Great title for your article, Daviy. That should get the hares running!

The virginity of Mary was probably a big deal to medieval Catholics, but it's hardly a central issue today. Not all of us believe that sin is literally transmitted genetically, or that we are literally descended from Adam and Eve!

Hold the phone... Did I just read what Eckadimmock posted?

If the virgin birth is no big deal why do Catholics pray to the "Virgin Mary"?

And did we hear that many people don't believe in the literal meaning of the words?

Well someone had better tell the churches can the ACCC investigate them for false advertising?... They are all getting tax free status pedaling this stuff and getting mighty wealthy in the process if this article is true.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16261.htm

Did Jesus say these following things or not?

Jesus allegedly said (Matthew 6:24) "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Well the churches sure are trying as hard as they can... Who is correct Jesus or the churches?

Jesus also allegedly said Matthew 19:21 "If you would be(A) perfect, go,(B) sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have(C) treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

If this can be taken literally as Jesus' word what are the churches waiting for?

If Jesus was the son of God ( or God himself as some believe), WHO KNOWS ALL THINGS PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE, why didn't he tell us not to take him literally? It would have saved a lot of debate.

This makes David Young's statement "Jesus could be extremely valuable to humanity with his teachings and philosophies, if he can be delivered from the clutches of Christianity" very justifiable.

Lets privatise the churches! OOps they already are... Let's nationalise them then...

I was told the Christian Bible was inerrant, infallible and God's word... I want my money back!

Eckadimmock
<The virginity of Mary was probably a big deal to medieval Catholics, but it's hardly a central issue today. Not all of us believe that sin is literally transmitted genetically, or that we are literally descended from Adam and Eve!>

If you don't then you are not a Christian. The problem with trying to pin down a Christian on what exactly they believe is that the story continually changes to suit the circumstances. When it is laid out what Christianity is about they come back with 'but we don't believe that any more.' So what do Christians believe?
It could be that many who say they are Christians just do not understand what Christianity means. It is a system based on Paul with two immovable foundation stones, the woman eating the fruit and the purity of Jesus. Anything outside of that is not what we call Christianity today

The two posters above need to understand that there is a difference between truth and literalism. Jesus said he was a gate for the sheep, for example; do you suppose he was claiming to be a piece of wood?

Much of the Bible is myth, in the original sense that it is an allegorical reference to deeper truth. The insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Jesus's sayings are quite a different form of narrative, but do need to be understood in the context of the time when they were uttered.

Much atheist and fundamentalist writing has the same flaw: it tries to reduce a long and intellectually rich tradition into simplistic either/or interpretations of ancient text.

The statement "The crux of the matter is that Christianity is not a religion, it is a legal system." is difficult to fathom, as it appears to be somewhat unsupported.

I have yet to see any Christian legal system in practise. The claim that the church is always right is a legal system is extremely tenuous.

In fact the entire article is based on nit picking through various interpretations of the gospels and apocryphal texts which at best were written several generations after the death of JC.

As the gospels themselves contradict eachother in several places, fine interpretation of a cobbled together text is an exercise in futility.

As one that claims that there is no evidence for the existence of god, (the sargent Schultz approach "I know nothing") this is like a detailed play by play analysis of a hyperthetical football game that might be played if anyone bothers to turn up.

Eckadimmock >>Jesus said he was a gate for the sheep, - do you suppose he was claiming to be a piece of wood?<<

OMG Jesus is a gate, we are sheep – Wow his churches sure are fleecing us! I love deciphering parables…lol

So it begs the question again Eckadimmock & other literalists & non-literalists … which words do we actually believe?

Eckadimmock - Are the words Jesus spoke all “God’s word”? If not which ones do I believe and which ones do I not. I am crying in the wilderness for "honesty".

Matthew 7:15 says “beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

Please point out the wolves?

Matthew 7:15 says “But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues.

Do I only believe women? I can’t, Paul is telling them to be quiet 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Perhaps we should have the ‘Allegorical Bible” and the “God’s Word Guarenteed” Bible! – not for us sinners but so the churches & preachers can tell the truth.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Is this God’s word? Can prostelytising Christians be honest and answer?

See, I can understand a belief in spirituality, but, if you Christians can’t trust your churches, teachers & preachers OMG!

Shadow Minister - I don’t see Christianiaty as a legal system either – more a way of dodging the legal system…lol Very effective too!

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25083343-3102,00.html

Christianity is a “Pyramid Selling Scheme”. Religions are the first Amway! Sad but True!

It is a bit of an old chestnut to say that, whether or not Jesus was some sort of god, he still had some quite good and worthy things to say. Maybe, in the sense that he repeated the odd compassionate or resonant truism. But he came out with some clangers as well. It is worth reading the Bertrand Russell essay "Why I am not a Christian" to be reminded of some of the more risible pronouncements he is supposed to have made - if indeed he even existed.

Eckadimmock,

Does it concern typical Christians that Jesus event occurred in the first century against a background of one of several Jewish mendicant preachers in the time of Augustus; whilst, Christianity's doctrinal foundation occured between 235 CE and 381 CE, the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, respectively. That the Jesus event is likely to have coincided Jewish prophesy of a Messiah towards the end of the fourth Jewish millenium; whilist, Christianity came about because of the need for unity to build a Holy Roman Empire. For me, there is a disconnect between the Jewish Person and times of Jesus - and what was happened in the first century and, the religio-political Roman necessity of the fouth century.

Had Hadrian not expelled the Jewish from Pella barring them from the Holly Lands, there would have been no need to appoint a Latin as a Bishop, after fifteen Jewish bishops, perhaps Jewish Christianity would have died out by the time Constantine or at least been diminished and remote to the central path of the religious devolopments. What happpened was that the Jews needed to feign being Latin to travel to Holly Lands for Jewish worship.

There certainly has been and continues to be a Roman Catholic Church. Yet, I am less sure there has been a Jesus Catholic (Universal) Church, ever

Miranda took the words out of my mouth, or rather keyboard. I know it's considered polite for atheists to admit that the sayings of Jesus -- whether he existed or not -- contain some profound and moving truths, but frankly they come off a very poor second compared with the much more thoughtful and coherent sayings recorded for Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, not to mention Heraclitus, Democritus and Epicurus. In more modern times both Shakespeare and Bacon could have beaten him hands down on accumulated wit and wisdom, and Bertrand Russell himself managed to make a lot more sense.

Aside from its mystical trappings, did Jesus really say anything that an intelligent well-travelled Jew of that period couldn't have worked out for themselves?

I wasn't aware that the maleness of Jesus was disputed. Is this something the author got from his discussions with that English Bishop and David Irving?

If Jesus is just a philosopher, then we may as well follow Mohammed.

If he is the Son of God, then this is completely different and we need to deal with Him in a different way. Similarly, if Mary is the Mother of God, then we need to assess her in a similar way.

The real impossibility of Christianity is humanity - followers and non-believers alike - acting like Him, or at least like Mary - disciple extraordinaire!

Nothing like a few old heresies to come out before Easter. David must have wanted to beat the annual spew fest from the National Broadcasters. Please try and come up with something original. Even a tiny bit of honesty reveals the adamic nature in all except the last Adam.

David writes 'If a woman claims to be a Christian, then she is accepting this hideous piece of legislation that brought the Immaculate Conception into being, and accepts by default that she is the cause of all the sin and suffering in this world. To me this is a ridiculous position to take'

Talk about twisting Scriptures. Men and women will be in hell because they have rejected God's free gift. Both are guilty and both have the opportunity to receive forgiveness.

You don't need to be a theologian to see this article is full of crap. Just read the Scriptures that foretold of the virgin birth and the death and resurrection of Christ. They are plain and simple.

>>You don't need to be a theologian to see this article is full of crap<<
runner, I am almost embarrassed, but this time I must agree with you.

Daviy:

<What is generally called Christianity today is not the only form of Christianity that sprung up after the death of Jesus. It is merely the form that suppressed all other forms by one way or another.>

Obvious rubbish! Christianity today is as multivariate as it ever was.

<Christian thinking is solely external and material...>

There is a strong tradition of Christian practice that emphasises meditation and artistic activity as a means of deepening the encounter with the Godhead. Over centuries figures like Julian of Norwich, Meister Eckhart and today’s Matthew Fox have followed this path. Many people today are treading in their footsteps.

<The genocide Christianity has practiced against the “heretics” has gone beyond the physical genocide of people into the genocide of thinking.>

“Genocide of thinking”? This makes no sense -- either literal or metaphorical!

<The Christian church is built on the epistleistic writings of its founder (Paul), with the life of Jesus relegated to a non-essential adjunct.>

Who gave you this ridiculous idea? You’ve immediately lost credibility with anyone seriously practising within one of the many streams of Christianity. And that word you invented -- “epistleistic” – is just as ridiculous in its morphology and spelling. Why not use the readily available “epistolary”?

<The crux of the matter is that Christianity is not a religion, it is a legal system...it cannot do any wrong because everything that it does is God’s will… >

Unsubstantiated. Some people want the Bible to be a book of rules, but most heed Jesus’ warning to avoid the legalism of the Pharisees as they appear in the Gospel stories.

< Jesus viewed free of the Christian enveloped is a fascinating philosopher no matter who he or she was.>

It is a mistake to treat Jesus as a “philosopher” who simply needs to be understood. Inner transformation comes about through an encounter with him in a more subjective way – e.g. through practices such as meditation and good liturgy, both essentially forms of prayer.

One could say much more, but I suspect you would not listen. I’d rather forget your article immediately.

Shadow Minister

Lest any “heretic” suggest that the Christ may be present when the Bishop is absent, Ignatius sets him straight:
It is not legitimate to baptise or hold an agape [cult meal] without the Bishop. ... To join the Bishop is to join the church, to separate oneself from the Bishop is to separate oneself not only from the church, but from God himself.
Apart from the church hierarchy, he insists, “there is nothing that can be called a church.”

(Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1979.)

If Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, defined Christianity in terms of a legal system who am I to argue? Take a look at the inquisition, the 'legal' processes of excommunication and the hierarchy of Christianity. If that is not a legal system what is?
Opinionated2
It is indeed a pyramid legal system like the 'Amway' model.
Your link was very apt. Since the separation of state and church the Christian church has maintained the position that it works according to God's law, not secular law, and so it is above secular law. Hence the church can hide away pedophilia and other aberrations within its ranks because it is a law unto itself.
A big problem for Christianity today is that some awkward people expect Christian churches to obey secular law above their 'law of God.' Some even expect religions to pay taxes!
The word spiritual means coming from within. Christianity is a physical religion, not a spiritual religion. It is easy to get confused with this but Christianity has nothing to do with spirituality. It is a legal system of dogma and observances.
While the words religion and spirituality are often incorrectly used interchangeably, an important distinction exists between spirituality in religion and spirituality as opposed to religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
As for the rest of the 'Christian' posts, is 'nit picking' and 'tradition' the best you can do?
There is nothing 'nit picking' about the origins of Christianity or the need for the Immaculate Conception to keep Christianity afloat. That doesn't need interpretation. All it need is a little basic research.

The crux of the matter is that Christianity is not a religion, it is a legal system. It is also why Christianity must never be allowed to get a foot hold back into our legal system.

David Young must have once been a Roman Catholic, or he would not have such violent anti-Christian views on the law and Christianity. The reality is that today in practical terms we have adopted nine universal Catholic Churches, in the Roman Catholic tradition, with the Parliament as the Godhead.

This may be alright to Roman Catholics and Atheists, but it is getting Protestant Christians madder than cut snakes. Roman Catholics have never known a system where the Priest was wrong. As Roman Catholic people have become better educated 90% have left the Church but the Church has not let them go. The States have become a Catholic Church, and universal.

The Roman Catholics insisted on full equality in Australia by S 116 Constitution, but have by dint of political power, made Australia a Roman Catholic Country with a universal Catholic Church. There is absolutely no practical difference between a Roman Catholic Bishop with almost absolute power, and a Judge. The Federal Judge has a choice but chooses to be a potentate, as an Atheist or Roman Catholic.

Neither admit that Jesus Christ taught the separation of powers, and that the Protestant Christian legal system adopted by the English, based upon the Gospels, not the Epistles, has worked for the English and Americans for hundreds of years since 1295. There are nine separate Catholic Parliaments in Australia all churning out law. The Catholic Federal Court of Australia has closed its doors to most subjects, and refuses to empanel juries in the Protestant Christian tradition to act as a winnowing floor for bad laws.

Protestant Christianity teaches from the Gospels, we insisted Our Queen take an oath to uphold them, not the Epistles, and deliver law and justice in mercy. Catholic ( universal) States were the method used by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mugabe and even Menzies, and Daviy is right. We don’t want it in Australia

Spot on, Jon J - the ancient Greeks had far more sophisticated ideas than most utterances attributed to Jesus. Indeed, Jesus as represented in that highly manufactured and selective document the bible comes across mostly as derivative, paranoid and megalomaniac, frantically worried about whether people hold beliefs in other gods. For real food for thought, the Greeks provide far more nutrition, as do the other thinkers you mentioned, Jon. Bertrand Russell is an excellent source for all-too-rare commonsense on a variety of philosophical/ethical issues.

David,

As from the link http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm#I

Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members. The word adopted is here used to point out the fact that there are certain elements in canon law borrowed by the Church from civil law.

Note: "for the government of the Christian organization and its members"

Every organisation has a code of conduct and governing principles and procedures. No one would however, try and claim that ANZ bank is a legal system.

Because the church has rules and procedures (such as ex communication) does not infer that christianity is a legal system.

"All birds have 2 legs, I have 2 legs, thus I am a bird."

From what he stated, I would take any pronouncement of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, with a large pinch of salt.

I've been a Christian for 40 years, and this 'legal', 'external' Christianity you describe is totally foreign to me. If Christianity were as you say, I would not believe in it.

Believing in Jesus Christ sets you free from all legalism, and opens up a way of spirituality which has depth and integrity. I continually question, because my understanding is inadequate. Often I have to let go of the view of God I hold because my view fails to describe God. I need to constantly grow both intellectually and spiritually.

But there are many 'versions' of Christianity around, and none of them is as limited as the one you attack.

Ted,

I'm an academic and encourage students to address and find fault in the Creed (if you like of the discipline). I found be far from being alone. This would be very different to the Mass or Protestant service. A priest or minister can say just about anything, without the audience being encouraged to question. There is regiment to the service and only one interpreter. The rest indwell (Polanyi) unquestionning in the performance.

In days gone by, the Laws of the Churches had more temporal signicance and people could be executed for disagreeing with them.

In Bisbane (I think) a Catholic priest is in trouble for deviating from the Faith's laws. The Anglicans have 39 Articles of Faith.

Peter et al
I have never been a Catholic.
My position with Christianity is that I have several friends who are Christians and at one stage I was considering joining them.
Before I did I decided to research Christianity to see if it had any substance. My research became my book 'What I have Written.' The title comes from the conversation between Pilot and the Priests about the sign nailed to the cross of Jesus.
It is ironic that in studying what Jesus reported to have said (from a Greek translation) I have become a converted fan of his philosophies, but totally opposed to the church that has hi-jacked his name.
Basically Christianity has become everything that Jesus opposed.
There seems to a misconception amongst some who post to OLO that I am anti-Christian as in people. I am not. I am anti the Christian hierarchy and the distortions and lies it represents. Any serious study of the beginnings and dogma of Christianity shows that it is impossible to support.
My book ends with a suggestion of a new Christianity based on the teachings of Jesus, not on the teachings of Paul. Maybe the second coming of Jesus could be Christians looking to Jesus not the Christian Hierarchy.
I remain an agnostic with leanings towards the existence of an entity beyond our comprehension. Call it 'God' if you must.
Unfortunately this entity (if it exists) has received extremely bad publicity from Christians/Jews/Muslims doing bad things and claiming them to be the will of God. Christianity/Judaism/Islam has nothing to do with God. They are just three legal firms who each claim to be God's lawyers on earth and have each conducted vicious campaigns to try and assert their will.
It is a pity that it seems impossible for many people to look beyond religion if they are seeking to find God.
I don't seek to destroy anyone's believe in God. I seek to clear away the debris of lies and misinformation spread by religions so the path is clear to find whatever may be at the end of the road.

Daviy, self assesses his motives and expresses them very well. People who dare question religions, churches or the bible are continually assessed as anti-Christian. Why can't they be pro-truth? Aren't Jesus' words supposed truth?

Ted, Daviy is correct when he describes it as a legal system but it is even more a multi-level marketing scheme. The Bible is full of religious laws allegedly from God hence the legal argument.

Feel free to comment on my discussion http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572 - don't be offended, please just read and if moved to, comment.

Daviy is like myself... attempting to broaden the Christian mind from the "I believe" mentality to, if it works out that way, a more intellectual belief.

What did they do to Jesus when he dared question the laws? Well Christians shouldn't make the same mistake. But many will!

A question I used to ask my Bible instructors was - How will I know when Jesus comes again - their answer - you will know it in your heart.

The people of Jesus' times didn't know it when he was allegedly amongst them so that answer is pretty illogical - which I pointed out. Don't question an unknowing Christian.

So Christians - don't take offence - think and answer the questions this article & others raise!

Runner - have a look at how much money the churches posses and assess that with your comment "God's free gift"... Was that a blooper?...lol

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16261.htm

The bible does blame women for lots of things. Paul even has the nerve to tell them to be quiet - 1 Timothy 11-12. Paul, not Jesus, Paul - doesn't allow them to teach! A single man inflicting his will over an entire gender!

Shadow Minister you might like to reassess your argument about the legal system - the bible is full of rules and punishments.

Reality Check - so you would jump ship to Muhammad if Jesus was a philosopher - Wow!

I would just love to see more committed Christians commenting - rather than sitting in their comfy little worlds - believing their God is less than intelligent!

Clarification: "I'm an academic and encourage students to address and find fault in the Creed (if you like of the discipline)." - Oliver

Should be: "I'm an academic and I encourage students to address and to find fault in the Creed (if you like) of the disciplines taught."

Maybe it was St Thomas Aquinas who is to blame for making Christianity earthly getting the message from Persian Islamists who strange to say, were still talking about the benefits of Socratic Reasoning.

Maybe it is a historical lesson for us to benefit from right now.

Thank you for the clarification Daviy. I spent three years studying law, and the last five attending two different Protestant churches, and since I have a special interest in Constitutional law, I have sought out the connections between Christianity and the Australian Constitution.

Every government of every description acts as a church. Almost every government has a constitution. Under Mao in Red China it was the little Red Book. I happen to believe that Christianity, not a sectarian church, is the very best system of government ever devised, and that point two-five of one percent of the population has hijacked the Australian Christian Church; those mentioned in Luke 11 Verses 46 and 52.

Australia was constituted as a universal catholic church, under one representative of Almighty God; currently Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. From 1215, when the Barons, advised by good churchmen decided the Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would be the English Constitution, and extended its protection to every subject of the King, by the Magna Carta and Coronation Oath 1688 the English and United States have rarely looked back.

The central philosophy of the Christian faith, is that Almighty God keeps his word and is faithful, and is a trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The government of England was always carried out through little c courts; The same as in Ch III Constitution. To divine the will of the Holy Spirit, the Scripture in Matthew 18 verse 20, was called upon. Where two or three are gathered together, there am I in their midst. This was the all powerful divine board of review, a Justice with a jury, that guaranteed the just terms, cited in Section 51 (xxxi) Constitution. Until 1927, jury trials were universal in the Commonwealth until misguided governments abolished civil juries. In 1996, the High Court ruled the establishment of one man Courts illegal. It ruled parliament is not infallible, and cannot become a substitute Pope. Without jury trials, as of right, the government is atheist. The Liberal/Labor lawyers Parties have destroyed the Commonwealth, and divided the Australian Governments amongst themselves

Well said in the article, and by Daviy.
What Jesus actually stood for is the opposite of what the Christian church says and does.
The fact is that the Church is pandering to the very human, animal urges for comfort, community and for "others" to denigrate.
Allowing the church to remain respectable when they obviously still harbor paedophiles and support jingoistic war presidents is not acceptable. I've nothing against private religious people, but organised lying to the masses, based on a lie, perpetrated by child abuse (more lying) is just plain evil.

Christianity has much to offer the world that is floundering in its search for meaning and purpose. Philosophers that draw from the cesspool of crass materialism are all the poorer for the effort and offer nothing more than despair and death. The last thing that is offered is peace and hope.

The Bible is a collection of beautifully crafted mythological truths or which allow us to search for them something the churches have resisted because they have always claimed to be the only arbiters of the truth. This is because they seek to control and augument their power and hold over men and women. Nothing else.

The wisdom of the ages is available to all if the effort can be made to read and interpret for yourself what is said.What happened and what history bears testimony to are the additions power-crazy men who love the smell of candlewax and incense have added.They have invented doctrines and elaborate costumes and crazy caps and hats to go with the whole sheebang to look good. Actually they are the most hideous specimens of humanity.

socratease

I do thank you, Socratease, for your flattering description of me and my fellow-Christians (smile).
The discussion seems to be dividing into praise of Christian ideals and disgust at the Christian church. The church is the institution which imperfectly embodies the Christian faith. As institution it constantly falls short of its ideals. It is important to live in this tension.
Pursuing this as a divide (praise for Christian ideas, disgust at the church) will obscure one of Christianity's central insights: to live well, we need each other. We need community. I gain strength from the communities I live in, and especially from the community of Christian believers. Christianity's emphasis on the communitarian is a critique of the individualism which leads to so much evil in our society.

In several places in the article and in posts there has been mention of Jesus and his philosophies separate from Christianity. Here is a link to a non-Christian view of 'The Sermon on the Mount' for those interested in seeing what alternatives to Christianity Jesus has to offer.
http://www.david-young.com.au/ezines/Sermon.html

Peter the Believer,

Would it not have been more powerful had the Christian trinity not developed from a duo godhead (Tertillian)and was not a replica of the Serapis godhead? If an anthropologist sees repetitions along a basic theme, is it not reasonable to assume a common cause? The common cause being a societal imerative synthesizing religion constructs in play.

Given the Serapis trinity predated the Christian one, it makes it harder for a religionist to convince the skeptic that it is unique, because it is not.

Also, trinities are known to various religions throughout the world, even to traditional Hawaiians. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Ghost): Nothing special in comparative religious histographies.

God is fore all people so WHY are you all so against him. Is it rebelion, pride, or ignorance. God loves each one of you and is waiting to help you acheave your destiny in Christ. To be the best you that is possible. He sent his son, his word, spoken in to existance to pay the price for your guilt. What each individual does with Gods Word either justifys or condems the individual. God does not have grandchildren only sons and daughters
Ps God hates SIN so do not confuse him as the source of SIN. God is good.

I for one have nothing against God if it exists. What I am against is the Christian Blasphemers (along with the Jews and Muslims) who claim to be able to interpret God's law for me and tell me that God wants me to do. I am certain that if God wants me to do anything it can ask for itself.
This is what true Blasphemy is about. Claiming to be able to be Gods spokesperson when God has nothing to do with it.

dear davey,
Jesus, God the Son, I am, The word put it this way ; Put God first and love one another remembering he takes responsibility for
your future. But if you choose to do it your way you are responcible for your choice. never confuse religion with christianity for the religious people of his day crusified him. I read a funny the other day. After the roman soldier stabbed Jesus im the heart letting out
the blood and the water he was revived with a few herbs

A book just drawn to my attention contains the following text. Britain's Royal Throne by Thomas Foster [D.Litt.]

Historically and symbolically the British Throne is a Christian Throne. It clearly identifies itself with the Word of God and honours Jesus Christ in a way that no other Throne has ever done. It acknowledges God's Son as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It acclaims Him as Saviour and Redeemer of the world. It respects the Bible as the word of God. This alone should be sufficient reason for every Christian to support our Monarchy System and all that it stands for. The Sceptre of Righteousness, with the balance between Justice and Mercy is the spirit of Christ's Kingdom on earth.

The honouring of Jesus Christ by our present Throne is no accident; it is part of the David Covenant, God promised David a literal Throne that would exist in every generation and continue as long as the Sun, Moon and Stars exist. He said that the Throne would be given to Jesus Christ, which means it had to become a Christian Throne, governing a people under the New Covenant.

The New Covenant talked about here in this text, comes out of the New Testament, and is fully represented by documentation in the Text Books, in use until 1970 in New South Wales. In that year the Parliament of New South Wales decided to repeal the Constitution, ( of Australia) and make a Brave New World, for New South Wales by selectively declaring the Imperial Acts the Judges in New South Wales could take into account, in administering the law in this State. They did NOT declare the Australian Constitution to be one of those laws. Queensland did the same in 1984, and Victoria in 1980. Consequently the property rights of everyone guaranteed by the existence of God’s throne have been abolished. One poster chastises me for believing in Christianity. To not believe is to put your hand in your neighbour’s pocket and steal from him or her. Christianity is of enormous practical utility

I'd forgotten that you were on this thread too, PtB.

>>Historically and symbolically the British Throne is a Christian Throne. It clearly identifies itself with the Word of God<<

"Identifies with" is clearly correct. The Queen is head of the Church of England. However, that is as far as it goes.

If you read any history, you might have noticed that over the years, the divine right of kings (notice that "divine bit - that's the giveaway) has gradually morphed into a parliamentary democracy, with the Queen as a figurehead. The fact that she does have powers to refuse legislation presented to her merely acts as a check-and-balance on the framing of those laws. If she were to invoke "God" as the arbiter, those powers would simply be taken away from her, and the country become a republic. Charles I had a go, and look what happened to him.

The connections that you make between religion and government are tenuous at best. I suggest that you ponder a little on what was going through your mind when you wrote this:

>>Every government of every description acts as a church. Almost every government has a constitution. Under Mao in Red China it was the little Red Book.<<

PtB, have you actually read Mao's little red book?

Imagine being a constitutional lawyer using this as your baseline:

"...the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is resolved by the method of socialist revolution; the contradiction between the great masses of the people and the feudal system is resolved by the method of democratic revolution; the contradiction between the colonies and imperialism is resolved by the method of national revolutionary war; the contradiction between the working class and the peasant class in socialist society is resolved by the method of collectivization and mechanization in agriculture; contradiction within the Communist Party is resolved by the method of criticism and self-criticism; the contradiction between society and nature is resolved by the method of developing the productive forces"

Your baseline assumptions are too far out of whack to sustain an arguable position, I'm afraid.

"Historically and symbolically the British Throne is a Christian Throne. It clearly identifies itself with the Word of God." - pTb

From the perspective of the Throne of St Peter that is untrue. The Vicar of Christ, Pope Paul III, withdrew Henry VIII's religious title, "Defender of the Faith". A secular parliament let him and his heirs keep it. Usurping the Pope would not have been seen as a Christian act by the other superpower of the time, Spain. Henry was excommunicated (1538) for not following the Word of the Christian God.

Elizabeth I did have some input into the drafting of the Church of England's 39 Articles of Faith, which she cut from 42. Her namesake EIIR would not be allowed to exercise such powers today.