told that to be considered a citizen of this country I must adopt some sort of unwritten value system and adhere to it or be considered an outsider. I'll value whatever the hell I want thank you very much, and I'm more than happy to let others do the same.

There are, however, LAWS that govern this country, that are designed to stop anti-social behaviour that threaten the peace and wellbeing of other 'citizens'. Everyone in this country, no matter race, religion or creed, is subject to those laws. As far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you like as long as you don't breach them. It is, after all, a free country. Is it not?"

Now, these are sentiments with which I agree completely. Are you really sure that you do, Boazy?

If so - hallelujah! Boazy's seen the light, finally! :)

CJ. I've always agreed to those laws. No drama there.
My quarrel is with those who want to CHANGE those laws, or..circumvent them in the interests of their particular ethno/religious group.

"Todays Lesson".

Near me is a Petrol Station, and over the past few years I've come to be familiar with those behind the counter. Suddenly, I notice a change in ethnicity of them. There were less 'Aussies' (of the white variety) and more 'Indians'. So, my usual innocence assumed it was just the normal waxing and waning of people, with the indians coming in to gain experience so they can open their 7/11 or whatever. But no, what I found was that it was pure unadulterated racism and nepotism.

In short, the owners (Indian) always spoke their langauge rather than English in the presense of Aussie employees and brought more and more of 'their' people in to work.

This is the nature of a 'multi-cultural' approach as it is perceived by many migrants. Even THOUGH the 'Policy' (Keith) might not appear to allow or encourage such things, the REALITY is that this is the 'para message' sent by even the name of such a policy.

This is why it is crucial to remove 'multi' from any cultural policy and replace it with 'citizenship' where we can then focus on what it means to be a good citizen, such as SPEAKING THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE when ur quite capable of doing it, in the presense of those who represent that predominant culture.

If it is argued 'What predominant culture' ? then I suggest that is the que to ramp up the activism and rhetoric to 'extreme' :)

Now, I cannot end a post without a bit of a BB as u well know. The Christian principle involved here is 'do for others as you would have them do for you'... and this includes cultural manners and language.
I don't know many people who don't feel just a little bit uncomfortable being the ONLY person in a group who cannot understand what is being said. (in your own country of birth)

Just to clarify, I'm female :) (but thanks for your comments).

Keith,
The concept of "divine liturgies" may be relevant to some more formal churches, but I have not experienced them at my church. We have worship, prayer, Bible reading, and sermons, but they do not seem to follow a set structure (the "divine liturgy that is the common tenant underlying all Christian communities"). Sometimes the pastor will read from the Old Testament (not just the Commandments) and sometimes from the New Testament. In layman's terms, we "read the OT through the eyes of the NT" and there are some specific things we no longer take at face value. (E.g. We accept that a lot of the cultural practices of the Torah, like kosher food and animal sacrifice, are no longer literally relevant, but the principles, like taking care of your body in honour of God and the sacrifice of Christ, are). Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are part of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. The writers of most of the NT (if not all) were Hebrew/Jewish so I guess it depends on how you define "Hebrew Scriptures" but I know my Jewish friends accept the OT and not the NT.

YngNLuvnit,
Sorry I gave you the wrong gender. That won't happen again. Also apologise for the typo when referring to your 'concise' list of values.

I did find your post very good and I have printed it out for future reference, especially the values part.

keith

Some argue that the Sermon on the mount is a statement of Jewish values. To understand these you have to know something of the Talmud, which is the Jewish interpretation of the Books of Moses.

For example do unto others comes from Rabbi Hillel's summation of Jewish law - "Any thing that is hateful to you do not do unto others, that is the whole Law, the rest is all commentary." Love thy neighbour as thyself" comes from I think Deuteronomy and some have considered that the Lord's Prayer comes from the same book, give or take differences in translation and an added reference to Jesus.

Scholars both Christian and Jewish have argued for years whether there is any real difference between the two religions. The Latin Catholic Mass for example was an evolution from the synagogue service. I am surprised that you questioned the link between the two.

Please read "Judaism for Dummies", it is a good book, I read it myself.