Simple logic... don't even think about the contradictions. In summary:

1) We can't possibly hope to understand god's plan.
2) The goal of christianity is to truly understand and be one with god.
3) God made man in his own image. (This raises the question as to whether god has a penis and what He uses it for, but I dare say that's blasphemous).
4) Thou shalt not make craven images.
5) God is love, god is mercy.
6) God is also horrific vengeance.
7) God believes it's important we have free will.
8) Though he'll cast us into hell if we exercise it too far outside his dictates.
9) We all have original sin, but we don't really. Jesus cured that when we crucified him. But now we carry sin for that instead.
10) Jesus was Jewish.
11) Jesus was Christian.
12) Jesus was the son of god.
13) Jesus was god?
14) There can be only one god.
15) Jesus had no father, except maybe god. (Was he the world's first clone? or God DNA?)
16) Mary had a virgin birth... despite being married to Joseph.

I dare say there are plenty more, but when you're operating with 'god' logic, you can pretty much trump any quandary with either a) god's mysterious plan or b) god did it.

Merry, I've not read through all the posts yet so may have missed part's of the discussion regarding the teaching of creation alongside evolution.

Would you be happy if aboriginal dreamtime stories were taught in geography classes as a scientific explaination of how the landscape was formed? An alternative to discussion of continental drift, techtonic uplift and erosion. If students were left with the impression that the scientific evidence for the dreamtime version of events was just as compelling (or more so) than that other stuff.

Should every creation myth be given equal weighting or just the christain one?

R0bert

TRTL,
the Scripture says that God made mankind in his own image, both male and female. So your question should read, 'does God have a penis and a vagina?' Then again, the creation is only on page 1 of the Bible. We would have hoped that you’d read that far before launching your criticism.

R0bert,
recently when my son was 5 years-old, he did get a bit of Aboriginal dreamtime stuff in his Prep class. That’s all part of the fun of State school.

In science class, as kids get older, I would hope they get some understanding of the scientific method and principles. That is, I wish they were taught how to think and not just what to think. Raising different theories and comparing them can be a good method of teaching critical thinking. By the way, it was a creationist who first proposed the continental drift theory in 1859, suggesting the continents broke apart during the flood. It was about a hundred years later that it became widely accepted that the continents were moving.

Simple Logic,
don’t worry about the apologies. Aussies generally have pretty thick skins and Christians are supposed to have backbones. We live in a free country where you can say what you like. Only in Victoria they’ve enacted strange Religious Vilification laws. But no one has been convicted yet, and I think the government there is feeling pretty silly and embarrassed about the confusion they created regarding freedom of speech. (What you said was pretty friendly anyway).

“Why attempt to understand if mankind never can understand?”

Indeed, why try to penetrate the mysteries of science or the arts? There are some things beyond explaining: the contents of a lady’s handbag, the longevity of Richie Benaud.

So too, the tension between human freedom and God’s sovereignty, Jesus being simultaneously God and man, and the problem of evil.

Like a primary school student with Einstein as a teacher, our only hope is if God takes the initiative, and he has.

The Bible is not silent on any of these issues (well, most of them).

My point, Dan, is that the whole 'in his image' phrase is utterly meaningless.
Image refers to, well, the image. If the scripture had said 'nature' then perhaps I could understand it as meaning his behaviour - but again, that would hint at the imperfect nature of humanity, which christians say isn't a part of their perfect god.
So, both man and woman as image? so god has arms and legs then? eyeballs? what about the interior? lungs and heart?

Does god have a pancreas? Nasal passage? If he has legs, what's he walking on?

Didn't god use a spare rib to create woman well after Adam? Then how can god be both man and woman if he hasn't created woman yet?

The overall point I'm getting at is there is too many contradictions for a literal interpretation of the bible to be taken seriously - I can understand an overall message or belief being taken from it, but the hardcore literalists really need to apply a little more critical insight.

Last week a dentist married to a minister of the crown, who is a trained lawyer, wrote a pamphlet vilifying muslims. the minister of the crown thinks its a joke, well it wasn't anti-jewish. with our sedition laws in place what's the difference between Howard's Australia and Nazi Germany in 1932? where will it end?

I thought I cast my vote for someone to represent me in Parliament. I am aware that I was voting for someone of a different religion to me but I expect them to do their job fairly and look after all the constituents in their electorate.

The idea that some citizens must be excluded from addressing that great political question “how ought we order our lives together?” because their arguments are religious, or that others should be excluded because they are areligious or antireligious is an idea deeply alien to our democracy.

Religion cannot be separated from politics because a person’s deeply held moral convictions cannot by definition be excluded from politics. As soon as we have an ought we have a moral judgment. Having said that making explicitly religious statements isn’t so helpful and public reasons accessible to all ought to be used.

It was a long difficult journey to the freedoms we enjoy and these do not exist in many other countries, the most dramatic contrast being Islamic countries.

The author's illiberal and uncivil contributions to the public square will not help maintain the freedoms he clearly wants to preserve.

We live in a pluralistic society and all citizens are on an equal footing as we bring our diverse and sometimes conflicting moral visions to bear on that great question.

Aside from the caricatures, blatant prejudice, and circular arguments the author seems to want to discuss things like:

-The very public principle of ‘the inherent dignity of the human person’ which is the basis for prohibitions on euthanasia. If another workable principle that can be used to deem ‘life not worthy of life’ then please put it forward.Different doctrines about what a human is have been adopted over the last century or more. If the author thinks our Judeo-Christian principle is dispensable then in bio-ethical questions please put forward a workable alternative.

-Philosophical materialism. Which is by no means necessarily true and disputation about it continues in the academy today, a great many eminent physicists reject the dogma.