More Christian drivel.
Opposed to contraception AND abortion.
Why is the sex drive so strong,is God a fool?.
Why didn't God make us able to switch off our fertility at will?.

I will not die in pain when my time comes.I will have it all worked out.

Pain is for Christians.Their hero is a man being tortured to death.
Some even wear a model on a string around their necks.

I am an atheist electrician.Think I will buy a model electric chair
with cooking man to wear.
Even if I can't buy one it will be fun to ask.

What's most disturbing is that none of this sanctimonious rubbish is intended to reduce suffering. Instead, it's a rigid enforcement of dogma so that the faithful don't have to question their comfortable beliefs.

Morally and intellectually this is no different to the persecution of Galileo and the suppression of science during the Dark Ages. If Sellick's brand of Christianity had its way, Australia would be a mirror image of Iran.

Peter Sellick is more interested in the ‘people-left-behind’ than he is in the blighted souls who feel it necessary to seek euthanasia or to take their own lives by whatever means available to them. He contradicts what he assumes to be Philip Nitschke’s “view of humanity” – the individual existing alone and making decisions based on that ‘aloneness’. Sellick claims to ‘know’ that this is wrong. Well, he ‘knows’ nothing of the sort; it is just his opinion.

When people get to the stage of wanting death, they are very much alone, and there is nothing that anyone else can do about it – short of brutishly, physically preventing them from their actions, of course, for their own selfish reasons.

Calling euthanasia or suicide ‘murder’ is nonsense, particularly coming from someone who refers to: “…the increasingly silly language of human rights…”

The author’s florid language regarding abortions is another abuse of language and a rather childish way of scaring anyone silly enough to listen to him; and his rambling about ethics is all about him, nobody else.

A “Culture of death”, “Self murder and the murder of the unborn…” is the stuff of bible-bashing, tub-thumping ranting against the rights of individuals.

Mr. Sellick has the right to live life the way he wants to, and die (hard) they way he wants to, if he is not taken suddenly as most of us would wish to go. So to do the rest of us have that right. We don’t need him and his “Christian tradition” to tell us that we do not have that right.

Sells,
You and your religious kind live in glass houses. Your leaders live in palaces yet 25-30,000 people, mainly the young, die of starvation and preventable diseases every day on a planet which day by day groans louder under the burden of excessive population. You all 'rabbit on' on issues of no real significance.
It would be much better if contraception was available world wide so that humans can enjoy their sex life while population growth and total consumption is brought to sustainable levels. An occasional accident can be aborted before the development of a personality or even a conciousness and each woman has the opportunity usually to try for a replacement child at a time which suits her and her partner.
I think much of the problem is the belief in an everlasting soul, a concept as ridiculous as the concept of original sin. When I go I will be finished except in minds and behaviour of the people I have had an influence on. My aim is that for me that influence will be to the net benefit of the species. Peter Singer had the right ideas in 'How are we to live?"

Peter,

In your view, does a country have the right to send its citizens to war, when there is no existing direct threat? Vietnam?

Some good points but essentially a load of drivel.

What has the "culture of natality via Abraham to Jesus" got to do with life in the year 2008?

And besides which christianity has always been involved in the wholesale slaughter of others. Such being the inevitable manifestation of its drive to worldly power and control.

And of its claim to be the "one true faith/way/revelation". We are the only ones that possess the "truth", and by golly we are going to convert every one else to this "one true way", using whatever means we can.

And while we tell you about our marvellous "saviour" we will be very busy stealing all of your resources and destroying your cultures too.
And murdering you, if you resist.
Of course we might "baptise" you (so that your "soul" might be saved) while we are loading you on to the slave ships.
How many millions were there?

This image sums it all up in stark detail

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~/library/Orozco/panel13.html

Again this reference tells us the truth about the mountains of corpses and rivers of blood INEVITABLY produced by the christian death meme.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

Speaking of death memes. How many people place a crucifix with the broken body of Jesus on their dinner tables?
And why not?
Because it is essentially an image of suffering, death and cruelty.

If in any other time and place,you came across a bloodied and totured body nailed to a cross you would quite rightly be horrified.

So why not be appropriately horrified by the essentially grotesque image of the broken/tortured body of "jesus" nailed to a cross?

Strange fruit indeed!

This is what amazes me about people.

They have no idea of what their talking about. (on this note )

Lets give them a choice, where it can be only a yes or no answer.

If your daughter or son had a spinal injury and stem-cell research was the difference between walking or not, would that change your mind or let them suffer because of christian morality or opinion?

That's the things with humans! there all for it when its in their favour.
and all against it when its not.
'and don't get started on overpopulation/medical-research, birth control in poor countries and so on, those issues should be swept under the carpet! shouldn't they?

Again! Another road-block by who,s know,s what.

EVO

As Basil Fawlty would say, we can spend the rest of our lives having this argument. Nothing will deter "Sells" from his view, and he is entitled to live and die the way he chooses. But I cannot accept the moralising he and his cronies go on with. He has absolutely no business, none, in telling me how to live and die. His preposterous belief system merely shows off his believing credentials, it doesn't give him any special insights into ethics or morality. He has no trouble believing in the supernatural; I do have trouble with that. In fact, it is impossible for me to believe anything that has no evidence, strange as that may seem. I therefore don't base my personal morality on a vengeful, jealous figment of the imagination. No religious fanatic will have any say in any end-of-life issues I face. Just as I would not allow my beloved pet to suffer, and indeed would be prosecuted if I did, I will take measures needed to ensure a good death when the time comes.

The symbol for Christianity used to be the Fish, a symbol that was reportedly used by Jesus. (Fishers of men)

Yet this simple and pleasing symbol was changed to an image of torture and death after a dream by Emperor Constantine; he placed the symbol of a cross on the shields of his soldiers. After his war-time victory in 312 AD, the ever so modest Constantine concluded that his success represented victory over death as much as the crucifix represented the victory of Jesus over death through his reported resurrection. Constantine's mother, Helena, travelled to Jerusalem in 325 to seek the tomb of Jesus. When met with silence by the Jewish leaders she placed one of them, (ironically named Judas) in a well. Charming woman. After seven days, he prays to God for guidance and reveals the location. After this torture, Judas converts to Christianity, and takes the name Kyriakis. Helena is made a saint for finding the original cross and her many acts of charity. Like leaving men in wells for a week, no doubt.

Ironic given Sells claims that euthanasia and abortion, (where individual people make considered decisions over their own lives) represent a 'culture of death', while ignoring the bloody history of Christianity.

Lets get started on the hidden church culture of death.

In the 3rd world, there is a high death rate from diseases such as AIDS etc, but Christians object to either the distribution of condoms or to actually daresay distributing them themselves upon spurious notions that they would "encourage promsicuous behavior";
Similarly many drug users die in such countries because unlike in Australia or Europe, they cannot obtain at no cost supplies of clean equipment and syringes, the Church would never participate or lobby for something like this because protestant puritanism and self-denial/shame have an opinion that intoxication is sinful;
Around the globe, there are many Churches that resist the Gardasil vaccine for cervical cancer upon a similar basis, a spurious notion that it would encourage teenage premarital sex;
In the US, muscular Church lobbies have convinced Washington to cut school grants unless they only teach abstinence and no science or evidence-based sx education;
Sometimes pregnant women find themselves in danger because of pregnancy complications, but many a religious hospital or medical professional refuses to allow, or do, a Dilation and Curettage.

As is usually the case with authors running this line one bad case study is used to stand for all instances. But life is messy as Anglican Bishop Forsythe said at a seminar a couple of years year in Sydney. Nearly all of us would prefer that we could die peacefully not in needless excruciating pain; nearly all of us would prefer that women were not faced with unwanted pregnancy. The problem for the hard Christian theocratic right is that they are slowly but surely losing the battle on all fronts. In WA they lost on a woman's right to choose, prostitution and gay law reform. In Victoria abortion has just been decriminalised; in Britain in July blasphemy was abolished; in March 2006 Kevin Rudd voted for RU 486 to be taken out of the hands of the Minister for Health and to allow its availability to be decided by a statutory authority; in December 2006 in the Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull said the following in relation to a bill concerning cloning, a bill opposed by the Catholic Church and other theocratic Christians: 'our society has already reached a conclusion to the effect that an embryo at this very early stage is more in the nature of a potential than an actual human being and that the rights of this microscopic bundle of cells are not equal to those of a foetus, let alone a newborn baby.'

ANZSA

Constantine is likely to have seen a plurality with Sol Invictus.

The Tau cross is associated with Tammuz and may have adopted Christians.

It is just as possible that Jesus was simply hung on a pole or a X cross. Moreover, Pilate is unlikely to have allowed executions during the Passover, given the restlessness of Jewish population of that time.

Why does this person continue to be published?

nice to see sellick's sleazy drivel getting the bollocking it so richly deserves.

How foolish is Sells, Christianity is a death cult, at it's heart it has two ideas. 1. If you believe and follow the rules you will cheat death. 2. In order for this to happen a human being was offered as a sacrifice to their God.

Sells live your sad hatful life how you like and the rest of us will live and end ours how we see fit.

Time will prove you correct Peter. One day people will wake up and see what a hard, heartless world we have generated because of so many people considering only their own interests. I guess the pro-euthanasia lobby will say that they won't care about that though because they will just kill themselves.

GP! Is that the best you have got? seriously!

EVO

Christianity may be something of a death cult, but one only has to turn on the tv to see the reality of our mass death cult... grotesque torture and death sold as entertainment.
Abortion and contraception may be great for individual circumstances, but the mass acceptance of them has not really done much for the legions of 30-plus women (like many of my friends) who find themselves, after many years of active sex, suddenly alone and facing declining fertility propects with no real hope of a child or family life.

People love to point out the hypocrisy of others but it is obvious from these posts they hate being shown their own. They want the death culture when it suits them and then try and put some sort of humanitarian cause to mask their hypocrisy. Quite sad really.

I agree - sanctimonious drivel.

She would have had a peaceful death if she were allowed to buy the drug and euthanase herself in Australia.

Unlike Peter's regular fan club of grandstanding hecklers, I think our notion of the self should be seriously scrutinised, as it as enormous ethical implications.

- Is the modern Western understanding of the self solipsistic; to what degree?
- Is my self tied up with my connection to family and community? Without them, myself doesn't exist in any meaningful way? Do I have responsibilities beyond what I do with my body within my personal bubble?
- How do others define my self? How do I conceive of myself in terms of another person?
- What identities (national, political, etc.) do I hold to be me?
- How is my self related to the concept of humanity? Am I humanity, do I have responsibilities to humanity, or am I an entity disconnected from the rest of the world.

Oliver

"It is just as possible that Jesus was simply hung on a pole or a X cross."

The Christian cross is a fertility symbol stolen from the pagans.
It is a line drawing of a naked woman ,lower half, from the back.
Long vertical,gap between legs.
Short vertical ,gap between buttocks.
Horizontal ,fold under buttocks.

Maybe it was a joke on the gullible like the huge (building size)
penises ,one on each side of a mosque.

It's the culture of life that bothers me.

Why can't we let people die anymore. It's a natural part of life. Billions spent on premmie babies (who would not have lived if it were not for heroic efforts) who have been kept alive and then clog up the hospitals afterwards with their chronic illnesses. Millions of people starving and disease ridden in Africa, and they can't even have a condom if their life depends upon it.

People whose dearest wish is to end their pain and suffering are not allowed to choose death because of other people's beliefs - crazy!
Old people begging to die, left to rot in a chair at a nursing home, ignored by a society who refuse to demand their tax dollars keep these people in comfort and pain free.

Let people die with dignity.

Sells does make a few good points in this article. Humans are funny animals - we do make choices about what is acceptable in relation to 'death'- for all sorts of reasons (even ignoring the Christian perspective).

It is interesting that usually those who are pro-abortion are anti-death penalty and those who are anti-abortion are pro-death penalty (without wishing to generalise). If one were to analyse this, it might have something to do with how we reconcile either the right to life and/or the definition of life.

When is a group of cells considered a life with all the inherent rights we bestow to a born human? Does a person lose the right to live if they have taken the life of another?

As a mother I do have discomfort with abortion (everyone does). It is not an easy decision and thankfully I have never been faced with that dilemma. And seeing your newly born baby and the love that you feel for them even though only a few weeks ago they were a bunch of cells.

Repeating myself a bit from an earlier thread, these issues come down to weighing up rights. A foetus may be seen by some to have the right to live even when only a few days/weeks old but others may also feel compassion for a mother who may have many issues facing her and if abortion were not legally available may opt for a backyard alternative with potential disastrous consequences.

To me, this comes back to a crucial choice - an issue upon which Mr Sellick remains silent.
The crux of the matter ultimately, is where the line is drawn, or in this case, what measures as a society would Mr Sellick advocate?

In most things, I tend to regard criticism as somewhat weak if it is not accompanied by constructive suggestions to remedy the problem, if indeed there is a problem.

So, Sellick argues it's bad that there are abortions and that euthanasia exists. What precisely does he propose?

There's the real question, and on that he remains silent. Perhaps because he knows that were he to advocate a state which denies abortions as well as euthanasia (which we already have, to a large extent) he is in fact, robbing people of choices, and would be seen as a move to institute a state based on religious values over practical. It does indeed resemble a move toward theocracy.

Because that's what human rights are all about, though many hard-headed Christians refuse to countenance this, preferring to view it through the prism of a god they accept, while the rest of us do not.

The moment you understand this very simple concept, the issue of human rights becomes easily understandable. I can understand some people muddying the water on issues of abortion, even though I don't agree a fetus can be seen as a person. I can understand this muddying because they see it as two competing choices.

But euthanasia? Frankly, efforts to oppose voluntary euthanasia regardless of the individual circumstances really do disgust me.

Pelican, I don't think there are many people who are 'pro-abortion', but they do believe in a woman's right to choose and not be dictated to or controlled by other people's beliefs. I'm sure anyone who has considered or had an abortion would much rather have not had an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Opposing the death penalty and supporting voluntary euthanasia sit comfortably with the pro-choice stance, as it is all about being able to make decisions about your own body and not having the right to make life and death decisions about another person

Peter you are mixing up euthanasia and suicide.
Euthanasia is a special form of suicide that happens when death is near and inevitable.

The woman in your story committed suicide. She was not terminally ill and suffering unbearably. Even if Nischke's book was not available she may have done it. Suicide is not a new phenomenon. You don't need to be Einstein to figure it out. Romans were falling on their swords millennia ago.

Euthanasia is what happens when you are dying and suffering unbearably. It gives you the chance at dignified exit.

Please stop muddying the debate.

I see the religious vilififiers are hard at work... from their secular pulpits 6 feet above contradiction... bearing down at the believers with a stern mocking look....

"More Christian drivel"

"Sanctimonious Rubbish"

"You and your religious kind" (err meaning..sub humans?)

"A load of drivel"

Well.. I hope none of those from who's mouths pour this oozing puss like vitriol will have any problem with a reasoned argument about particular theological/political/historical issues concerning other faiths.

Pericles.. where are you? I'd say this was a WHACK-A-CHRISTIAN thread par excellence thus far..wouldnt you?

Of course..I don't hold my breath that you would be in the slightest way consistent and unhypocritical and target these big mouths with small minds (?) for their vicious hatred and loathing and rabble rousing agaisnt Christian belief....would you?

But.. of course when secularists deliberately resort to open mockery and actual ridicule of a person claiming Christianity ....welll...that's quite ok isn't it?

Now.. there might be a lesson here. If the guilty parties above, simply criticized Sells argument.. by showing the social and political implications withOUT the ridicule and mockery...would they be guilty of "rabble rousing and inciting fear, hatred and loathing"?

Hardly.. but that's how your mind seems to work. All these persons are doing here, is showing how shallow they are by resorting to such shabby tactics as ridicule and mockery. But that's pretty much it.

It's on them... so you blokes who wish your views to have any acceptance by those other than they who share your mocking mindset.... why not limit your comments to reason, argument and implication?

There's a good boy(s)

Candide
I take your point. I was more thinking in terms of the various elements raised in this discussion - abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment etc.

As you rightly say no-one is pro-abortion as such. :)

polycarp,

plenty of people have addressed the pseudo-substance of sellick's previous thousand articles. at this point, quick disgusted dismissal is the only reasonable response.

undidly,

An interesting suggestion but the tau shape T is known to history, especially in Greek regions like where Christ was crucified. If there was a regular place of execution, the upright pole would have been permanently in position and the cross pole carried by the condemned, after flagellation. The full cross would have been too heavy for a person to carry.

If Christ, was crucified, and on a T cross, he would have been made to carry the cross-beam (only), across his shoulders over the place, where he had been beaten. It is just as likely, he would have been hung from a single vertical pole, always in place, for that purpose.

It would have been atypical for the Romans to crucify a person many believed belonged to a royal genealogy (House of David). It would not be employed on Romans or persons of stature

Strangely enough I have not got overly strong convictions on euthanasia. If a person has the capacity to make a choice on their own behalf little rally can be done about it. Obviously the taking of the life of the unborn is simply murder.

What disturbs me is the dishonest campaign by those who support euthanasia. With abortion it started out as the poor one in a hundred unwanted pregnancies caused by rape. Now it is simply about a woman's right! So we have hundreds of thousands of baby's being murdered now up to 24 weeks old because it is a woman's right. How hard and sick can hearts get. The same people who have dishonestly argued on the abortion issue now claim compassionate grounds for euthanasia. Why am I suspicious? Not hard to work out is it? They claim compassion in the guise of their social dogmas.

Oliver
You wrote "It would have been atypical for the Romans to crucify a person many believed belonged to a royal genealogy (House of David). It would not be employed on Romans or persons of stature". Was capital punishment ever carried out on this class, and if so how? I'm intrigued.

"Why does this person continue to be published?"

Because he draws comments. If we all treated this nonsense with the silent contempt it deserves, then Peter's pulpit would soon be withdrawn. The trouble is that silence could also be taken to indicate consent. It's probably the lesser of two evils to have it published -- at least it helps flush out the loonies and lets us know what we are up against.

Jon.

Candide,

I will to check it out, but now understand that ranking citizens were exciled and of course emperors murdered. I think I drew my memort from Karen Armstrong.

Suspect treason would have been a capital offence. Rogue governors tended to be sent into exciled (Cicero). Patriachs (Fathers) had the power of life and death over their childen's life: Fathers had give the Life, so it was their's take back (Redding).

Might be a few days.

Cheers,

O.

'Why does this person continue to be published?"

Because the Secularist who claim to champion free speach have and will never shut people up from speaking the truth as much as they try. Many Secularist/socialist are only tolerant of those who agree with them.

Thank you for your article Sells.

I have been a psychiatric nurse since 1978. I have nursed numerous suicidal people and many people who have committed suicide. Generally these people were suffering from extreme clinical depression.

The notion of ambivalence is the key to understanding the suicidal person. In many post suicidal assessments that I have conducted, it has always been clear that the person did not want to die - but rather, wanted to escape from what they believed was an unsolvable and painful situation. People need to learn the differences between suicidal ideas, suicidal intent, suicidal gestures, acts of self harm and suicidal conviction.

There is no doubt in my mind that completed suicide is self murder. The person kills him or her self in a calculated and planned way - a clear egocentric act with little or no thought for those left behind.

Euthanasia is not the synonymous with completed suicide - even though it also has an egocentric element. People who choose to euthanase generally do so in close consultation with family and/or friends. Generally family and friends are relieved after the person dies.

People who are left behind after a person's completed suicide often never recover from the pain of their loss. My brother is a good case example. His wife committed suicide leaving him with a five months old daughter and an 18 months old daughter. My brother is grieving as much today as he was some 15 years ago. My nieces have often been victimised at school when people found out that their mother had suicided. They still ask - why? What did we do wrong? We were only babies.

I have no doubt that my post will upset a lot of people. Even so, at a professional and personal level I think that I am more than qualified to assert in an educated way. Further, I specialised in curricula writing on suicidology for my Master of Education.

kalweb

Thanks for the information Oliver - there are so many interesting things I don't know.

kalweb

Thank you!
Sells confused and oversimplified article seems to have generated a heated rather than considered debate.
You have introduced a note of wisdom and common sense.
Abortion, Suicide and Euthanasia really are three very different issues and need to be treated differently.

Sells is right, however, in one point. If consequences are all that we use to determine the 'rightness' of our actions then we are doomed forever to argue the issues with little hope of finding any sort of agreement or resolution. Every action has consequences, good and bad. Aborting a foetus may have awful consequences for those involved but bringing unwanted children into the world also can have awful consequences. Weighing consequences doesnt really work.

I think it is fair to say that Christ affirmed life in His teaching and in the way He accepted His fate. The Church, on the other hand, has not always managed to interpret Jesus faithfully and has allowed some pretty silly ideas to enter into its dogma.

The Church should encourage people to choose life if it is to be faithful to Jesus teaching. This can in no way be achieved by the severely judgemental attitude inherent in Sells article. He appears to have forgotten why Jesus died?

Yes, Boaz, I probably would, up to a point.

>>Pericles.. where are you? I'd say this was a WHACK-A-CHRISTIAN thread par excellence thus far..wouldnt you?<<

But I haven't yet noticed anyone sneaking in the opinion that Sells' views herald the end of civilization as we know it, or that they indicate imminent mortal danger for non-adherents, which are the principal ingredients of a good whack-a-mozzie rant.

So I'd set it at around a two, or perhaps you could persuade me to a three, on the whack-a scale.

waterboy,
^The Church, on the other hand, has not always managed to interpret Jesus faithfully and has allowed some pretty silly ideas to enter into its dogma.^

Would three of these silly ideas be the infallibility of the pope,
no sex for priests and no condoms for anyone?.

No wonder the church is in decline.

Fair point Pericles.. '3' (out_of_5_of_course:)

but again you actually illustrate the important difference between Islam and Christianity (in the strict doctrinal sense)

If Islam took hold..it would indeed be the end of civilization as we know it and that many of us love. We Christians just want to change your hearts and minds and wills.. we won't fine you for not attending worship.

We won't hang you from a crane for being gay (though Pastor Fred Phelps is the notable exception here.. possibly)

Our 'program', based on the teaching and example of Christ is as simple as being renewed in your heart mind and will. No amount of legislation (religious or otherwise) can ever ever achieve that. It can only produce outward compliance. We won't tax you at some horrific rate for the blessing of our 'protection' if you choose not to believe...

FYI this morning we had a very well delivered talk on Homosexuality.
For the speaker it was the only one he has heard in 50 yrs of his faith. I think it was very well and sensitively handled..and I doubt that any gay person in the congregation would have been offended. But then.. the speaker avoided highlighting the 2nd part of verse 27 he also avoided any colorful adjectives of an unkind nature.

I think this subject came up because of the CYC controversy.

FYI 2 Last weekend we had a very focused weekend camp on the subject of PURITY.. (of mind and act) and some members confessed to a struggle with 'just one click'... by contrast my cousin (who attends a gym with me) declared his only problem with where that one click takes you is running out of bandwidth!
As a distraction, on Saturday evening (at camp) we had 'The Last Samurai' running after official meetings. It came to a point where I was sure there would be a sex scene..me being the one who fired up the DVD did not help my level of comfort over this :) fortunately, it turned out to be very romantic and beautiful.

TOPIC.. on euthenasia..I'm with Runner.

You still don't get it, do you, Boaz.

>>Fair point Pericles.. '3' (out_of_5_of_course:) but again you actually illustrate the important difference between Islam and Christianity (in the strict doctrinal sense)<<

First of all, the whack-a scale mirrors the Richter. Three is but a minor disturbance in the Force...

But more importantly, can you not see how offensive it is when you pervert a simple point into yet another "Islam is dangerous to your health" rant?

>>If Islam took hold..it would indeed be the end of civilization as we know it<<

So would it be if the Rastafarians "took hold", Boaz. And each is, I'm afraid, as likely as the other.

But neither is going to happen. Trust me on this - the world is becoming less, not more susceptible to religious persuasion, from whatever source.

I know that you personally believe that Christianity will be submerged beneath a horde of scimitar-wielding Saracens, bent on revenge for the Crusades, but that is equally unlikely.

So... if they cannot take over by force of belief, and they cannot take over by force of arms, how exactly is this "taking hold" going to take place?

In the meantime, your attempts to mobilize the forces of anti-Islam by the sheer force of your personal magnetism and persuasive rhetoric can only have the effect of building antagonism against you personally, and by association, your religion.

Your lesson in comparative religion is instructive.

>>We won't hang you from a crane for being gay... We won't tax you at some horrific rate for the blessing of our 'protection' if you choose not to believe<<

On the other hand, you make being gay something to be ashamed of, which is a form of mental cruelty on those gays who want to believe in God. And you are happy to receive tax benefits - which is in effect a tax on non-believers - simply by virtue of being a religious organization.

Not as different as you'd like us to believe, really, are you?

hmm. i guess it was them muslims that done burned all them witches.

Candide,

“There has been much discussion about the legal basis of the capital charge. Some scholars hold that it was not under the law of extortion but under the laws controlling judicial bribery and murder, 'Lex Cornelia de sicariis' and 'ne quis iudicio circumveniretur' or else the 'Lex Iulia de vi publica', which forbade the physical punishment of Roman citizens by a provincial governor (s. 8 n.). M. I.” – (1)

“exilium equitis Romani septemque amicorum eius . . . ultimam poenam . . . arguebatur emisse. Within what limits could a provincial governor inflict corporal or capital punishment, in its various forms, on subjects who were Roman citizens? The Augustan Lex Iulia de vi publica asserted the general right of appeal of Romans in Italy and the provinces from the violence of magistrates: 'qui . . . necaverit necarive iusserit torserit verberaverit condemnaverit inve vincula publica duci iusserit' (Ulpian, Dig. 48. 6. 7; Sent. Paul. 5. 26. 1). So St. Paul invokes his privilege against the sentence of the governor (Acts xvi. 37, xxii. 25, xxv. 9-12). Claudius Aristion is tried by Trajan at Rome for offences in Ephesus, VI. 31. 3, … Later instances of provocatio are recorded under Marcus Aurelius, Dig. 28. 3. 6. 9, A-J III. But Galba, as legate of Tarraconensis, crucified a citizen for murder, ignoring his claim to citizenship, and his action was represented as immodica but not as illegal; the man had hoped merely for a milder form of death-penalty, Suet. Galba 9. I.” – (2)

“Under Hadrian that there began the tendency to assimilate the status of the municipal aristocrats, known as honestiores,to that of Roman citizens by granting them the same immunities, cf. Dig. 48. 19.”

“Only three other high personages are known to have been disgraced in the reign of Trajan. The consular Laberius Maximus, who was involved in political charges, is the only senator known to have suffered the capital punishment of deportatio, X. 74. 1 n.” – (3)

(1), (2) and (3) The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Sherwin-White (1966)

Cheers,

O.

Kalweb,

A thoughtful post.

Sells,

Did Jesus commit suicide? Did the Son of Man, with fore-knowledge, of the consequences, bring about his own crucifixation. Is not suicide forbidden under Jewish Law?

[Albeit, Saul committed suicide in 1 Samuel 31... A puzzlement to Rabbis, pehaps.]

Moreover, why would the Son of Man sacrifice himself to God the Father (Yewah) given Hosea 6:6, which reads:

"For I (Yewah) desire mercy (or love), not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings." I do realise Yewah was addressing an unrepentant Israel, yet Jesus is a Jew; was he not?

Please post.

Gibo,

Hi.

Light from the stars? Billions of years in transit, before the creation

Bushbasher,
FYI

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-514433/International-fury-Saudi-Arabias-plans-behead-woman-accused-witch.html

cute. yep, horus, there's some lovely people in the world. and if i'd claimed some universal niceness for self-proclaimed muslims, then you've found a damn good counterexample. of course i didn't, and wouldn't, claim any such thing.

the point is boaz-polycarp wants to attach some special status to christianity. for that, it is insufficient to point to islamic witch-burning: the burden is upon him to explain christian witch-burning.

Dear Bushy.. if the onus is on me to explain "Christian" witch burning, let me try.

"Salem Witch hunts" is probably the prime example in your mind?

I can explain that simply..if you look into it you will find it was more an issue of clan/family rivalry and the way one clan took out the other was to accuse them of being witches :) simple...

Here is an article about it:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm

But my ultimate answer is simple. Refer to the good book, and refer correctly. Any Christian practice must be based on the New Testament interpreting the old...and I find pretty much nothing suggest of such treatment of witches.

The closest might be Pauls encounter with a demon possessed girl and all he did was get annoyed and cast out the demon. Not exactly Salem stuff right? :)

So, the only thing which needs to be explained is how the historical practice of Witch burning was UNbiblical. And a reading of the NT will show it to be so.

You could try a little exercise .. google "New Testament on witch burning" :) and see what comes up.

Enjoy.

Perilous.. I'm happy for a profit making Christian concern to pay company tax.. it's the only tax they are exempt from as far as I know, but then..how many make a 'profit'? If Word Book store does not pay tax.... I'd be "livid" about that. I think they do as they are a Pty Ltd company.

You ask..how will it happen? (end of Civilization) very simply, by "doing nothing" on our part :)

Well I must say that the comments on this article do not give me much to chew on. They consists almost entirely of anti Christian abuse and simple contradiction. Where are the closely thought arguments? Where the deeply considered opposition? But it is interesting that this article has provoked even more anti-Christian hysteria than usual. I can only conclude that I have disturbed the strongly held convictions of the secularists, perhaps strongly held but poorly warranted. They really do not like their entire world view attacked. One writer even wondered why I should be published! They cling to the thin language of human rights and empty freedoms and are aghast that I have the nerve to point out that they have no basis at all. In desperation they resort to abuse meanwhile hiding behind their screen names.

Peter Sellick

Sells

Your article comes across as severely judgemental, ignoring the suffering of those who, for whatever reason, feel that they have no future or that the future they have is so bleak as to be unbearable.
I find it very difficult to believe that you are as insensitive as this article suggests.

Why are you so fearful of death? It is the natural end of life for us all, not something to be feared.
If we are going to affirm life in a way that is Christian then we must celebrate death much as we celebrate birth. This must include celebration of 'difficult' deaths like the deaths of children, and of those who take their own lives.
I am not an advocate of euthanasia. Nor would I ever encourage suicide for many of the reasons you have given. I cannot, however, deny the pain of those who contemplate or attempt suicide. I cannot describe it as murder with all the associated judgemental overtones.
You have attracted much abuse simply because your tone is judgemental and insensitive. If this were all the Church had to offer people in their pain and grief then I too would walk away.

Jesus did not seek to avoid death in favour of a 'little more future for himself' or to avoid giving his family, friends and followers the inevitable grief that would follow His death. In many respects His death was a chosen path that He could have avoided and yet you celebrate His death.

It is not necessary to condemn people in their time of pain in order to affirm life! On the basis of this article I wonder that anyone feeling this sort of pain would ever take their pain to you or your Church. But perhaps that suits you!

Waterboy,

An excellent riposte to Sells' judgemental comments. I can only hope he reflects on your very Christian and humane post.

Thank you

Waterboy
I assure you I know about the deep pain of depression and suicidal tendencies. I was a hospital chaplain for 3 years. My point is not judgmental it is that people who find themselves in this situation need focused support, not advice on how they can kill themselves in the delusion that that action is painless.

The church does not celebrate death. Indeed it looks to a time in which “death is no more”, death will always be the final enemy. I think the recent idea that we celebrate death at all is mistaken. Rather, each Sunday is a celebration of the resurrection. Good Friday is a necessary step to Easter Sunday but the celebration is firmly on the Sunday.

Fear of death is one of the things that distorts our society. On the other hand, to naturalise death and make it just another part of living seems too short hand to me. This is a kind of naturalism that will easily lead to the affirmation of suicide, after all it is just natural. But as Christians we are not called to live in the world, by the laws of nature but to hope for a future to come. Suicide cuts off that hope that only God brings and that is why we should never excuse it, even if the suffering is great.

I'm puzzled why this surprises you, Sells.

>>Well I must say that the comments on this article do not give me much to chew on<<

You produce a simplistic and heartless piece on a serious topic, and wonder why the primary response is bewilderment at how out of touch your version of Christianity can be.

As far as I can tell, this is the meat of your proposition:

>>Human rights are seen as being attached to the individual, they have no basis in community.<<

While it is difficult to disagree with the first half of this throwaway line, you provide no support for the second part. What justifies your position that the individual does not form part of the community? Or, to be more specific, that the "rights" of this "community" are automatically superior to those of the individual?

It is all very well to sneer at the entire concept of people having some say in the way they conduct their lives, but you cannot replace it with anything that does not require a subservience to your own particular brand of mysticism.

This is the best you can do on that front.

>>The Christian tradition sees human life as a journey into God that only ends in death.<<

The argument that one's choice of the means of dying is automatically murder comes from your own narrow world-view, much as some Christians view homosexuality - axiomatically wrong.

There are arguments one could have for and against euthanasia, or for and against abortion, from a purely humanistic perspective.

But I think what the general reaction of this thread is telling you, Sells, is that by insisting upon a dogmatic approach to a serious issue, you have excused yourself from actually applying any thought to it.

And it shows.

This is ultimately a completely muddled piece of writing which is predicated on the belief that euthanasia and suicide are perforce the same thing. This is entirely untrue. Suicide is the result of a mental disturbance, such as the one described in Erin's case. Irrespective of her source (being Nitschke's book on euthanasia), it does not transform her death into an act of euthanasia. It was suicide and yes, it sounds very traumatic, but let's not get the two matters mixed up.

Euthanasia is the taking of one's own life when - and only when - death (and a painful, undignified one) is inevitable. People prefer euthanasia over palliation as they do not want to degenerate to the stage where palliation would be their only option.

I would add that this article displays a very poor understanding of the concept of human rights, of the term 'rights' itself, and it misses the point about self-worth (dignity) which is paramount and inextricably linked to any discussion of euthanasia. (It is the loss of such self-worth that leads to suicide.)

The article also introduces mawkish sentimentality (eg, the post-abortion mother walking past a playground), which once again ignores the complexities of a topic such as abortion. I am pro-abortion and yet I would prefer a world where it never occurred, as it is traumatic for the mother and yes, it does result in the loss of a human. However there are situations in which it is necessary and, in a complex world (rather than the very simplistic model presented in this article), we must make - and have made - decisions on how best to deal with them.

As an aside, the author should realise that 'reason' and the notion of dignity, which led to the birth of the human rights movement, came about in the Enlightenment, best represented by the philosopher Kant, and was very heavily influenced by Christianity.

Sells

I think you are confusing physical death with death as metaphor.

What is this dichotomy you see between the natural and whatever it is you regard as the alternative? The life we are given is physical and natural and proceeds from physical birth through to physical death. Resurrection does not mitigate or reverse physical death.

You say
"This is a kind of naturalism that will easily lead to the affirmation of suicide, after all it is just natural."
You might need to explain this because it seems to me quite the opposite. Resurrection, on the face of it, suggests that physical death might be a way out of present pain, promising as it appears a real future beyond physical death.

You and I might know better than this but the Church, as a whole, has taught a version of 'Life After Death' that is entirely unnatural and untrue and which might make suicide appear a solution to present problems.

Naturalism is not the problem. The problem is bad theology

l cannot understand what people with the authors type of thinking are lamenting. Particularly when they couch it in terms of 'long-term' thinking. Given a long enough time line, we're ALL dead.

l am childless, dont intend on breeding and in terms of pure self interest l support abortion and euthenasia (whilst l dont think the arguements in support of either hold any logical/rational water... its killing, but lm OK with that aspect of the human condition).

Given that lm highly unlikely to breed, wont have any little facsimiles which l can condition with my own thinking and in the end will prolly take a dose... lm gonna take myself, my views and the perpetuaution of those views via progeny out of the socio-cultural frame.

In the end, people like me simply take ourselves outta the gene pool by killing ourselves.

Ultimately its the breeders who will shape future values and cultures. To wit, l would've though they would simply celebrate the short-term folly of self-interested egoists like myself and simply accept the inevitability that my type will not survive and theirs will.

Reality bends for no one. l would've though that one who believes in god would understand that already.

waterboy and pericles, terrific posts.

boazy-polycarpy, i appreciate your attempt to explain christian witch burning. i think you failed rather dismally.

1) i'm happy to permit you to refer to christian witch burning as "christian" witch burning. just as long as you are willing to refer to "islamic" nastiness with the same qualification and care and restraint.

2) no, i wasn't thinking of the salem trials. i was thinking of centuries of european history, in which tens of thousands of people were executed as witches in the most barbaric manner, and with the blessing of the highest powers of the protestant and catholic churches.

3) your ultimate answer, to read the good book is meaningless. i don't care what christians (or "christians") believe, more accurately what they believe they believe. i care what they do. and historically, christians and christian bodies seem as capable of barbarism as any other authoritarian system.

4) this is my point. i am not saying that such barbarism is inherent to christian belief, or that christianity is especially susceptible to such barbarism. i'm saying that christianity is not immune from it: your religion has no special status.

5) as an example, you point out that christians are not in the business of hanging gays from cranes. i believe you. but, present day ugandan christians seem quite happy to have gays rot in jail for life. and some australian christians seem more comfortable with the ugandan church than with more tolerant views.

polycarp-boaz, your religion is just not that special. it is not immune from stupidity and barbarism. that's all.

yes, there are some here who wish to trash christianity for the sake of it. but i suggest they are the exception. most are simply motivated by disgust with yours and sellick's holier than thou arrogance.

Dear Sells,

-Your comment-

The secularism evident in many threads is certainly in opposition to case/evidence for the existence of god, and, perhaps, highly focused one particularly god much favoured by Western religionists; however, is it really anti-Christian? How can one be against something that in all probably does not exist. Fairies don't exist. Because one does not believe in fairies, it does follow one is "against" fairies.

Secularists are like anthpologists trying to show traditional farmers that it is best to have fields in fallow. All-to-often, regarding old farm practises and beliefs, tradition binds the old to the new. Seculartists don't want people to live in ignorance of the marvel of the natural world/universe and transient life itself.

On the other hand, Paul/Constantine et al., usurping Jesus' life to create an institutional with a heinous, inhumane track record; well, history, provides, case-after-case, of cruelty, greed and insanity.

Others (I suspect) and I often use questions, rather than argument, out of respect for the other party. The question is usually open and gives the other party, you, the opportunity to rebut or reply in their own kind.

So, in instead of an open question, would you have one say, explicity; Jesus did commit suicide, against the teachings of the Jewish faith, and even given Yewah [God the Father] exclaims in Hosea 6:6, that He wants mercy/love (trans.) rather than sacrifice? Oops, that's a question ;-).

Given Jesus did commit suicide and we should follow Jesus' examples, and, that, there is an after-life; why is suicide wrong? Else put, to a Christian suicide should not be problematic. It's like catching a plane to a new destination.

I find it strange that no one here has commented on the Erin Berg anecdote.

I assume the author meant it as a horror fable designed to instill in us an aversion to euthanasia. If so, then it’s misplaced. Despite Erin's death being a suicide rather than a euthanasia, the anecdote illustrates that by keeping euthanasia illegal desperate people are forced to resort to illegal means and methods to end their suffering. This in turn increases the likelihood of people botching the job and possibly facing even worse deaths than what they were trying to avoid.

This is exactly how and why so many women died grisly deaths at the hands of backyard abortionists in the many decades after most countries criminalised the practice in the nineteenth century. These deaths only stopped when common sense and compassion finally ruled and the legislation was reversed.

Sells,

"Who stains with blood religion's sacred word, And kills, or gains new converts by his sword; Presuming rashly that a gracious God Approves the sacrifice of human blood. Oh, would that God, whose laws I wish to know, On Valois' court such sentiments bestow! The Guises falsely plead religion's cause, No scruple checks them, and no conscience awes. At me those leaders, insolent and proud, Direct their fury, and ensnare the crowd. These eyes have seen our citizens engage In mutual murders, with a zealous rage: For vain disputes have seen their pious care Deal all around the horrid flames of war. You know the madness of those vulgar minds Which faction warms, and superstition blinds; When, proudly arming in a cause divine, No power their headstrong passion can confine." - Voltaire (Canton II, Argument, abridged)

...and we poor seculatists lack a sense of community and humane love.

(Candide, guess you recognize it?)

Well said Martin

See my previous post. Similar notions to yours.

Another variable is that people kill themselves as a result of auditory command hallucinations - sometimes drug induced - but not always. Sufferers of the devastating long term illness of shizophrenia are tantamount examples of this assertion.

Command hallucinations are not egocentric - nor are the results planned. People kill themselves as a result of command hallucinations. The decision to self murder is not egocentric - it is a response to a major mental illness - over which the person often has no control - especially if the person is not appropriately medicated.

Euthanasia is not suicide. I wish people would get that.
Death as a result of command hallucinations is not suicide.
Completed suicide is (usually) a calculated and well planned scenario.

I wish people who do not have a professional psychiatry background would listen and learn - rather than espouse guilt ridden nonsense.

kalweb

Dear BUSHBASHER..you said:

<<4) this is my point. i am not saying that such barbarism is inherent to christian belief, or that christianity is especially susceptible to such barbarism. i'm saying that christianity is not immune from it: your religion has no special status.>>

Glad to see the first bit..

a)"not inherrent to Christian belief"
b)"Not particularly susceptable"

But on c you go off the rails.

c) Christianity is not immune from it.

Now..on this point we need to discuss a little.

A better way of putting this would be:

"Historic manifestations of the Church, due to corrupt and unscriptural attitudes... by rejection of Christ and his Word, by Abandonment of Biblical principle, have scurrilously shown unChristlike behavior toward others"

Your position that you don't care what people believe, but more what they do.... need some careful consideration.

Mainly in the area "why would they do something they did not believe in?" So..Actions betray real beliefs. Thus....by KNOWING what Christ taught and how He lived, you and others can then wisely evaluate any observed behavior.

I don't see this as arrogance, but I'll agree it is conviction.

polycarp, i actually think there's some truth to what you say. it would be a hell of a lot harder to be in the witch burning business if christians actually stuck to the words of christ.

it would also be harder to support murderous preemptive wars. or to support throwing gays in jail. or to confuse muslims with "muslims". or to foolishly over-emphasise purported beliefs instead of actual deeds. i'd suggest there are many more "christians" around than christians.

but once again, i just don't care what "christians" believe, or what they claim they believe. i care what they do. are pell and jensen christians or "christians"? i don't really care, though i would suggest the latter. what they undoubtedly are is nauseating.

BUSHy... your first sentence says it all.

I have no other goal than to arrive at this point when discussing historical Christianity :)

It's called 'Mythbusting' :) it takes a while...but eventually we get there.

Now.. (serious senior Jedi kinda look) "take this knowledge my son..and guard it, and use it wisely in your quest though the jungles of OLO to rescue the princess of truth from the evil dark side's clutches" :)

Greetings Poly,

To understand original Christianity, one needs to look at the Christian-Jewish faith, before the times of Nicaea and Paul.

Herein, see that faith, as a form of neo-Judaism and in context with the late first century with Jews having to make choices about where settle themselves and how express there faith, after Rome destroyed te second temple. If it ever existed, the Q document is lost. If inferences are to be made, one should look at Mark and Thomas, because these Gosplels are closer the event and presumably contain less Chinese whispers.

The catch with Thomas is, that it states that Jesus' spirit accended not his body. Thomas' comment, is consistent with what a Jew say. If accepted, it would cast doubt on three later/younger gospels selected by Nicaea. The NT would be very short indeed!

Also, the incarnation (and ultimately the return) of the Spirit in the Son of Man would take centre stage over, the pregnation of Mary by the Yewah to create an entity that "is" God and the Son of God (because of the Trinity)fated for bodily resurrection.

Dear Sells,

I cite the Christian interpretation of Last Supper as evidence that Jesus did indeed to suicide. There was fore-knowledge, Sells. Can you not see it? Jesus did intend to die. Moreover, the Apostles didn't intervene. Their passivity indicates these "Saints" allowed Jesus' suicide attempt to run its course to a completed suicide.

Jesus - Death by Cop?

Sells,

I have provided atgument and addressed the issue of Jesus commiting suicide head on and even cited the Bible, yet you don't reply. Theists "getting out of the kitchen" when it "too hot" does mean it is the secuarists whom are not engaging in argument.

So then we can conclude that at the Last Supper Jesus did indicate his fore knowledge of death by Roman cop, where suicide was would have been condemned by the Jews and multlation of the body a blasphmy. Moreover, substitionary randsom being at adds with Hosea 6:6. So then your agree with justifiable suicide, such as sacrifice in war or martydom. Given your posit, it is hard to see why you would be opposed to euthanasia. If sucuide is wrong in many religious faiths, and, sacrifice against Bibical instruction, would a divine entity take this cause of action.

Poly,

What is your take? Sells is not in the kitchen anymore, I suspect.

- Sells?
- Poly?

Oliver

You said
"The catch with Thomas is, that it states that Jesus' spirit accended not his body. Thomas' comment, is consistent with what a Jew say. If accepted, it would cast doubt on three later/younger gospels selected by Nicaea. The NT would be very short indeed!"

I guess that is why the Church, from the earlest days, rejected Thomas' Gospel. Im not sure why you regard Thomas as
'closer' to the original Christian story than Matthew, Luke and John. Its dating is quite uncertain and it has always been associated with the Manichaeans rather than the mainstream of the Church.

Obviously Paul represents the earliest evidence of the emerging Christian Church and deserves primacy as historical evidence for those times.

The Church, mistakenly as it turns out, believed that the four canonical gospels were authored directly by apostles. For that reason, and because they deal directly with the person of Jesus, the Gospels have always taken precendence over the Pauline corpus. If you wish to understand the early church then Paul's letters must be your primary source, not the Gospels, not Luke-Acts and certainly not apocryphal material like Thomas.

Paul, more than any other, illustrates the shift from Judaism to Christianity, from Jerusalem centred culture to the universal, proselytising Church as it developed in the years after Jesus' death. As you say, Jesus was a Jew, His disciples were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Christianity is in a continuity with Judaism but that does not make it merely a Jewish sect. Christianity emerged out of Judaism, was influenced by Greek philosophy and Gnostic ideas BUT ultimately it became something that was not Jewish, not Greek and NOT Gnostic.

As Sells points out quite validly, to understand Christianity you must follow the main trajectory of resurrection theology.

waterboy,

My understanding is that Thomas and Mark were written ejust after a period oral lore but before the other gospels. That places these two gospels closer to events. Of course, it does not follow these works are therefore correct. With later works being displaced in place as well as (later) time, we stand stand a greater chance, from tampering and local spin, to their localised stories.

Moreove, if Thomas is doubt(ahem),so must be Mark, because the same dating techniques would have been employed.

The notion of the spirit rising is consistent with the Jewish faith. Jesus was a Jew, as were the first fifteen bishops, until the time of Marcus (under Hadrian).

I agree that the actual Gospel writers were not the apostles, simply names borrowed, to lend authority.

Again, I agree that Paul was perhaps a more significant figure in establishing Christianity than Jesus, but he was long after the fact. Nicaea, was as political as much as it was religious. Roman was under pressure to survive. Constantine is likely to have seen plurism between the Christian God and Sol Invicutus. Issues relating to the Christian trinity (perhaps copied from the Eygptians) were not ratified until the Council of Constantinople.

Sells I feel does not view Christian using any lense before Nicaea of after the Enlightenment.

Regards,

Oly.

Sells and Poly,

Did Jesus have fore knowledge of his "death by cop". Is not sucuide disallowed to a Jew? And does not the OT testiment say that Yewah wants love/mercy (depending on translation) not sacrifice.

Sincerely,

Ol

Oliver

Given Jesus' obviously political activity He would have known that He was likely to attract the interest of both Jewish and Roman authorities. He would have been aware of the possibility of some sort of severe repression of His activities by either or both groups.

It is, however, a mistake to take the Gospels too literally, particularly when they attribute Divine powers to Jesus such as having foreknowledge of events like the Crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple.

You are obviously far to intelligent to take the Gospels literally therefore it seems to me your question is somewhat ingenuous. So what point, exactly, are you trying to make?

Dear waterboy

I will come back with more detail on your last question. But succincly put,

- I feel those whom believe in Christians do not realised that the faith had morphed several times even before the ens of the fourth century. It was a Jewish sect which founs itself in double trouble. First, the Jews fell out of favour with the Romans. The Christ Jews more so, because its faction disrespected the pater familaris of the ancient church. Actuallly, I think Jesus was born 7 BCE because this has important political implications for him to run as an adult to held the House of David. The House of David ministered to the Gentiles, under the Herods. Had Jesus been born when the Bible says be did, the Annas would have been coverting the Herolds under Augustus. Jesus may have been try to build a support base by extending his party into the Gentiles, which would require dropping the Law of Moses? History being a funny thing, it happened the other way around in states, the excile of the Jews to Pella (and other places), the Christian Jews having to appoint a Latin bishop to enter the Holy Lands after their expulsuion by Hadrian. Nicaea came much later. Constantine institutonalised (Koine) Hellenised Christianity.

- If one looks closely at the OT the means of Jesus' demise seems unlikely. Nor that particualr action, crucifixation. Moreover, the Son of Man is not a claim to divinity. Jesus did not see himslf as a god. A very relgious Jew could see himself touched by would Christians might call the Holy Spirit, but that did not make him divine. Divinity became a super-added attribute.

- As for our OLO colleague, Sells and Boaz-Poly, I am encouraging them to look at te first century, critically. Sells maintains than euthenasia is wrong, yet the Biblical account of Jesus' death such as I said, "death by cop".

Regards

waterboy,

Please excuse the above typos. I think you should still follow.

Sells and Poly,

How about a reply, please?

The scriptures to which Jesus would have be attuned would have emphasised love and mercy over sacrifice. If we assume, for argument's sake, that the Last Supper is an historical event. Why the "death by cop" suicide? Sells, Poly open your Bible, its there in black and white; Hosea and the Last Supper and Crucifixion. Do you not believe in the aforementioned? Presumably, you do; so how do these matters relate to the faith of Jesus the Jew?

Sells, you complain that secularists don't argue. I have argued and provided the Bible and what is generally known about Judaism to support said argument.

Oliver

You are right that many Christians are unfamiliar with the history of the early Church but there are a surprising number who are. Anglicans seem to be particularly knowledgable on the Church Fathers for example.

History is at its most valuable when knowledge of past events informs contemporary self-understanding and throws light on what is possible for the future. Given your obviously considerable knowledge of, and resources pertaining to the early Church Id like to hear more of how this knowledge might impact the contemporary self-understanding of the Church. What difference do you think it would make if more Christians were knowledgable about the birth of the Church and its early struggles?

I know you want Sells to develop his theology of death a little further and I too would like to know what more he has to say on that topic

waterboy,

I think it would depend on how far back the Christians were prepared to go. They might have avoided the schicism between the Latin and Orthodox Churches (but that was political as much as it was theological), further back recognition of the Hellenisation aided by Paul, further back recognizing a Chistrian Jewish sect and perhaps way, way back, simply a claimant to the House of David.

One would need to confront whether Jesus is/was a god, a human with a divine spirit or a human mendicant cum faith healer (or similiar). If one wanted to recognize history and remain religious, option two would be chosen, I suspect; wherein, Jesus would be a prophet. The Christians could fight with Islam about whose prophet is the greatest.

Roman needed to institutionalise the faith to establish unity. So did Moses (if he existed) and Mohammed.

Nothing from Sells or Poly, yet. Come-on guys this is a forum

Another emotive rant by Sellick.

Have you ever thought about the suicides committed because of a book that YOU worship, Sells?

The suicide rate amongst homosexual men is very high.
I could write emotive stories, if I wanted to, about homosexuals who were treated like crap because of religious dogma.

It would help them if you scrapped the text in the Bible that tells Christians that homosexuals should be put to death, and then start treating homosexuals like human beings.

I could also write emotive rants about the plight of unwanted street kids and abused kids who were not aborted because of religious dogma.

And I could write emotive rants about people who are forced to suffer unbearable pain against their will because of religious dogma.

Great book you're reading every Sunday!

Kalweb, wonderful posts.
I think that Sells should absorb your information, do some more research so that he knows what he's talking about, and then perhaps re-write the article.

Like Veronika, I wondered why this was published. I am a full supporter of Freedom of Speech, but Sells simply has no idea what he is talking about.
If he had done his research he wouldn't make such a mess confusing or overlapping suicide and euthanasia.

Celivia,

I have seen terminally humans take days to die and pets mercifully "put to sleep". I would want the latter for my own exit.

Sells and Poly simply will not address the matter of Christ's suicide and Hosea 6:6. I would not normally turn the topic in this way. I was motivated by who was the author and thus saw the religious aspect, apt.

O.

Oliver

If I understand you correctly you are saying that an awareness of the history of the early Church would convince Christians that Jesus was not Divine but rather an itinerant preacher, healer and political activist.

It appears to me that you are identifying ideas that were prevalent as part of the context within which the Church was born and concluding that the early church adopted those ideas and practices unchanged. The early Church, however, was largely shaped by its resistance to those ideas. The early Church may have been 'infiltrated' by gnostics but it rejected gnosticism quite strongly. Paul's evangelical missions took him into the Greek world and he knew the work of the Greek philosphers but was at pains to distinguish Christianity from them.

Christianity is quite self-conciously in continuity with Judaism and Hebraism before that but separates itself from Judaism most obviously in its rejection of circumcision and the idea of the priesthood of all believers.

Many Christians are very knowledgable about those times and remain Christian. I think your analysis of history is too 'black and white'.

Why do you think the Church today is dividing itself along 'liberal' v 'evangelical' lines?

Why is the Church growing in Africa and Asia?

How might the Christian and Muslim worlds contrive to live in peace with each other in the future?

Can history help us with these questions?

Oliver,
Your question is excellent.

I really don't understand why a god, who supposedly is all powerful, could not forgive humans for their sins without having to send his son to earth on a suicide mission, having him tortured and killed.

I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions (sins?) and would hate the idea that someone else would have to be tortured and killed to let me off the hook.
Speaking about a culture of death!

"Sells and Poly simply will not address the matter of Christ's suicide and Hosea 6:6. "
I'm eagerly awaiting their reply.

Oliver

I think what Sells is trying to say is that Christ offers hope that is universal and eternal. As long as Gods love is possible then it is inappropriate for us to truncate that possibility. Suicide, euthanasia and abortion are each, in their own way, actions that represent the abandonment of hope.

The problem I have with Sell's article is the implication that we can legislate for hope. Anglicans still havent adjusted themselves to the separation of Church and state and still believe that their version of Christian morals should be enshrined in legislation.

The question of sacrifice is interesting. If you read Hosea carefully, and other similar passages, you will find that God's problem with sacrifices is that they have become an easy substitute for true righteousness. God expects Her people to be prepared to make sacrifices as part of a righteous life but that is a very different thing to the easy business of slaughtering one or two beasts now and then in a futile attempt to appease God.

Trying to legislate hope is a little like making easy sacrifices. Easier to get some words on paper than to deal with the real human pain. Legislation must needs be rational and cannot but attempt the impossible task of weighing up consequences. Hope, on the other hand, like love, is not entirely rational.

It is entirely appropriate for Christians to encourage people to continue to hope and to look for Gods love in every situation. In Christian terms failure of hope is a human weakness but that does not make it a criminal offence. Sells appears to me to be making easy judgements where even God struggles.

waterboy,

The iissue of righteousness was very important centuries later with Luther whom felt himself a good monk but could never as a human appease God. The concept of Justification by faith was amplified from the Bible. Appeasement and justification wre coupled. If substitutionary randsom is valid, I should be able to goal to by proxy, were my brother to commit a crime.

Please excuse brevity. Work.

waterboy,

If justification is perfect then salvation is a fait compli. Even for atheists! In the Christian after-life at least. Hope in this life is transient.

Oliver

Im not sure what you mean by 'Christian after life'.
If you imagine that we all rise up form the dead and spend forever partying along in heaven with all those weird angels then I must confess I dont regard this as a particularly Christian image.

Righteousness is not some sort of existential state one needs to achieve in order to please God. Righteousness describes the actions of those who make the lame to walk and the blind to see. The righteous set prisoners free, care for the outcast and heal the sick. Sadly, this sort of righteousness is neither universal nor 'fait accompli'. It is, however, an option for every one of us irrespective of all our past actions.

I do not regard rewards in heaven as a Christian notion but if I did then I would have to agree with you that it is either universal or meaningless.

waterboy,

I agree that righteousness exists in a humanistic sense, amongst peoples of faith and non beleivers. If, to a believer, Jesus made everybody righteous, even Hiltler* is saved. A perfect sacrafice does not need the churches as a back-stop: That is what I meant by fait complait. The crucifixation is a fait compli event.

If an entity called made perfect ransom, there is no need for rites. Just, perhaps, an historical account that an event took place.

*who was a Catholic, incidently.

Oliver

In attempting to make sense of Jesus' death the early church already had the model of sacrifice as part of its culture and tradition and the story of Abraham and Isaac as the most powerful example of sacrifice.

The idea of God completing Abraham's sacrifice with Her own Son was an obvious model for making sense of Jesus' death. Today, the idea of a parent 'sacrificing' their own child is simply abhorrent and this model for understanding Jesus' death no longer works. It can no longer be regarded as the definitive 'meaning' of that event. There is no 'mysterious' transfer of righteousness from Jesus' 'sacrifical' death to anyone else.

In order to understand Jesus' death today we need to look at other interpretive models than 'substitutionary' sacrifice. It is also time we put Luther and Calvin down and realised that faith as a 'state of mind' (or heart) is of no value except as the foundation of a righteous life by which I mean 'feeding the hungry', 'healing the sick', 'visiting the prisoner' and so on.

You are partly right about rituals. No particular ritual is necessary. It is, however, essential for humans to have rituals but no particular ritual is absolute. I regard the Christian sacraments as universal in scope but not absolute in meaning or value.

Jesus' death remains always incomrehensible just as the death of a child can never be fully reconciled in our minds. Any 'interpretation' of Jesus' death that purports to comprehensively 'explain' its meaning must be regarded with deep suspicion