Interesting...

Here are three more authoritative quotes from the Bible:

1. Matthew 19:21 - King James Bible
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

2. Exodus 22:18 - King James Bible
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

3. Genesis 1:1 - King James Bible
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

As a modern God-fearing Christian, which of these three are you going to cherry-pick to believe: the one that will make you destitute; the one that will land you in jail charged with murder; or the one that has no practical consequences whatsoever? Surely this is the reason for the current interest in Creationism -- it's the one remaining Biblical claim that a Christian can hold to without appearing really, really, dangerous and/or stupid. There is no real rise in Creationism: it just looks that way because all the beliefs that once went with it have collapsed from the weight of their own absurdity.

There is an old saying about Christianity (I do not know whom to credit for it) to the effect: if the same behavioral message has been preached for 2000 years with no visible improvement on the audience, then surely there must be something wrong with either the messenger or the message. Jesus' message about "loving your neighbout etc". has been preached by an untold number of messenger, including the man himself with no lasting effect on the listeners, so the only thing left to blame for the ineffectiveness of the message is the message itself.
The message, the commandment is unnatural. It is so artificial that if it should happenstance to appear, it would not survive in the natural world.
The spirit of man needs the challenges an opposition, a conflict, an argument, even a disaster provides to feel alive and to evolve. Any new religious philosophy (even Jesuans) will have to incorporate that realisation.

A rather rambling essay that does not actually address anything.
The 'apostle's creed' spells out Christianity. If one does not accept all that is stated within that creed, then one cannot justifiably claim to be a Christian, irrespective of lifestyle; good works; and interpersonal relationships. Indeed the central thrust of mainstream christianity is that salvation cannot be obtained by good works alone - i.e. without the acceptance of Christ as 'God's intermediary'. I do not accept the tenets of that creed, so am ipso facto not a Christian, even though my ethical life fully conforms with the various admonitions accredited to Jesus. I have no belief in an afterlife; little but contempt for the numerous church hierachies; and I find the very notion of original sin nonsensical.
The question then arises - do we need Jesus at all? The commonly understood christian ethic is fully explicable (and indeed derivable from philosophical first principles) in terms of natural selection imperatives.
The notion, totally without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, of a 'God' writhing in agony on a cross in some sort of 'expiation' for everyone's moral transgressions is a nonsense - a ludicrous and primitive notion - a notion that has been the starting point for two thousand years of literal hell on earth for countless millions of innocent people, many of whom carried the added burden of 'original sin' throughout their lives and thus tormentd by guilt and exploited by priests; pastors; ministers; and the like. The even more influential and even less substantiated notion of this 'god' rising from the dead and promising to return at some future date to sort out the follies committed in his name is a nonsense on stilts.
We do not need Jesus or any other dead gods. Our intellect and naturally selected tendencies are all that are needed to establish our own heaven on earth and to cope with (or even embrace) our certain eventual existential anhilation.

Peter, a self-styled guru or do you have real wisdom to offer?

I’m afraid your proposition of Jesus as urban legend doesn’t wash. You have called him variously a “man of his times”, “superstitious” and a “sublime teacher” (consistency demands a “1st century mythical hero”, “a superstition” or “a sublime story”).

Using your test of authenticity, I wonder if you could prove the existence of any figures we hold dear to the historical record.

Socrates leaps to the fore. The founder of Western philosophy, - an ellusive and tragi-comic figure who eschewed writing as being beneath a philosopher. Shame.

Without Plato, we would have missed such gems as the value of concentrating more on friendships and a sense of true community as the way forward for civilisation.

“Values like caring for others, and being kind, compassionate and generous;" You’ve heard of him?

Matthew 20:24:

An inconvenient truth for us wealthy believers in the West?

A condemnation of rich people?

Or a commentary on what it means to “follow” Jesus?

(Hint: it is not the first two).

There he was, a good Jewish boy, treating his parents kindly, not bearing false witness nor cheating on his wife, surely his “goodness” was the eternal life-insurance policy you mentioned.

No such luck. His pride, his very question, gives him away!

Jesus points out that there is no good work that he can do, no price that he can pay:

Matt 20:24 shreds the doctrine and wrong-thinking of Indulgences.

Christians who think it pointless to do good (in the absence of God), have fallen into sentimentality

(doing good only because they think that is what we are supposed to be doing),

much like the Jewish lad above. Certainly, I agree that they fail the character test,
and are deluded over the validity of a self-referential, indulgent, and illogical argument.

Do unto others….the “Golden rule”…the universality of which seems to belie the uniqueness of Jesus’ words.

Meaning:

Clue#1: (Leviticus 19:18; 19:34) “You shall not take vengence, nor bear any grudge…”.

Clue # 2. Deuteronomy 32:35 (as just one example): “Vengence is Mine”.

I don't claim to be an authority on scripture - but surely much scripture is meant in the sense of metaphor: metaphor often beyond which is mystery... Before dismissing - better to be open minded - even if critically so - in the pursuit of truth...

There is a relation between 'camel' and the Hebrew letter 'Gimel'... ' A Judaic interpretation of 'Gimel/camel' can be found here:

http://www.inner.org/hebleter/gimmel.htm

Remember - the 'camel' is a creature perfectly suited to 'crossing the desert'... Could this journey be seen as a testing of sorts? ... As Jesus is said to have been tested in the wilderness?...

Perhaps the metaphor is meant to allude to a time of trouble and testing - of great difficulty - but not an impossible journey as would it be if taken literally

Another Hebrew letter 'Qof' also refers to the 'eye of the needle'...

As already noted, though, the Hebrew letter 'Gimel' means 'camel'...

So the reader might infer that the mystery refers to the relationship between this Hebrew letter, and the letter 'Gimel'.

Explanation of 'Qof':

http://www.inner.org/HEBLETER/kuf.htm

Explanation of 'Gimel':

http://www.inner.org/hebleter/gimmel.htm

Readers may be skeptical - but recognising that there is a deeper symbolic meaning at work - at least provides a view of what the true intent of the metaphor is - and of the mystery it refers to.

Peter along with countless other fools sets himself up as judge of His Creator. It is not enough for him to mock the greatest act of love in history (Christ's death for his rotten heart) but then has the audacity to somehow make out his own self righteousness is more important than what Christ did for him. The Apostle Peter's second epistle sums up this man's doctrine. 'which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction).

Peter, People being selflessly (?) nice to each other... That will never catch on.

Peter....re the Crucifixion.

You say

"who would do such a thing just to prove they are compassionate"

and I reply.. Mate.. not only are you prone to religious vilification, which is actionable ("crap about gods angels heaven hell and demons")

but you are also of very limited understanding of the Bible and the History of Salvation from Genesis to Revelation.
Do some Googling on say
-"Christology of the old Testament"
-"The suffering Messiah"

Then.. one more thing. If it makes as little sense as you say, then why in the world would it have turned out that way? Hmmmmmm *thinks*. I am absolutely convinced it could NOT have been anything to do with God's will eh? (hopefully you notice the sarcasm there)

You might want to read up on the whole ceremonial worship system of the Temple.. the meaning of day of Atonement, the lamb slain for the people sin... and then have a read of Hebrews 10:11-13

You might like to add a reading of Mark 8:31 9:31 and 10:32-34

They all say the same thing.. Jesus predicting his death.

Top all that off with Luke 24:44-49 and you might begin to understand.

I too am amazed at the cruelty, arrogance and hypocracy of the vocal Christian.
I am hoping that Australia is safe from the critical mass of fundamentalist loonies they have in the US.
Hey Runner: Who is judging who here? Have you really got that halo that your sniping implies?
It is perfectly valid to point out that the bible is not interpreted equally. To give ones own opinion is *not* a sin!
(Oh but yours is the "Right" version right?)
As a non-superstitious (God too) person I found his spin on things quite refreshing.

Alfred, “love your neighbour” (in isolation) is not the Jesus message.

Peter was right when he noted that this common theme runs of world religions and philosophical works, the universal “Golden Rule”.

Arguing that this concept is unnatural, and that it would not survive in the natural world, is contrary to the experience of humankind (and observed behaviour in the animal kingdom).

Biblical love has a specific context and description. This is a love for others that is bound inseparably to a love for God. Jesus' words are an elaboration of Deut 19:18:

“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord”.

Gym-Fish’s and Peter’s assumption that Jesus’ words are derived from “philosophical first principles”, from the “natural selection imperative” is exposed.

The love that Jesus Christ championed in the Gospels was not only superior in quality; it was distinctly different in its end, its object.

“Agape” love, profound, unconditional divine love, starts with surrendering our will to God. Jesus’ words are collaborated by the “OT”, not common social concepts: a love that is willing to give itself utterly for the sake of its object.

Alfred, you are very right to notice the brokenness of the world, but it is impossible to lay the blame for this on the failure of the Christian message or the Christian life in a convincing manner. (Historical relativity at best).

Gym-Fish: “literal hell on earth…millions of innocent people (innocent of ?, if sin is excluded)...tormented by guilt” etc: who are these people? Survivors of massacre, genocide, war? Apart from being insensitive to those who suffer such atrocities, is that truly the Christian experience?

Ozandy: “amazed at the cruelty, arrogance and hypocracy (sic) of the vocal Christian”.

Amazed? You should be incredulous. I’m sure the good works have not been dispensed with altogether by evangelical Christians.

The rule of fairness is not being applied here. Nor is common sense.
Arrogance is also defined as assuming knowledge of biblical exegesis, in the complete absence of any.

It is always fascinating to witness how others interpret your own words.
Jon J for instance offers three “more authoritive” quotes from the bible, the first of which is one I quoted myself.
Alfred says: “The spirit of man needs the challenges an opposition, a conflict, an argument, even a disaster provides to feel alive and to evolve. Any new religious philosophy (even Jesuans) will have to incorporate that realisation.”
I thought I was rather emphatic in debunking the whole religious aspect of christian thought.
In coining the term “Jesuan” I sought to separate the MORAL philosophy of Jesus from the religious.
Gym fish, I pretty much agree with most of what you say; I thought I made it clear that I don’t claim to be a Christian, for basically the reasons you put forward.
Why do we need Jesus? Why do we need stories of Camelot, and Sherwood forest? I guess we don’t, but I prefer a life with such stories in it.
KatieO I have no desire to be a Guru, nor do I offer any original wisdom. The article was an effort to point out the existing wisdom of the writers of the new testament.
(Hint: it is not the first two).
Well actually it was the second one, a condemnation of wealthy people.
I find it impossible to understand how the point can be made more clearly. It is IMPOSSBLE to get a camel through the eye of a needle.
“Jesus points out that there is no good work that he can do, no price that he can pay”
Actually, Jesus pointed out there was a price he could pay:
“19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”
How is this open to interpretation?

Continued...
Tristan, thank you for the links. I vaguely remember reading many years ago, a scholar claiming that in the ancient Hebrew the words “camel” and “camel hair” (used to make rope) were very similar; in fact I think only a dot or two over one letter made the difference.
Trying to thread a needle with rope might be more apt, yet personally I like the strength of trying to squeeze the whole camel through the needle. Either way, it is still impossible.
Runner believes I have a “rotten heart” for suggesting that people should be nice to each other, without thought of heavenly reward.
Be careful, Runner. Remember Matthew 5:21, “But anyone who says ‘you fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Happy am I, knowing you are a good Christian. I can just feel your love for me.
Polycarp, mate. According to your version of events, Christ in collusion with his father, committed suicide.
Should we then, bless Judas, for playing the essential part in this holy sacrifice?
Should we bless Ciaphus and the mob for playing their parts in this holy rite, by torturing and murdering a man? It was after all, God’s will, was it not?
Mate, I have read the passages you quote. I reject them, as superstition. I know you’ll forgive my sins, however. Just think of me as another Samaritan.
Kenny, Ozandy, thanks.
Cheers, Grim.

Grim

'Runner believes I have a “rotten heart” for suggesting that people should be nice to each other, without thought of heavenly reward.'

Totally wrong again. I suggest you have a rotten heart (like all) but especially as you mis represent Christ and His teachings so clearly. This is one of the most foolish things a person can do.

Grim,

It may be impossible for you and me, unless we’re talking a largish needle ( Cleopatra’s?) and a smallish camel...

But bear in mind:

“For with God nothing will be impossible.” Luke 1:37

Tristan demonstrates that the meaning of the words, even to the letter, when approached with a heart that yearns to understand the wonders of God’s wisdom, is deep and rich.

Few of us can resist the temptation of imposing our limited human understanding on God’s words. The fault is mine also, my outline does no justice nor gives insight into this mystery.

Matt:19 (yes, I found your mistake unwittingly ,by attributing the passage to Matt:20) is not the best sales pitch for Christianity even though the sacrifice is merely an exchange of meager earthly riches for divine treasures.

A life traveling around Galilee may have held some appeal for someone ready to escape the ennui of first century riches; he could have gone down in history as the first Christian tourist! (But we know he was disheartened and walked away).

Viewed in the context not of the sacrifice required, but the reward promised, these words resonate with Christian readers. To our shame, we cling to our earthly treasures; things we know have a use-by date, despite intimate knowledge of what has been promised.

Jesus’ words pierce the heart of believers (this is not the marketing campaign!), to remind us of our foolish pride, lest we think for a moment that we have earned our place in heaven.

With the benefit of the whole gospel of Matthew, we have learnt that the sacrifice asked of this man was so small as to be trivial, in comparison to the sacrifice that Christ was preparing himself for even as he called his followers.

I encourage you to put hasty assumptions aside, and explore the gospel of Matthew for all the wisdom that it has to offer. Knowing the size of the reward, perhaps that is not as presumptuous as it sounds.

Tristan - just to break it to you - Jewish Rabbis rarely agree on anything, let alone the meaning of texts. Midrashic interpretations of the Bible (Pesher, Letterism, Literalism) are perfectly fine, but hardly authoritative. The web site you refer is clearly using Midrashic hermeneutics.

Peter, are you saying that no one ever changed their preconceived ideas on morality even slightly after reading the Bible? That we only ever use the Bible to confirm our pre-existing prejudices? That would be quite absurd. Does this apply only to the Bible or all books?

Morality is a social construction, it cannot be 'innate'.

You don't interpret Jesus' death and resurrection as metaphor and fail to see the analogies with ancient Jewish ritual sacrifice, Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Jonah's three days in the whale, and the Isaiah texts. You take it literally and think it is like Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter for favourable winds to guide his nation's ships. You obviously don't get it, but I am not inclined to educate the close-minded who think books only exist to confirm our prejudices.

Dear Grim(s fairytales:)

I have exercise restraint here.. because I don't wish to be unkind.

Your take on my take is hmmm... lacking in depth, and of the whole Biblical picture of Salvation. It's very much a surface skim of events in isolation, and looks at them deliberately in terms of 'a suicide pact'.

Un-fortunately, it is rather difficult to communicate the 2000 yrs of history and the record of it's salvation aspects contained in the Old Testament in just a few lines. So, I'll not try.

Suffice to say that the cermonial sacrifice, the redemption from Egypt, the Passover feast... ALL along with the specific prophets (such as Isaiah in particular) who foretold the nature of the Messiah, ALL pointed to the death of Jesus.

It was not a 'suicide' pact, as you put it, it was far far more.
The dimensions of the sacrificial, redeeming death of the Lord Jesus are unsurpassed and unfathomable from a human perspective.

What we are faced with, is the Lord of Glory, who manifested Himself to mankind, and spoke with both word and deed, mighty acts and signs, wonders etc.. all with a view of reconciling a fallen mankind to it's Creator.

Does it make sense? In some ways no, in other ways absolutely.
We all know the idea of justice. "Do the crime, do the time" Punishment for evil is straightforward.
We can all understand the idea of a judge imposing a penalty on a criminal.. such as a huge fine, then out of love, paying the fine himself.

"For God so LOVED the world, that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him might not PERISH.......

That takes care of sin...but there's more.

...but have everlasting LIFE."

Now that's the bonus. Your perspective does nothing about the problem of "death". Perhaps to you it's just part of the natural scheme of things? No..the Bible is clear, death is due to SIN! and that is what Jesus dealt with- Once..for all.

Interesting isn't it, that the 2 self-professed defenders of the faith (Runner and Polycrap) are the ones who unleash the most venom.

Walking, talking advertisements for everything that is wrong with their lop-sided world view.

Praise be!

Dear Paulr;

As I said earlier: I don't claim to be an expert - but I am certain that the scripture is packed with mysteries - metaphors that are are not to be taken literally. They key is knowing when to take literally - and when to seek out the meaning of the mystery.

Take the following: I sometimes wonder myself whether or not 'walking on water' - referred perhaps to faith, and to what the Greeks called the 'element' of water...which some see as refering to the unconscious mind...

Because understanding is so important - I believe it really is right - that if there are authorities on these mysteries - then the truth should be shared...

If there is to be an afterlife, for instance, of what shall such a life comprise? I admit - the prospect of a purely unconscious afterlife worries me a little...There is a passage in the Bible where Jesus 'opens the minds' of his disciples to the true meaning of the scripture...Now - I wish I knew as much.

And a postscript - the moon is associated with 'the eye of the needle' - and in Psalms God is referred to as a 'sun and a shield'...What is the true meaning of this? Again - I don't know for sure - but have hope in the saying 'seek and you shall find'.

Finally - Palulr - thanks for alterting me the the different Rabbincal tendencies - as I said - I'm no expert

Some awe-full symbolism there, Tristan.

Yet another interpretation is that the stormy sea symbolises chaos; Jesus is the one who brings peace amidst chaos.

Another more political interpretation is that Jesus' walking on the water symbolises that he, not the Romans, control the Sea of Galilee. (The Romans had set up a government fishing industry on the lake which wreaked havoc on the local economy and caused much resentment).

Upon reading this post I see a bunch of people who have no idea about what a christian is . First and formost christianity is not a democracy it is a theocracy and what we think and say has no revelence . Second christianity is not a religion ,a philosophy or a learned behaviour . Thirdly christianity is a relationship with our heavenly Father through faith in the finished works of his son Jesus who came down from heaven to make the way open for man to again have fellowship with his heavenly father as Adam had before the fall. Peter put it very simply ,repent or turn around , believe in the Lord Jesus , the Christ the anointed one and be baptised for forgiveness of sin and you will recieve Gods free gift of the Holy Spirit and when that happenes you are a child of God through the rebirth experience . Then and only then are you given His NAME Christ - ian . You get your name from your father . If you live in a hen house and eat chook feed and are taught that you are a chook it does not make it true . If everyone believes their parents where monkeys and are taught that it does not make it true . If you truely Want to be a christian you have to do it Gods way and give up any brownie points you have on yourself. If you have a problem with this word take it up with God for its his word not mine I am only the messenger .

Richie 10, 1st things first. Why weren't you in Church at the time you wrote this post!! Or were you in Church and just a bit bored up the back so you pulled out your LapTop to kill some time.

OK, sorry for the nit picking but you do come across as a bit of a "black and white" messenger of the Lord don't you? Very little room for shades of grey in your world.

How do you reconcile your absolutism with (say) the world of Islam, the average Hindu or some of the myriad of other religious "faiths" we sceptics have to keep up with?

What is a "Christian" anyway? Someone who "believes" or someone who "walks the walk" - e.g. embraces poverty, helps the needy, rejects Church-based wealth as a fraud on the flock etc., etc.

Why not take the value from the allegory that flows from the Tales of Christ and do something useful?

Persisting with a faith that insists upon absolute subjugation to a faceless Deity makes it very difficult to distinguish your type from the extremists we are repeatedly told by so-called Christians we must resist.

Maintain the scepticism people!

"Obviously, atheists would choose to disregard the first rule entirely,"

But the first rule isn't in the least bit "supernatural". It is simply a metaphor for absolute integrity. to love the lord thy god with all thy heart and all thy mind and all thy body is simply to live in a state of complete integrity. One who has complete integrity finds it easy to treat his neighbour as himself. understanding what one does and doesn't like at a fundamental level is the same as knowing what everyone does and doesn't like at a fundamental level.

We all know we wouldn't like to be killed for example, therefore we also know everyone else...

The first rule is a solicitation to attain integrity in your thoughts, feelings and actions. What's so supernatural about that?

This tale goes about a group of respectable families picnicking down Albany way on the edge of a high cliff near deep water.

The rumour was that it was a churchy group, who should have known better than let the young person fall in.

It seemed that none of the group knew what to do in time and it took one who happened to be the worst young district ratbag - who ripped a spare tyre off the back of a car, and then dived in.

Story told in a local pub was mostly what the rescuer yelled out as he followed the tyre -

What's the matter with you selfish lot of bastards, thought you were supposed to love your neighbour.

Off course, being pub talk, was probably stretched a bit?

bushbred,

The tale you tell could be true or it might not be. The true story is however that God sent His Son to hang on a tree in order for the drunkard, the blasphemer, the god hater, the liar, the homosexual, the immoral, the scoffer, etc etc to be saved from eternal damnation. I would say that pretty well covers all of us. The stupidity of this post is that it has the audacity to claim that we did not need this event to happen. All we needed was a few little rules to try and live by! What a joke! There is only One hero around here and while I would be eternally grateful for the drunken heathen to save my son from drowning it would not compare to the One who dies for all mankind to be saved from eternal fire.

Runner,

regards your post, what happened to all the people who died before Jesus?

bennie,

Good question. Small aside: There really was no "before Jesus" (Jesus, a member of the Godhead) was there at Genesis .

Jesus was not God's "get out of jail free card" or Plan B.

"God's plan" is always in the singular.

If you are raising the question about salvation before Jesus (in person) came and preached salvation through his death and resurrection, and then laid himself down as a human sacrifice to atone for the sins of all mankind, the bible gives us confidence in "natural" revelation (a response to the miracle of his creation) and the role of the law (and the spirit in which the law is kept).

This accounts for the years before God's revelation to Moses...

And any non-Jew who could bow down before the God of Moses as the one true God (who didn't have access to the prophets).

And during the 500 or so years of prophetic silence (in the period between the OT and the NT), for those without access to the Torah...

And for those, since Jesus' death on the Cross, in deepest, darkest Africa ("the unreached") ....

And for the majority of the human race, who died while in the womb (only about 30% of all pregnancies reach full term), in childbirth or before the age of 12...

So, it doesn't account for those of us living on this side of the cross.

Think of it as a great privilege, modern conveniences aside, not to be in the "bc" era of history, and to have access to the printed word of God in so many languages.

Your question then, amounts to this: Would God hand over His precious creation, each one created in his own image, knowing the number of the very hairs on their head, the object of his divine love, to death so easily?

The answer to your question IS Jesus.

He sent his one and only Son to die for us. It is not God's will that we turn away..
We have our own free choice.

bushbred,

"The true story is however that God sent His Son to hang on a tree in order for the drunkard, the blasphemer, the god hater, the liar, the homosexual, the immoral, the scoffer, etc etc to be saved from eternal damnation."

Not according to the Gospels. Jesus was killed by the priests of his day for the sin of opposing their dogmatism and cruel treatment of ordinary people. Jesus exposed how they set man against man, instead of bringing them together in love and peace.

"Beware the teachings 0of the Pharisees!"

And so we come to the question of salvation, the 'great reward'.
Reward for what? Leading a virtuous, caring sharing, 'Godly' life? Or just "accepting the Lord as our Saviour" and leaving it at that?
Apparently Mel Gibson is deeply concerned about his wife.
Despite being one of, if not the, richest actors in California, Gibson has absolutely no doubt he will go to Heaven, and his wife will not, -despite being as he describes her, a 'saint'.
Why? Because he is a Catholic, and she is a Protestant.
I seem to recall Gibson bought an island some time back, complete with villages full of people. He had to decide whether to let these people stay in their homes, or evict them.
He just wanted somewhere to relax, and entertain his friends.
I didn't hear the end of that story, so I don't know the result.
I'm not sure I want to.
The great John Wayne is another. After leading his life his way, he converted to Catholicism just a couple of days before he died.
God welcomes the stray lamb back to the fold.

Talking about a ratbag being the first to jump in to save a life, with possibly true believers thinking more about themselves -

Maybe the sacred tale of the Good Samaritan is similar.

Must say many of us are still not sure about faith, neither, sort of just hoping that one might act like the Good Samaritan when needed.

Thus one does wonder whether those who do join the Church to be saved, the very fact they are thinking so much about themselves, may in the long run prevent them from being saved.

Bushbred, you deserve to have the last word.
Oops...

Postscript: Sorry, and thankyou, KatieO. I wasn't aware of the mistake you picked; that was more a typo, in my book.
The mistake I left was much more fundamental.
"Suffice to say, Samaritans were the enemies of the Jews, yet Jesus advocated loving them, on the basis that not all Samaritans were bad people."
This is a very human, and very wrong, interpretation. "To ere is human, to forgive is divine".
The legendary Jesus, I think, realised the only way to stop the vicious, vicious cycle of retribution and counter retribution, was to not only forgive one's enemies, but to love them -not because they may not be bad people, but because it was the only way for peace.
This is a big big ask, and clearly beyond our 2 tame christian contributors to these threads; nevertheless it is absolutely necessary.
Does anyone doubt for one second, that George Bush's retaliation has only caused more hatred, more desire for revenge, more excuse for conflict?
My thanks to everyone for an interesting argument, Cheers, grim.