Dan S de Merengue and some others on OLO have defended Danny Nalliah saying he was 'dragged through the courts' for expressing views on another religion.

I wonder if they would defend his latest contribution to the cause of Christian theology? He attributes all the deaths and destruction of Victoria's bushfires to God's retribution for the Victorian Parliament having recently passed abortion reform laws. "God's protection has been taken off the state, and Satan is having a go at the nation," he says (The Age 11 February, 2009).

He and his church have nothing to say that might offer spiritual or emotional comfort to the families that are suffering the devastation. He and his church offer no support to the victims in their hour of need.

Pastor Nalliah perverts the very idea of Christian charity. Vilification? Humbug!

“Judaism and Islam it originated from the law of Abram. The Abramic system is the Church can do anything it wants and remain free of sin because they are Gods lawyers on earth and anything they do must be Gods will.” – Daviy

While it is true that all three major monotheist religions meet with their prophet Abram (a.k.a. Abraham); the existence of priesthoods responsible for administering laws, on behalf of god(s), are more ancient still. After the transition from the post-nomadic garden societies (12,000 BP – 6,000 BP), with the formation of the first City-States (e.g., Sumer), new priesthoods took-over the legal administration of god’s land on behalf of god. (People didn’t own land: God did.)

The Law of Moses (based on earlier codes) had the role of focusing its followers on the immediate nomadic situation. Firstly, to elevate the El henotheist deity, as supreme god, above other gods, whom still existed. Herein, the volcano and war god, Yahweh, was adopted by the Hebrews. This gave the Hebrews a privileged position to assert their land-grab claims. Secondly, Moses’ rebuke about worshiping a “calf” is meant to stop his people from “jumping the gun” by their identifying with a settled, rural caste, too soon.

Islam does use borrowings. Yet, Mohammed’s principle goal was to unify the Arab clans against encroaching Persia (temporal) and Christianity (religious).

Dear Spikey
We don't agree on some things. But I too was astounded by the the public outburst of Danny Nalliah. I just wish that in his dream "God" could have been a bit more specific about the potential victims of his wrath. Why not the spectators at the Rod Laver Centre or the MCG? Why single out those people trying to live close to Nature? Of course there are no rational answers just religious bigotry.
Regards
Blair

Pericles, This is almost too easy.

'We have vastly improved means of testing and simulation than they did back in the forties - if Oppenheimer had had access to one of today's supercomputers, there would have been a far greater understanding of the nature of radiation sickness etc.'

This RHP. Is there any proof of this other than I cannot prove other wise? Off with the fairies you go.
Do you understand that it is impossible to know what the side effects of a new technology until that technology is introduced? This is because until the technology is introduced the side effect does not exist?
This is as relevant to genetic engineering as it was when the Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
Ok, prove to me you are not thinking about robbing a bank. Can you?
I saw Bush's speech, maybe I am mistaken or he said similar things at different times. If you substitute intent for thinking it makes no difference. It is still impossible to prove this was not the intent of Saddam Hussein even if it was not. Hence RHP.

'I can tell you are inordinately proud of your little inventions, the HP and the RHP, but I'm afraid they are each, in ther (sic) own way, bunkum.'

Don't you ever deem yourself capable of judging anything at all remotely connected with what I think, feel, believe or what my motives are. You cannot do that. Nor can you do it with any one else. This is RHP again. Your posts go off with the fairies so often have you ever considered staying there?

All this came about because someone in another post tried to tell me (along the lines of) that I was not really agnostic, I was really a cosset atheist. Hence RHP came in as why nobody could tell me (or anyone) what their beliefs (or lack of) are.
I have added this post to my collection of examples of rampant RHP to maybe be used later.

Much of this debate appears to revolve around the notion that belief means giving intellectual assent to a particular proposition. So, belief in God is taken to mean giving assent to the proposition that god (not usually well defined) exists (also ill-defined). Since the proposition includes more than one undefined term this argument degenerates into a slanging match of assertions and counter-assertions.
In his own clumsy way I think Sells was trying to make a point along these lines.
It seems to me that both science and theology deal in narratives that contribute (or may contribute) to our understanding of the world in which we live. Neither narrative is 'true' in an absolute sense but each may illuminate one or more aspects of being that may or may not be significant to the enterprise of investing purpose into our existence.
Meaning, for humans, is conveyed primarily through narrative. Hence we study 'history' and tell our 'life story'. Scientific 'narratives' such as the theory of evolution are constrained by the rules of scientific method in an attempt to ensure close correlation with materially observable events. They are useful in our 'mechanical' dealings with our environment.
Theological narratives conform to a different set of rules and their purpose is different. Theological narrative proceeds from the premise that life transcends the merely material. It is predicated on the assumption that life should have meaning and purpose beyond the mere rearrangement of the material world around us. Science has nothing to say about these things and theology is not primarily an attempt to describe or explain the mechanisms of the material world.
There is actually no conflict whatsoever between science and theology. They can be seen as complementary. It is a mistake to apply the rules of scientific method to theological narrative just as it is wrong-headed to draw upon theological narrative to make assertions about the mechanisms of the cosmos.
On this basis it is apparent that the popular debates such as evolution v creation and faith v atheism are only possible among those ignorant of the epistomological foundations of science and theology.

Daviy,
You probably know the saying, the pot calling the kettle black. You often decry others for being ‘God’s lawyers’ (though what you mean by this is not entirely clear.) Yet you make your accusations in a very legalistic manner, sounding like your shooting for the job of ‘atheist lawyer’.

You show displeasure at others for them telling you what you believe, for putting words in your mouth. But when you describe what Christians believe, you need to be a lot more accurate (especially if you want that ‘atheist lawyer’ position).

More than once you’ve spoken of women being the cause of original sin as the core of Christianity. This is far from true (and I should be the one to say what is at the core of my belief, unless you want to ride roughshod lawyer over it). The core of the Christian faith is the person of Jesus Christ.

With regard to original sin, Christian teaching is that in Adam all die (because of sin) but those in Christ shall live. Thus the core of the faith can be described without making accusations against ‘women’.

From the perspective of this believer, the focus of Christianity is not a ‘legal system’. For many Christians, it is quite the opposite, with the focus being on the spiritual life and our freedom in Christ.

Best regards,
Michael