"Are we to damn Christianity because cruel things were perpetrated in its name of which Christ would have been ashamed?"

Yes!

Right life is conscious participation in boundless Radiance.

Yes indeed, Christianity stands condemmed by its dreadful historical record. Mountains of corpses. All of the natural world and even the stones thus effected by it are groaning under the weight of its influence. Pain and suffering brought to the entire planet.

By their fruits you will know them.

The Truth or authenticity of anyones religion,both "individual" and collective, is always and only demonstrated by what they do altogether, and even moment to moment.

And never ever in the clever words they put to together, or the scriptures that they quote, to justify their actions.

Was/is the life, and the institution that they belonged to, characterised by Grace, laughter, humour, music, dancing, art and the celebration (and creation) of The Beautiful altogether.

Did they spontaneously, and non-strategically, offer loving help to all of those within their own intimate sphere, the community in which they lived, and the world altogether.

Was their politics characterised by tolerance, compassion and forgiveness? And the promotion of these intrinsic VIRTUES on the world stage of history altogether.

This reference unequivically SHOUTS NO, No, No and NO again.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

Meanwhile a key figure in the history of Christianity was born 500 years--and there are world-wide "celebrations" of his birth.

I am of course talking about John Calvin.

Calvin was a psycho-path, a serial killer and mass murderer. He installed a reign of terror in Geneva. Anything remotely represented THE BEAUTIFUL was banished completely. People, including children, his adult step-children,and his former best friend the polymath Servetus, were executed for the most trivial reasons.

And yet this montrous human being is celebrated as a "great christian mind" and the founder/inspiration for a world-wide "religion".

A "religion" which is very strong, and very much a part of the "religious" mind that informs right-wing religiosity in Puritan America. AND as an INEVITABLE RESULT the "culture" of death that pervades the USA altogether.

Peter Sellick,

You haven't demonstrated that there is any other evidence apart from empirical, why the division? The conclusion is that there is no rational basis to religious belief, we wouldn't employ different criteria for engineering or biology.

"Scientific rationality cannot be applied to the arts or to affairs of the heart.." well yes, it can. There are scientific theories as to how we chose a partner or why we appreciate art or, indeed, why many people are religious and many, like me are not. Whether the "sterility' of atheism or the delusion of religious belief is more dangerous to the human "soul", (whatever that is)is open to discussion.The Noble Laureate Peter Medawar is reported as saying that ,"I don't have the gene for religion", I think that is a very plausible explanation as to why some people, even those with high intelligence, are religious.

You are really are making a special plea for theology, by attempting to remove it from the usual logical framework of empirical inquiry, theology is unique, in the sense that that there is no evidence that the object of study exists, it is a ludicrous human endeavour. In your fourth paragraph you are insinuating a fallacious argument, that there is no morality without religion, this was refuted (1)by Classical philosophy and (2)by simple observation, religious texts, at least in the enlightened West, are subject to continual reinterpretation because of the influence of contemporary morality.

Your appeal to sacred texts is irrelevant to those who do not share your beliefs, they have no historical basis whatsoever. It seems to me that Jesus was preaching exclusively to Jews anyway and might have been amazed that his teachings were embraced by the goyim.

You are making a straw man when you say "the god atheists object to," most atheists would say that there is no evidence for any reality but the natural world, there is nothing in fact to object to.

"The truly free Christian[s] ... were the ones who were freed from religion."

Atheists and advocates of theism are perfectly able to harmoniously coexist. It's not believing in god that gets atheists wound up, it is the blind acquiescence to the demands of organised religion - usually set up by calculating individuals to serve their own interests, whether they be material, moral, or mental - that is the real concern.

I have family members who are elders in a respected, and I would say fairly typical Christian church. They pay 10 percent of their earnings to the church, and spend most of their time helping to grow the congregation (with each member also having to contribute 10 percent of their income) and reading Christian books, listening to Christian music - items for which they pay through the nose. They also take part in numerous charity and fundraising events to help people they consider to be less fortunate, all the while spreading the good news and expanding their Church.

I would suggest that you can believe in god, try to live a decent life and help others without joining any affiliation with a religious group that places demands on you that have nothing to do with god, Jesus, or the Bible.

I have my own views on life and death but I really don't feel the need to argue with others in order to make them think the same way. So, I seriously question why anyone, especially a stranger, would wish to foist their beliefs onto others - in my experience, their motives are seldom sound

Heartily agree that our lives are enriched by the non-empirical. Yes, my mother loves me, music moves me and talcum powder on the change-room floor disgusts me - all of them without a strong empirical basis. However, Sells, you're asking us to make the huge leap from 'my mother loves me' to 'Jesus loves me,' with no arguments more persuasive than 'because I say so.'

Like almost all your articles, this one is based on a straw-man fallacy - in this case, the hypothetical individual who lives by empirical principles alone. This person doesn't exist, so please stop pillorying him/her.

Mention of "the God that atheism objects to" merely extends the straw-man argument. Atheism doesn't object to a god, it declines to believe in it.

It's nice that you believe, and honestly, I'm delighted for you. However I do wish you would stop insulting our intelligence by using dodgy arguments to claim the impossibility of atheism. The legions of non-believers here are ample proof that atheism exists and indeed thrives.

I don't understand why you feel the need to keep hammering away at us with these lofty-sounding but ultimately empty articles. Wouldn't your christian instincts be better deployed helping the homeless off the street, or driving sick old people to their doctor's appointments?

Peter as noted above you seem to believe that atheists are an activist group that 'objects to god'. While there may be some atheists like that, many including me are not.

Atheism for me is not an ideology, it's simply an absence of belief. I don't believe in the Christian god just like I don't believe in ghosts or Santa Claus. To say this absence of belief is impossible is plain silly and suggests that you can't comprehend any mental model of the world apart from your own.

<The list goes on and on. Are we to damn Christianity because cruel things were perpetrated in its name of which Christ would have been ashamed?>
The 'cruel things' perpetruated in the name of Christianity only ended when church and state where separated and the church lost its ability to impose its will on the judicail system. This is the only difference between Christianity and Islamic states that have yet to separate religion and state.
I have no objection to consenting adults practising Chistianity in private behind closed doors. But please keep it to yourselves becuase as Jesus said 'you are your fathers sons.'

Mac:

<You are making a straw man when you say "the god atheists object to," most atheists would say that there is no evidence for any reality but the natural world, there is nothing in fact to object to.>

So why do you and they keep objecting yo it?

<You haven't demonstrated that there is any other evidence apart from empirical, why the division? The conclusion is that there is no rational basis to religious belief, we wouldn't employ different criteria for engineering or biology.>

Wrong. Subjective awareness is as cognitively valid as objective awareness. Perceiving your own feelings, your dreams and imaginings, the melodies in the mind -- all of which need not be publicised -- you can encounter reality. It may seem to be at odds with empirical reality at times, but it is still reality.

The material of subjective reality can still be analysed and organised rationally -- i.e. through logic and value-judgement. Some people, of course, are better at doing it than others.

jpw2040:
<Mention of "the God that atheism objects to" merely extends the straw-man argument. Atheism doesn't object to a god, it declines to believe in it.>

Fallacious argument. Before someone can "decline to believe in it" he/she must be considering a concept or image. Peter is trying to show that the concept/image of God (i.e. your "it") that atheists consider before pronouncing their judgement is not the concept/image of God that he believes in.

Sells
The core belief of Christianity is that I need salvation because of Adam's sin.
My logical mind tells me that this is nonsense.
Proove me wrong.
Ponder
A brilliant one word demolition of two pages of waffle.

<Fallacious argument. Before someone can "decline to believe in it" he/she must be considering a concept or image. Peter is trying to show that the concept/image of God (i.e. your "it") that atheists consider before pronouncing their judgement is not the concept/image of God that he believes in.>

No. The falacious argument is that there has to be an image not to beilieve in. There is no need for an image of something that does not exist, there is simply nothing.
It doesn't matter what image Sellick believes in nothing is still nothing. Your use of symatics does not make something out of nothing and never will.

Christians are so stupid that they are killing millions of other
christians through starvation (overpopulation,contraceptive ban) and AIDS ( condom ban).

Isn't that right Mr Pope.

Do you think you are smart in your golden cloak and tall hat.

I think jpw2040 speaks for legions of disbelievers, sceptics and bored passers-by when he makes the very relevant suggestion that instead of blathering on so much and wasting so much bandwidth Peter just accepts he is entitled to his (crazed) opinion and focuses his remaining years on helping people in tangible ways.

To repeat jpw2040's excellent summation:

"I don't understand why you feel the need to keep hammering away at us with these lofty-sounding but ultimately empty articles. Wouldn't your christian instincts be better deployed helping the homeless off the street, or driving sick old people to their doctor's appointments?"

Over to you Pete!

Poor Sells, if he was any more solid he would be like a rock. Plus his writings have as much poetic sensibility as a rock too.

Like all would be theologians he begins with identification with the mortal meat-body, which he knows is going to die, and then he tries to argue his way back to to The Divine Conscious Light.

By contrast True Philosophy begins from the perspective of the Perfect Knowledge of The Divine Conscious Light. Which can thus write about Saint Jesus of Galilee in these terms.

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/EWB/EWB_pp436-459.html#jesusandteaching

And thus talk and write about Reality and Truth and The Beautiful as explained in these 2 references.

http://global.adidam.org/books/perfect-knowledge.html

http://global.adidam.org/books/ancient-teachings.html

You're scraping the barrel here, Sells.

>>While the humanists cherry pick the events that appall us all they ignore the social triumphs brought about by Christianity: the abolition of slavery, the care of the poor and the sick, the establishment of centres of learning in the great monasteries, the social justice movement in the 20th century.<<

All, these "brought about by Christianity"?

The relationship between Christianity and the abolition of slavery is identical to that of Christianity and the creation of slavery. In other words, it wasn't a case of "heathens were slaveowners, Christians were abolitionists". You mustn't believe everything you see at the movies, Sells.

Caring for the poor and sick was a Christian invention? Phshaw!

Establishment of centres of learning? The Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Chinese etc. were also somewhat active in this area, I believe.

The social justice movement in the 20th century, the brainchild of Christianity?

Sells, you really need to get out more.

Your worldview has narrowed to the point where its only justification is itself.

And that cannot be healthy.

Incidentally, at what point in the article is "The impossibility of atheism" addressed?

OK, so I'm convinced.

Christians do exist.

But beyond that, what is the article saying? Should I believe in God just because Christians do? Indeed, the article seems to be seeking to further muddy the waters as to what it is that Christians actually believe.

Perhaps the argument was to the effect that atheism is impossible because what atheists claim not to believe is not what Christians would have them believe anyway. Not that even that argument would stand up.

I came in expecting to disagree with the author, but he's said so little of substance, that there's not much there that's capable of being disagreed with.

Sylvia.

Pericles has summed it up well.
There are plenty on unlucky and disadvantaged adults and children who need help getting to the doctor or with their shopping and other chores. At 78 and reasonably fit I find it rewarding to tutor the oldest child of a legally blind young woman and to ocasionally drive her somewhere or help with some other chore.
The key to a happy and satisfying life has been well defined by Peter Singer and I prefer to follow his suggested path than to follow the teachings of some 2000 year old being who probably never existed. There is plenty of evidence presented in The Jesus Mysteries which suggest that much of the gospels was 'lifted' from earlier work by the Greeks and others.
Sells, you seem too influenced by, "Jesus loves me, this I know for the Bible tells me so." I am sure that the hypothetical Jesus would objected to someone inculcating a child to believe, "I am weak but he (Jesus) is strong."
Do something useful for a change.

Sells

Just what do you have on Graham Young?

Tell me. Promise to keep it secret.

The probability of another Sells lecture next month: 99%.

I see the whole wretched business of the idiotic attack on atheism and the futile defence - you know, the 'you can't prove god doesn't exist'; 'atheism is just a belief, too' kind of rubbish, which Sellick, too, is constantly veering into, when all is said and done - as a framing phenomenon. The biggest ever.

Anyone read George Lakoff's book 'Don't think of an elephant'? Of course, George is mostly interested in political framing and its effects (eg. the insidious insinuation into political discourse of the term 'tax relief', such that all discussion is predicated on the premise that tax is per se a burden), but it pertains here. What is the first thing you think of when exhorted not to think of an elephant? Strangely, it is impossible not to think of something that doesn't exist, but easy to think of something that doesn't! So, when saying 'I don't believe in god' it appears you are imagining god.

Effectively, five thousand years of this god, including 2000 of vigorous, often murderous proselytising, has framed the matter so thoroughly and completely that it's virtually impossible not to think of that imagined numinous entity, especially if exhorted, 'Don't think of god'. God is a frame, the mother of all frames, and this frame makes believers think they are on top in any dispute, ad infinitum. Hence, Peer Sellick. They'll never go away; atheists need a new frame.

crabsy,

Like most non-religious people (unlike many religious people) I don't object to others' religious belief, unless they want to impose their particular superstition on me. However when someone presents his or her ideas in an open forum, such as this one, they're fair game, we don't live in a theocracy,for now.

The word "Wrong"accurately describes your argument. Are you seriously presenting the ideas and fantasies that occupy our brains as "reality" equal and separate to external reality? You've just described the origin of religious belief.

Your comment on JPW2040's post demonstrates that you have missed the point, completely. Again the straw man argument, I don't "decline to believe in god", the burden of proof is entirely on believers, atheists are not required to prove the negative. It has been pointed out that the term "atheist" is misleading, I'm not aThor, aShiva,aZeus or aEaster Bunny, why should "atheists" define themselves in terms of non existent deities? We don't care what sort of god, it makes no difference.

I'm reminded of a passage in 'Catch 22' when Yossarian condemns god as a callous cruel bastard who gets fun out of watching human misery. His girlfriend cries because god is not like that at all, he's kind and gentle. Yossarian says "I thought you were an atheist" to which she replies "I am but the god I don't believe in is not like your god."

It's a funny passage in a satirical novel ... not so funny when it's presented as a serious proposition.

As an atheist I dont care what god you believe in. I dont agree, because I have no evidence, in any sort of magical, supernatural imaginary friends who can do tricks and violate the laws of nature. I dont believe in taro cards, astrology, palm reading, ghosts, telepathy, reading tea leaves, Iching, demons, spirits, life after death, the devil, faith healing/prayer, spoon bending, l ron hubbard, telekenesis, vampires, werewolves, ogres, bigfoot etc etc.

I dont know where you get this idea mr sellick that athiests would be different if only they knew the "real" god. Whatever it is you think that is. Im still not sure after multiple reads of both your recent articles.

If it does magic tricks and demands worship then it looks and smells like a god to me and no matter what mr sellick says it will always be impossible for me to be anything but an Athiest.

Im reluctant to admit it but there is a certain mount of evidence in the responses to this article supporting Sell's thesis. If this sample of comments is indicative of the language of atheism (many posters here have explicitly identified themselves as atheist) it is almost exclusively the language of objectivity and rationalism which pretty much is the point Sells is making.
Is there anything wrong with this? Well! not when you are doing science. Any other language would be out of place there.

At the level of human relationships (and theological reflection) some problems do arise with 'pure' objectivity.

In science, objectivity means studying objects (things other than ourselves), observing those properties which distinguish it from other things, including ourselves. Another way of saying this is that science deals only with those properties of things which are independent of the observer. That is why it is inappropriate in science to formulate theories that are predicated on the beliefs of the observer (for instance creation theory is predicated on a belief in God and therefore fails the 'objectivity' test for scientific theories).

Relating to our fellow creatures as objects in the way of science has proved over and over again to be dangerous and 'unacceptable'. One only needs to consider the eugenics theories of Nazi Germany to find an obvious example. The inquisition is yet another example (to draw from the Church's own dark history). Pure objectivity is every bit as dangerous as pure subjectivity (maybe more so).

Objectivity has its place but like all other powerful ideas it has its dangers and there is a right time to set it aside and use different 'reasoning' to guide our actions and construct our realities. That will lead some people to faith (as opposed to 'believing'). Its not inherently evil although it is, like all the other great ideas, potentially evil particularly if God is objectified and manipulated to serve our own selfish ends. There is no merit in 'believing' in God if that means God as an object to be studied and controlled. That is the problem with religion.

You say that Christianity is iconoclastic,Peter,so then why has it left the Nicene Creed and all it contains intact these hundreds of years?

socratease

Good thinking, Ken_L.

Since there's little hope of intelligence in this discussion, let's try to get some humour into it:

http://www.someecards.com/upload/lent/id_consider_following.html

Now *that's* an empirical outcome I could work with :-)

The real problem of religion is not so much the religion itself but the intolerance that it creates.

Christianity of itself seems OK but it's let down by the Christians who use it.

Since we are all compulsory Christians, by virtue of the Australian Constitution and live in this country by choice, being free to leave if we wish, the atheists among us should get to know all about why the system works. It works on tolerance. It works because mostly, but not always, the one great commandment of the New Testament, set out in Matthew 7 verse 1, Judge not that ye be not judged, is mostly respected.

There are a very small but influential cadre of individuals, who feel no guilt at judging others, but these will all face their own demons like Einfeld. They are called upon to pass judgment upon their own kind: Those who have made bad judgments, and committed crimes, in the eyes of the law. I am talking about the Magistrates and Judges of Australia, inflicted upon us by the atheists. They really have no place in Christian Australia. The capitalized Judge, was a creature of the Old Testament, and has no mention in the Australian Constitution, or the New Testament.

The Lord’s prayer, from Matthew 6 Verses 9-13, is said before every days sitting in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Ask the stupid Democrats how come they have not one single seat in that place. They alone voted to abolish that prayer. The fundamentals of Christianity are contained in its body.

Give us this day our daily bread, is the basis of social security. Thy kingdom come, is the basis of our legal system. Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven, means that we can pray and have our prayers answered if just. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us was adopted by the English Catholics, and true repentance was rewarded by a suspended sentence, in the case of a first offence. Deliver us from evil, is a prayer, that we not be subjected to atheist judgments, made by one man or woman, sitting as a surrogate God. Christianity is essentially equality before Almighty God. S 79 Constitution, judges, is being adopted by the Rudd Government.

Please remind me how the Church crucified Jesus? Karen Armstrong rightly points out that politics is the culprit,that religion lies along the fault lines of political ambitions.

Religion is about communion with self and others, transcending the mythos/logos paradigm. It is about learning to leave the pseudo self behind and following the real self (what Jesus is), not an external idol that demands adoration at the expense/sacrifice of our inner being.

To all atheists; Thou doest protest too much. Also, your (false) idol lies outside yourself.

Annina, you ask

"To all atheists; Thou doest protest too much. Also, your (false) idol lies outside yourself.

Methinks it is the seriously dogmatic Sellick who publishes an article a month (which invariably casts aspersions at atheists) who doth protest too much.

And you, our right of reply.

PS

We don't have idols false or otherwise: we don't believe in deities - get it?

Peter the Believer,

I don't see why you think Australia is a Christian state. The constitution makes no such claim, but instead expressly prohibits (section 116) the Commonwealth from legislating in respect of religion.

"The rationality of theology includes a poetic/historic outlook that cannot be tested at the bar of logical positivism. Theological insights find a place in both the heart and the mind, they appeal to the whole person, not just the rational nor just the emotional.... This is not special pleading on behalf of theology but recognition that it has its own discipline as do most intellectual pursuits."

This is why there is widespread disagreement between theologians over the most fundamental tenets of theology. It is the hallmark of wishful thinking that it is influenced by one's own beliefs and culture; that is why Islamic theologians 'discover' that God is like the traditional God of the Koran and Christian theologians 'discover' that God is like the God of the Bible. Practitioners of science, on the other hand, take laborious and extensive precautions to try and prevent themselves from being influenced in this way. They don't always succeed, but they try.

Science is simply the human race's best attempt to avoid deluding itself. And this includes psychology, which has attained much more tangible results in a hundred years than theology has achieved in two thousand, simply by adopting a scientific approach to evidence and deduction.

Dear Peter, and Fractelle,

I should be writing my paper on spirituality, but one last word.

My paper draws heavily on a book by David Schnarch, Passionate Marriage, a fabulous read and highly recommended.

In the final chapter titled, Sex, Love and Death, Schnarch writes about self-transcendence and self-dissolution. He writes:

"Many people who seek self-transcendence don't want to give anything up, and they want the path safe and clearly mapped. However, our unwillingness to give up what no longer fits (i.e.. self-dissolution) blocks us from self-transcendence....Sin is not about unconfined desire - it's our refusal to desire and grow, our refusal to believe in ourselves, and our willingness to live below our potential. Sin is our "not wanting to want"".(p. 400)

Christ invites me to give up what no longer fits, to grow, to believe in myself, and to want to want.

Peters latest is very insightful, the first few paragraphs are the important ones. The world seems to be divided into two types of people. The evidence based people and the feelings people. Everyone fits on this spectrum somewhere. Those occupying the middle can relate to both views and those at the ends cannot easily understand the others world view.
What is considered "normal" in any culture shifts, in the so called dark ages the western world was shifted towards the feelings end. The industrial age which we are in now has it shifting towards the evidence end. It is still shifting and that is what is worrying the feelings end. The fact is comforts that evidences ( food, clothing, high tech) brings are more sort after then the comforts of feelings (art, music, books).
Both world views can be used to explore the other but only the evidence results are repeatable.

Kenny the world is made of many different types of people - not so easily categorised into the two groups you have fashioned. Evidenced based people can be very spiritual and spiritual people can be guided by evidence and indeed work in the field of science such as the author.

I have difficulty with the concept that annina raises ie. human beings require a deity or object of idolatry to be able to see 'outside' themselves.

The fact is that our behaviour or altruistic (non-selfish) aspect is more dictated by both upbringing and genetic tendencies. Back to the old nature vs nuture debate. Reason would have it that both factors play an important role.

Atheism is not impossible. It is not that difficult really. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural being no matter how Peter Sellick or others might like to define it - simple as that.

Nothing is nothing
The problem is the English language the word 'is' implies that it is something in order for the 'is' to be a something. This is the form of Sells argument.
It matter not if an atheist does not believe in Sells nothing or some other nothing. It is still nothing. But 'it is still' implies that it must be something so around we go again.

The Christian Message was virtually ruined by the fake Donation of Constantine, allowing Christianity to later pursue illegal attacks on other countries, particularly the murderous advent of colonialism, which incidentally happened more recently when the Brits stole Kuwait from Iraq.

Cheers, BB, WA.

I am so tempted to join this discussion, but I wonder if there's any point. After all, religious belief isn't subject to rational argument. If it were, it would fall at the first fence: if there's an all-knowing and all-powerful God, the only way he can tolerate the suffering of the innocent (and I'm thinking things like babies dying painful deaths here) is that he doesn't care. It's a circle that can't be squared: caring + knowing + power = action. Lack of action means one of the precepts is false; lacking knowledge or power amounts to not being God; lack of caring amounts to indifference.
No number of words from a religious viewpoint add up to anything but wishful thinking. That may provide some people with comfort, but so does belief in Santa. Or indeed, UFOs.

Sylvia Else Thank you, you said

I don't see why you think Australia is a Christian state. The constitution makes no such claim, but instead expressly prohibits (section 116) the Commonwealth from legislating in respect of religion.

The Constitution does make such a claim, but it is not spelled out quite clearly enough. S 116 prevents the Parliament of the Commonwealth from changing from Christian to Muslim or Jewish systems. The Liberal Party did it anyway. We are now governed along Muslim or Old Testament lines by Judges as individuals instead of the judges, ( plural) of s 79 Constitution.

Because the Queen or Her Majesty appears forty times in the Constitution She brings in Christianity as the State religion by the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp). Without a referendum the Liberals changed it. They are the great atheist party. They started the push to atheism in 1927 in South Australia. The atheist Liberals in New South Wales did it in 1970, the atheist Liberals made the atheist Federal and Family Courts in 1976. The atheist Liberals made the High Court atheist in 1979, and at the same time made it the exclusive territory of the atheist aristocrats, the lawyers. ( s 78 Judiciary Act 1903)

Atheists have changed the spelling of the word court, by adding a Capital letter, and created Judges by adding one too bringing on atheist government. Atheists will face their judgment. Einfeld is simply a bigger fool than most. All Justices take an Oath to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. Einfeld made himself a Judge, because he is a lying atheist fool. We are now governed not on Christian principles, but by Judges, and these individuals are not Christian.

The great seminaries of atheism are the law schools where they teach law without honor. Law is atheism and a false God. When the English allowed lawyers back into Parliament by reclassifying them as commoners, they planted the seeds of their own destruction. We have a Rule Book lawyers simply cannot understand. It is called the Bible. Most lawyers hate juries and Christianity and fear justice

Sells has admitted that there is no rational reason to believe in a religion.

His trite "of course there is a place for such rationality in the scientific laboratory and in practical dealings with the physical world. - Scientific rationality cannot be applied to the arts or to the affairs of the human heart. - they rely on a different kind of rationality that is more suited to its subject."

Which is a feeble attempt to use the argument of extremes, anything based on pure emotion would also be sterile.

What one believes in cannot be based entirely on rational, however, belief without reason is gulibility.

As one of the main tenets of both main religions is that non believers will burn in hell. This de humanises them, and facilitates conquest in order to "save" them. The good deeds done by a few believers cannot be separated from the atrocities.

The fact that most people of faith inherit their religion from their parents indicates that it has very little to do with choice and more about back ground.

Athiest come from all backgrounds, and as such are the real free thinkers in this debate.

Belief by athiest is not the all consuming devotion as belief in religion. I believe there is no god, as I believe that CO2 is a main cause of global warming. It is a tempory belief based on the available evidence at the moment, and will change if there is persuasive evidence.

The silly argument by some that as the existance of god cannot be disproved, thus all is possible and thus agnosticism is the only real alternative, equates god, allah, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny. This line of reasoning is pathetic beyond speech and can only lead to a mental la la land.

Sells attempt to define the god that athiests don't believe in is like asking if you are a catholic athiest or muslim athiest. The answer is that we don't find any reason to believe any of it.

"It is obvious that those who object to any kind of theological discussion on the grounds of scientific rationalism could not in fact live according to their creed. For how would they ask anyone to marry them?"

I found: "You wanna get married?" worked rather well for me.

"How would they relate to their children?"

Also rather well. In fact, my two high school girls told me they were almost alone, in still living with both their biological parents (I'm starting to wonder if I'll ever get rid of them). (sarcasm).

"How could they maintain rich friendships?"

I have a number of good friends -though sadly, none of them are rich...

"What do they do when they begin to feel strongly about anything?"

Well generally we discuss, or even argue the matter, often in forums such as this one.

"Any attempt to reduce life to the logically demonstrable is dehumanising and this is one of the most dangerous products of the modern age as the bloody 20th century has aptly demonstrated."

So, while it is wrong to 'cherrypick' those (religious) events which appall us, it is acceptable to cherrypick historical events.
First you would have to prove the 20th century was less religious, or 20th century wars were less driven by religion, than any other century.
Even in the 21st century, George Bush was still invoking God, in his righteous invasion of another country.
As for 'dehumanising', what can one say about beliefs which absolve individuals of responsibility?
Clearly, God made some men rich, and some men poor. It must be God's will.

I too have been trying to stay out of this discussion... I sit somewhere in the middle... I am neither athiest nor believer in the bible.

But I have two photos to show. Both Pulitzer prize winning photos, one a source of inspiration, the other one most depressing...

PLEASE DON'T LOOK AT THE SECOND IF YOU ARE A SENSITIVE PERSON ... IT IS ESPECIALLY TROUBLING....

Where was God in the second photo?

http://pulitzerphotos.wordpress.com/

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_odditiesultimate_in_unfair.htm

We don't know what happened to the child in the second photo... We do know what happened to the photographer!

Innocent children are starving!

Australian Churches sit on phenominal wealth if this article is anything to go by. They have massive incomes and assets!

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

How much is the combined wealth of all religious institutions in the world? I know money is spent widely by the churches and good Christians and Athiests!

Jesus allegedly said (Matthew 6:24) "..... You cannot serve God and money...",

Jesus also allegedly said in Matthew 6:25 "....isn't life more than food....",

Jesus also allegedly said Matthew 6:31-32 "...not to worry...."

Jesus also allegedly said Matthew 19:21 ".... sell sell sell...."

It seems to me that we can all sit in our middle class Christian/Athiest worlds debating, but, in the end, God doesn't intercede with starving children! Can there be a God?

"Are we to damn Christianity because cruel things were perpetrated in its name of which Christ would have been ashamed?"

No, I blame hoarding religions!

If the churches did sell their assets to save the people, maybe, a few people who have left might still be there...

I hope people when they enter their cathedrals & churches next, take communion next, and read the bible next, that second photo burns in their consciences. Your prayers aren't being answered!

If there is a God he doesn't intercede! He would, however, expect us to intercede, and his church to stop hoarding wealth (as a bare minimum), and to follow Jesus' teachings... Enjoy your Sunday!

Rev Dr Peter Sellick what do you say now?

Sorry the link didn't work in the second photo on my post

PLEASE DON'T LOOK AT THIS IF YOU ARE A SENSITIVE PERSON ... IT IS ESPECIALLY TROUBLING....

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/ultimate_in_unfair.htm

All babies are atheists. Would Sells please explain which god they're not believing in? And which god it is that they should not believe in?

The 'wrong' one or the 'right' one?

The god of their parents, school, culture or nation?

Annina you are welcome to believe in Christ's message, however don't forget that Jesus was following the philosophy set out clearly by many others before him such as Siddhartha Gautama 500 years earlier and well before the bastardised Constantine version of Christianity.

“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.”

Don't know what we are getting at with an Atheism Mk2, but speaking as a historian, must say my true Christianity gradually disaappears after the Sermon on the Mount, which with its Blessed Are's seems to give us Spiritiual Reasoning much more than the Thou Shalts of both the Old and later New Testaments after the Crucifixion.

Further, the later intervention of Constantine in establishing a political future for the Christian Church makes any philosopher wonder how Christianty from then on could be so different from what is expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.

Certainly any historian could believe that the Wise Men said to have influenced the Boy Jesus especially in Egypt, were most likely Hellenist teachers from the Great Library of Alexandria.

And having to illegally make up the Donation of Constantine in allowing Christianity to support the murders allowed under colonialism, reckon it would have had the boy Jesus trembling, but most likely with plenty to say.

And please to remember that the above is no fairy story.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

Bushbred

Comparing the Greek version of the Sermon on the mount with the doctored Cristian version it is plain just how far the Christians have strayed form the true teachings of Jesus. They have turned people power and personal responsibiliy into however you could describe Sellicks twisted dogma.
The world could have been much richer for the philosophies of Jesus, but look what the Christians have done with it. Money, power, supression and genocide as a begining.

“While the humanists cherry pick the events that appal us all they ignore the social triumphs brought about by Christianity: the abolition of slavery, the care of the poor and the sick, the establishment of centres of learning in the great monasteries, the social justice movement in the 20th century.” – Sells

Dear Peter,

It is hardly cherry-picking. One can find examples of heinous Christian events (as you call) and list these events, decade by decade, from the fourth century into modern times.

On Abolition of Slavery: OT: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.” [Leviticus 25:44]. NT: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. [1 Peter 2:18]

Christian were heavily involved in Slavery between the eighth and nineteenth centuries. Commencing 711 CE, “the (Christians) began their reconquest of the peninsula by killing the Muslim population of towns. By the end of the eighth century captured women and children were made into slaves, as were some men. Execution began to be seen as a waste of resource. A prime purpose of Christian adventurers … was to find slaves” (Thomas).

Christian, George Washington owned slaves. But his sad involvement pales compared to Christian Spain and traders operating from Christian England.

Peter, the principal slave trade ended because, “the West Indies were in debt, there was a sugar surplus, and the saturated ‘old colonies’ did not want new slaves” (Thomas).

On the care of the poor and the sick: Of the Black Death. “In many towns cowardly priests themselves off (i.e., leaving town and going to church safe houses), leaving the performance of spiritual offices to (unidentified) regular clerics. [Horros, 1994]

Cont...

On centres of learning: Immediately after Nicaea, Christians destroyed not only pagan statues but major libraries too. “Art, philosophy, literature, the very psychology of Western man, all suffered by the victory of the bishops” (John Holland Smith).

Christians destroyed the Serapeum. ““Courageously, they [The Christians] gave battle to the statues until they had vanquished and robbed them. Their military tactics consisted of stealing without being seen. As they could not carry away the pavement because of the weight of the stones that could hardly be moved, when they had simultaneously overturned everything in sight, these great and valiant warriors, whose hands though rapacious, were not stained with blood, declared that they had triumphed over the gods. They gloried in their sacrilege and impiety.” [Eunapius of Sardis, in Turcan 1985].

Before Harvey, Miguel Serveto wrote to John Calvin asserting “blood circulated from right-side of the heart to light-side via the lungs (Gribbon). Bad move. Christian Calvinists burnt Serveto at the stake, because his teaching was anti-Trinitarian.

On the social justice movement: The Social justice movement finds some roots in Kant, whom held, that for life to make sense, people must be free to act morally and to be accountable in an after-life.Otherwise, who punishes Hilter? [who was a devout Christian]

Yes, the Church has tether in the social justice movement. Also, nineteenth century Catholicism and (left-wing) Political Economy are bed-fellows. That said, egalitarianism, civil law separate from canon law, freedom of thought & individualism are really the product of the Enlightenment and eighteen century French liberal thinkers, to Christianity. Independent, non-canonical interpretation of knowledge has consistently been fought by the Christian Church, from before Nicaea to after the “Monkey Trials”. Anti-libertarianism is evident in Pope Innocent II annulling the Magna Charta, because it was demeaning Church & Regal authority. Today, we have the Christians Churches covering-up for the pedaeophile clerics, thus, thwarting the tights of their victims.

In Sum: Christian-History is not History’s History.

Regards,

Oliver

benno wrote 'It's a circle that can't be squared: caring + knowing + power = action"...nice...but already breaking it down to pieces and reassembling to see if reforms same equation...and trying to fit 'fear_inaction'...but first a response for peter...

I read your articles and struggles to get your message across...basically 'religion is more faith than fact'...but dont seem to address the glaring obvious...the destruction in name of god/religion throughout history...so its coming out as snake-ointment merchant...elucidating its claimed virtues while skillfully avoiding its devastation...

so allow me to pose a question...if you chose to close your two eyes for 6months...what will be ur awareness of immediate environment then?...yep...all shapes and colours of objects around will no longer be known in its full extent/interaction to/around you...and in that situation you write an article about how your world is...hope you get what Im trying to say...

now if I may request something...take it on 'faith' that you have a 'third_eye'(eye that sees energy around you)exists but closed after ur childhood...open it...like when u were a child...

also take it on 'faith' that you have a 'soul' in u right now...'energize' and maintain it to awaken it from its dormancy and become active in each moment of action in your life...how?...little tricky it seems...the heart of its foundation is in the pelvis...it can spin anticlockwise/clockwise...anticlockwise to suppress and remove from consciouys...clockwise to energize and grow from pelvis out...and if I were you I will start turning everything that I can seem to energize clockwise till you start getting a hang of it...

then final request...write and an article in 6months after holding above said constantly...I for one would look forward...and see if you were able/obstructed by other 'energies' in or around...focused attack to stop by other peoplew...able to adapt and persevere...and its effects...primarily understanding/growth of god/spirituality...

sam

Pelican, you are correct to query my statement. I did not expess my thoughts well. I have been reading Karen Armstong, Ken Wilber, and Thomas Moore and trying to combine their exciting thoughts with those of Jung, "Christ exemplifies the archetype of the self."

Armstrong questions the effects of today's popular idols and sees them residing outside the self, undermining the human spirit by discouraging the inner hero and the inner journey, which is how I see atheism. Christ calls me inward, and upward. As my inner self, Christ, strengthens within, the need for rigid dogma falls away I do not need dogma for I am strenghtened by something far greater.

Oliver, spot on about slavery. Thank you.

And Fractlle, how well I know the different origins of Christ's message,especially Do Unto Others, but I was brought up Christian and it works well because it is well honed by time and continues to change; Prince of Light and Prince of Darkness should live in harmony within us all.

annina
I share your interest in the inner self and how we all as humans can be better.

If Christ is the path you have chosen to find that inner self then that is great. I'm all for people finding the path that suits them for whatever reason.

My objection is more to those who dictate to atheists or people of differing beliefs that their path is wrong or false in some way and that peace or inner tranquility, the inner self (or truth) cannot possibly be experienced other than via Christianity (or Islam, Hindu etal).

Although, people like me have been labelled as atheists, many like me, don't subscribe to the atheists groups either for the same reason ie. just another group telling people how they should think.

To each his own. I don't have a problem with people praying to their version of God, or Bhudda or who subscribe to paganism or kabbalah etc.

Just don't judge atheists within the confines of your own doctrines or beliefs as I won't judge you.

Well, we are at only 49 posts compared to AI's 298 posts. What happened to the momentum, you atheists? I can only say I found this the hardest of Peter's articles to follow. It seemed to make many unrelated claims that did not speak to Christians.

The article is called the impossibility of atheism, yet it seems to be defending Christianity. This is a curious web site which I may soon delete.

Peter, who do you think your audience is? Christians or atheists?

Maybe in a weird way Sells may be partly right. Maybe there are some people who have become confused and think that the nasty, vicious and despicable 'God' of Christianity is the only possible God. Maybe there are a few 'Atheists' who refuse to believe in God because they see the Christian version and refuse to believe that version. In that I am with them 100%. If it is sells or nothing I will take nothing.
But I remain agnostic. If there is a God it certainly isn't the Christian/Jewish/Islam version.
Annina, these articles are defending Christianity in the only way possible. Sells 'stays on message' about Christianity whilst appearing to be writing about atheists. A straight examination of Christianity would cause it to self destruct.
The inner self is another thing. One of my objections to religions is 'why is it necessary to build external constructions about an internal process?' As individuals with our own internal life why do religious organisations seek to supplant that inner life for an external fabrication?
Christians, atheists and all the other labels mean nothing. It is what is happening internally that matters. If there is a God I feel it has to do with an inner connection not external observance.

Daviy

Any faith based on 'internal processes' without 'external' manifestations would be a little pointless.

Jesus himself located the core of his teaching in the one 'Law' to "love your neighbour as yourself". This point is illustrated most clearly in the parable of the 'Good Samaritan". Given Jesus' explicit identification of this as the core of His message, all His teaching should be measured against this 'Golden Rule'. Jesus did not offer 'inner peace' but a 'Kingdom' in which justice prevailed. Jesus' own actions were thoroughly political and social, which is what led to His execution at the hands of the Romans.

If Christianity is to remain faithful to the teachings of its founder then it cannot but be social and political. That, of course, has its dangers and the Church has certainly been a less than perfect vehicle of Gods's grace.

While much your criticism of 'religion' is justified, you seem not to appreciate the nature of 'Christianity' if you think Jesus message was about 'internal processes'. The Church envisaged by Jesus is politically active and concerns itself absolutely with the external circumstances of real people. Yes, the Church is getting plenty of things wrong and would do well to attend to issues of justice rather than to conventional moralising. The Church has also failed in many ways in its portrayal of God as an 'object' that can be 'observed' and manipulated. It is little wonder that atheism has grown in reaction to the Church's poor teaching. Better no God than the capricious and inscrutable despot that is the 'God of fundamentalism'.

We are seeing desperate debating tactics used here. Some are lumping Judaism, Islam and Christianity together, when they are totally separate from each other. Judaism and Islam are the first and last, one refuses to move into the modern world, and the other is an attempt to move back to the Old Testament, with a counter Prophet to Jesus Christ.

Others are taking small snippets out of the Holy Bible and failing to see the whole forest; Looking at one tree trunk, instead of the combination of all. In their totality the four Gospels, are a fabulous template for good government and that was promised way back in the Old Testament by the Prophet Isaiah, and in genesis by Jacob, when after being called Israel Man of God, he declared that the scepter of a Ruler shall not depart from the House of Judah, until Shiloh comes. Shiloh means he to whom it belongs, and is in Christian terms Jesus Christ.

Christianity is the fulfillment of a Godly Promise, that if the Gospels are followed, then the people will enjoy “good government”. One poster said how do I get Christianity from the Constitution. Every lawyer accepts that the three first chapters of the Constitution incorporate what they call the separation of powers, into the Constitution. Currently a Federal Court Judge is paid $6,000 a week. If that is not a bribe what is? The separation of powers comes straight out of the Gospel of John.

Way back in 1215, the English separated the power of church and State with the Magna Carta. No Priest could ever condemn a man to death, or order his property sequestrated unless 12 ordinary people concurred. The atheist Liberal Party changed that in 1966. Whether you are atheist or Christian, the Magna Carta was a guarantee of freedom. The creation of an atheist State priesthood, takes that from you. A proper understanding of the Gospels is essential to a complete education. Properly educated no Judge or Magistrate would sell his soul for thirty pieces of silver! If asked for a jury they would comply

I have noticed that many of the posters blame the God they deny for the worlds evils. It is incredible that mankind is so blind to the evil of his own heart. Religous people are among the worse and no more so than the secular humanist. Their dogmas sometimes dressed up in pseudo science is as hypocritical as that of the Catholic church in the dark ages. In fact many of their popes and high priests would fit in well with that system.

We have 'intelligent' comments like 'All babies are atheists'. Yes well all babies are also born ignorant. Thankfully the dumbest can see evidence of God as they get the smallest of knowledge.

'Christians are so stupid that they are killing millions of other
christians through starvation (overpopulation,contraceptive ban) and AIDS ( condom ban).' A perfect example of the gullible believing their high priests.

Peter it's a lot simpler than you think.

Over two essays you still haven't made a case why your faith is the only true one and why anyone should believe in your particular dogma.

If it's any comfort, atheists don't believe in all the other gods either.

Believing Peter

What is your point?
Do you support "Separation of Church and State"?
What has separation of powers got to do with "Separation of Church and State"?
Which part of John's Gospel do you interpret as teaching "separation of powers"?
Judges are paid well (though not extravagantly by comparison with say.. manufacturers of jocks) precisely in order to prevent corruption. Given the way that they are paid, who is it that gains influence over judges' actions consequent on the payment of their salaries? (Are you particularly susceptible to conspiracy theories?)

Seems to me that the Gospels are not so much a "template for governing" as a model for protest. Unfortunately, the Church abandoned protest and the Gospel in favour of the acquisition of political power.

One can argue that Constantine, in giving the Church access to political power, silenced its prophetic voice and so corrupted it. Today, separation of powers is our insurance against despotism and the media seems to have taken over the role of watchdog. The Church struggles to find its place in todays political landscape in part because of its propensity for mindless moralising but largely because its historical participation in the exercise of state power has discredited it as a prophetic body.

Atheism is a powerful and justified criticism of the modern Church. Sells irrational 'attack' on atheists is telling in terms of the effectiveness of that criticism and his apologetic arguments seem to exmplify the Church's arrogant conservatism and determination to remain as they are.

We are fortunate to live in a society where separation of powers, separation of Church and State and freedom of the press serve to prevent excesses in the exercise of state power but this is still a fragile system and the lack of a truly prophetic Church may prove to be our "Achilles Heel".

All belief systems have their theologians, and Mr Sellick is just one of them - and not a particularly eloquent or convincing one. No doubt the ancient Inca gods had their learned defenders too, all of whom went to great lengths and daunting technical detail to "prove" that the gods needed to be appeased by cutting out living hearts. Irrationality on a broad scale is one of the defining charactertistics of the development of humans. Bertrand Russell said religions belong to "the infancy of human reason". Hallelujah to that.
But, bit by bit, the nonsense is being swept away. Some people do seem to have a need for fanciful beliefs, but fortunately it is not compulsory to adopt these beliefs any more on pain of death. It is possible to openly declare that one is an atheist - although apparently it is still compulsory for Mr Sellick to wilfully misunderstand what the word means.
The mythical atheist who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the true nature of god while exercising cold empirical rationality in all life matters is an amusing cartoon construct. Those of us with real lives live them rather differently to that, in all their complexities. Atheism just means that we don't employ magical thinking - that we can live very happily with the world as it is and in all its NATURAL wonder.

Waterboy
<Jesus did not offer 'inner peace' but a 'Kingdom' in which justice prevailed. Jesus' own actions were thoroughly political and social, which is what led to His execution at the hands of the Romans.>

But what did Jesus say?

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not by observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or Lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Luke 17 KJV

It is same old problem over and over. Christianity has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
The classic example the 'doctoring' of the teachings of Jesus by Christianity comes at the end of the Sermon on the Mount.

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
Matthew 7 KJV

The original Greek version is: “And when it came to pass finish Jesus words these, were astounded the crowds at the teaching of him; 29 for he was teaching them as authority having, and not as the scribes of them.”

It was the people that had the power, not Jesus.

Jesus taught personal power and responsibility based on what comes from within. Christianity has turned this into a power hungry structure based on oppression and unimaginable crimes against humanity

Re: Oliver 1 March post

I have provided several histories very recently and over time many others. With Christian theists I find at times there might be an alternative argument to empirical evidence, religion vis-a-vis science. Yet when history/anthropology take a bird's I view and "explain" religion supported by empirical evidence, all is quiet on the Christian front. Likewise, avoid discussing earlier trinities and medicants with special powers and commonalities between/across myths.

When first century Qumran documents, almost certainly unknown to Nicaea (325 CE), providing other versions of the OT are cited, Sells and others, seem not to see the real evidence against ther case. The latter a physical scrolls so their is no need for the Researcher to retreat, unless the Researcher doesn't care to look. When dates and places of Christian acrocities are cited, Christians don't recognize the history of the Christianity itself.

"I can't view reality/evidence" is long in-grained in the Christian pyche, whether it not Vatican sciencists not looking-through Galileo's telescope to see evidence for a helio-centric universe or Sells not recognizing alternative first century scriptures - denying the Dead Sea Scrolls - the head in the sand response remains consistent across the centuries.

Whether it is ancient opposition to "gnosis", Medieval suppression of individual throught or actions more modern paradigms of knowledge; One thing is certain: The Christian Master's of the Allusion, don't want Ms & Mr Public knowing too much. Nor are there allowed secular
interpretions. All knowledge, if Christians were to have there way, would, as in days of old, be mediated/censored/controlled by Clerics.

Daviy

You’ve chosen your counter-examples very poorly indeed. Your first mistake was choosing the KJV for your text. Unfortunately the KJV is generally not a very good translation. In verse 21 ‘Entos humoon estiv’ is better translated ‘in the midst of you(pl)’ than ‘within you’. This, of course, makes far more sense in the context as it is somewhat nonsensical to suggest that such an obviously social and political metaphor as ‘kingdom’ should describe an ‘inner process’. The change required of individuals to bring about the Kingdom is not private religious enlightenment directed at personal salvation but external, social action (like healing the sick, releasing the prisoner and touching the leper) directed at social and political change. Why do you think the Romans executed Jesus? He wasn’t peddling easy religious pap.

This text provides an excellent example of how subtly translation choices can reflect the views of the translator rather than the original meaning.

Daviy, given that your knowledge of Greek is obviously limited and your skills in literary criticism are non-existent you had best stick with the RSV as your closest approximation to the original Greek. It’s not perfect but it’s about as good as you’ll get .

Nonetheless you have illustrated the way some Churches (The Anglican Church in this case) have corrupted the Gospel to suit their own ends. Any Church that participates in the exercise of State power is bound to gloss over the politically subversive nature of the Gospel in favour of a benign, ‘internalized’ version of it. Selling this emasculated and depoliticized version of the Gospel to the uneducated and the illiterate is one of the ways that the Church has manipulated and oppressed people over the centuries.

waterboy
The source I used to check the Greek source against KJV is Marshal's Greek/English Interlinear New Testament. Are you going to argue with that as a source?
I use an old version of KVJ where the translators have the decency put the parts that are unclear, or open to judgment, in italics. The KVJ is remarkably close to the Greek, even to the extent that the word 'one' at the end of the Sermon on the Mount is in italics.
You may use whatever translation you wish to support your argument. There are so many supposed 'Bibles' out there I am certain you will find one to suit your purpose.

Daviy

In case you hadn't noticed, I was referring to the Greek New Testament and not to a translation. It is not a question of 'choosing translations'. Why should I 'prefer' any particular translation to the Greek itself? I only suggested the RSV to you since it was obvious that you were using an interlinear and could not read the Greek yourself.
There are different types of 'translations', not all of which attempt to produce a 'direct' translation of the Greek. Again, I recommend the RSV to you because it is probably still the best of those that do attempt a direct translation as opposed to interpretive and paraphrasing 'translations'.
Quite apart from the fact that "within you" makes no sense in the context, the author could have chosen the "to entos.." construct if he had intended "within you". Given that he had that option and elected not to use it we have a strong indication that "within you" was not intended and "among you" or "in the midst of you" are preferred. The latter make perfectly good sense in the context while the former is awkward to say the least.
Jesus was quite clearly saying that the Kingdom of God was breaking into this world. Any other 'interpretation' of this passage is complete nonsense.

waterboy,

Is original Greek source to which you refer Koine Greek?

I think this Koine Greek have been been more prevalent a few centuries after Jesus.

When Galilee was occupied by the Greeks before the Romans, Attic Greek [Macedonian Court too] would have been spoken. I suspect a Galilean teacher would have spoken Attic, whereas Bible Colleges use Koine translations.

When Jesus Christ promised to be with us always, and send a comforter, in Matthew 24 verse 20, he was not joking. As the risen Christ the Kingdom of Heaven, was established, but it has been rejected by almost all of the world, except the English Protestants, and the United States of America. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. So to honor both Almighty God and Jesus Christ as commanded in John 5 verses 22 and 23, the Christians in England enacted the Magna Carta. This reflects the Living God, of the New Testament, by creating a venue where two or three can gather together to do judgment.

Jesus Christ himself refuses to be a Judge. He makes judging a deadly sin, and prohibits it absolutely, in Matthew 7 verse 1; Luke 6 37-42. He states that the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy, in Luke 12 verses 10-12, repeated in all four Gospels, so the Holy Ghost or Spirit is the Judge. This is woven into the very fabric of the law. Even the Roman Catholic Church believes that Almighty God has not stopped talking to his people. How does He talk. He talks through his system of government; the government of Christianity adopted by the English.

With a Justice appointed after swearing allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second; A jury of twelve disciples sworn on the Holy Bible to find the truth, and deliver a verdict, with absolute power to decide right from wrong, we had Christian government. This is not sectarianism. All Churches of Christ can live with this, but instead the Government thinks it can become a pagan church, and do away with juries, and elevate parliament to the role of lawgiver. This heresy must be condemned by all people. When the State puts people into the role of Gods, it is in trouble. Stalin was the god of Russia while he lived. Mao was the god of China. Mugabe is the god of Zimbabwe. The English never let any man or king become a god. They insisted on universal juries

Oliver

“Attic Greek” usually refers to the form of Greek used in Athens (Attica) in the classical period (around 500BCE). You obviously have some ‘alternative’ definition of the term so perhaps you should explain precisely what YOU mean by “Attic”. Koine (a derivative of Attic), on the other hand , usually means the form of Greek spoken from the time of Alexander through to about 300CE. The Septuagint, for example, is usually quoted as an example of Koine pre-dating the first century. Again you will need to supply your alternative meaning before we can possibly make any sense of your question.

Do YOU believe that Jesus spoke Attic (“classical”) Greek to His Jewish compatriots? If not then what is the point of your question? It is possible that Jesus could speak Greek in the form common to the times but why would He speak Greek (“classical”) to Jews? That would have sounded strange indeed and surely would not have worked to endear Him to the people of Jerusalem. Most scholars still accept that Jesus mostly spoke some form af aramaic based on obvious 'aramaisms' in the recorded sayings. It is also very likely that he knew Biblical Hebrew but that was not the commonly spoken language of the day.

Once again, I am left wondering exactly what point you are trying to make and to which peculiar interpretation of the 'historical' evidence you subscribe.

"They pay 10 percent of their earnings to the church, and spend most of their time helping to grow the congregation (with each member also having to contribute 10 percent of their income) and reading Christian books, listening to Christian music - items for which they pay through the nose." - Craig Scutt

Craig,

What the Christian Churches wont tell you is that in history Baptism was a means to paying for Herod the Great's temples, because a (half shekle?)contribution was made.

Also, the the tithe, in the early church, required not only paying money, but working a portion of one's as an indigent, as an act of humility. Apart from the Pope washing feet, we don't see Bishops living say a say a day a week as a homeless person, to show that Bishops and the Homeless Poor are equal.

To the contrary, Bishops live in Palaces, eat silver service and have clerics as servants. Not very Jesus-like.

On-going participation is reinforcing

Correction: Herod the Great's Palaces (Not Temples)

Waterboy,

Do you support "Separation of Church and State"? Absolutely and it is law by the Magna Carta

What has separation of powers got to do with "Separation of Church and State"?

When all educated people were taught by the Church, the Church ran everything by the simple power of excommunication. Get excommunicated by the Anglican Church, before 1828, and you lost your State Job. The Magna Carta stopped the church in England from leading persecutions from 1297.

Which part of John's Gospel do you interpret as teaching "separation of powers"? John 5 verses 22 and 23.

Judges are paid well ($6,000 a week plus perks) precisely in order to prevent corruption. This has not worked at all. The pay a Judge gets is simply a State Bribe, to strike out any action that will cost the State money. These people take ages to make up their mind, precisely so that a Dutch auction can take place to determine who will supplement the Judges income the most, or refrain from retaliation.

Given the way that they are paid, who is it that gains influence over judges' actions consequent on the payment of their salaries? Once one bribe is taken a Judge is owned, and cannot ever go back. The other bribe given is immunity from prosecution. Jury trials universally make these unnecessary.

Today, separation of powers is our insurance against despotism and the media seems to have taken over the role of watchdog. That is a misstatement. By allowing a Judge to both Judge and Administer in the name of the Sovereign, powers are merged not separated.

We are (were) fortunate to live in a society where separation of powers, (existed) but this is still a fragile system. Very fragile indeed, when at any time the Commonwealth can instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute and disgrace any Judge who steps out of line. The penalty from the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) is $33,000 a day, so it is no wonder they are good little public servants. They made an example of Murphy, and Judges are State slaves.

Believin' Pete

So you BELIEVE that Judges should be paid nothing and should be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution?

Waterboy, what can any one person possibly do to earn about a seven weeks wages in a week. Firstly every Judge is an Atheist. The Holy Bible absolutely prohibits one person from passing judgment on another, but Muslims, Jews and Atheists have no problem doing so. If they were not Atheists they would not take a job that damns them to certain consignment to the fiery depths, if they exist.

Every one of us is tempted at some time in our lives. When a man or woman takes a Judgeship, he or she is destroying democracy, taking a job where he or she will inflict violence every time a judgment is made, on one or another of the protagonists, and doing what the Scots hated doing; Taking the King’s shilling. By doing so, and failing to accept Christian Democratic principles, all Judges and Magistrates are damned. They have formed a Mutual Admiration Society, called the Australian Judicial College, to tell each other they are lovely.

To establish Republican Government, which they did not extend to the American Colonies, the English made the King take an Oath that made him or her an unelected President, who could not take that office unless by the Coronation Oath 1688, the person crowned bent the knee to Almighty God. In Republican Government which in the United States is Christian Government, jury trials in civil and criminal matters is mandatory. When the Poms tried to rule America like an occupied territory and denied Christians jury trials, there was a war. God’s side won.

When a small aristocracy was given immunity from prosecution, as in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mugabe’s Roman Catholic Zimbabwe, and any number of banana republics, the result has always been chaos. To survive as a democracy, the laws that allow anyone to test by trial any Judge, in a court, need to be freely available. They are legislated in place in the Commonwealth but Judges and Magistrates, are control freaks, and will not let anyone use them. We deliberately rejected an aristocracy in the Constitution, but the ruling class cannot accept that

Peter the believer,

Barristers at the level that are asked to be judges are seldom earning less than $100 000 per month. $6000 a week is a nominal amount for a huge amount of responsibility.

Only one really ignorant could claim it as a bribe. Many judges are christian who feel that they can take this huge drop in income to do a service to the community. And as such are mostly incorruptable.

Judges are not immune from procescution. The trial of justice Einfeld goes to prove this.

It would be nice if occasionally you bothered to base your posts on fact.

If you ask Bob Mugabe, he'll tell you he has a Marxist Zimbabwe, not a Roman Catholic Zimbabwe. The two aren't entirely compatible.

"The Holy Bible absolutely prohibits one person from passing judgment on another, but Muslims, Jews and Atheists have no problem doing so."

Christians never judge?

It's self-righteous absurdities like this which will ensure the steady decline of Christianity in the West. Doesn't the bible have something to say about removing logs from one's own eye?

Two things are an abomination. A person whose word is worth nothing, and a liar who cannot see the truth. My Scots ancestors had a remedy for both, and it was to run a claymore through them.

We currently have members on the High Court who get $7,000 a week plus perks. Seven of them in 2004, put their names on a document entitled the High Court Rules 2004. This record should see them all prosecuted, removed from office, stripped of their pensions, and reduced to the status of any other unemployed person. The seven on the High Court at that time were required to take an Oath of Allegiance. So cheaply do they take their word, when given, that as unelected public officials they have taken the name of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second off all process issued by the High Court. S 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979 says:
Writs etc. All writs, commissions and process issued from the High Court shall be: (a) in the name of the Queen;

All Writs should also be issued under the Royal Seal. Under RG Menzies, the High Court made Rules that changed that to a Home Made version. This is prohibited by s 77 (i) Constitution, but that has not worried the Prime Ministers for the past 59 years. The Current seal is a Baalist animistic seal, with a Kangaroo and Emu and a teeny weenie Crown on it somewhere. It was introduced in 1952, at the same time as the Executive Government dictated to the High Court that they make Order 58 Rule 4 Subrule 3, so that the High Court become an exclusive dining club, for the rich and wealthy. In 1976, Liberals made it an exclusive club for Barristers and Solicitors by s 78 Judiciary Act 1903.

They say a fish rots from the head first. The most unethical and hardest job in Australia is to be a Judge or Magistrate. Yes Christianity does prohibit absolutely one person judging another. Even if they get it right the method used is wrong. They have a choice

PtB, I'm afraid your arguments are becoming repetitive and tiresome. Which wouldn't be quite such a problem if they weren't also fundamentally misguided.

>>Do you support "Separation of Church and State"? Absolutely and it is law by the Magna Carta <<

This interpretation of Magna Carta is stretching the concepts of "law", and the word "absolutely".

Magna Carta was designed to restrain the actions of a King who had pushed the concept of "divine right" past any reasonable limits. It may indeed be read as the beginning of a long process to separate the actions of the church and the governance of the kingdom, but it is totally misleading to describe it as "law".

You also clearly have a personal beef with the legal process, since the example you cite from High Court Rules (Order 58 Rule 4 Subrule 3 from the repealed 1952 version) has to do with abuse of the system by plaintiffs.

>>The Current seal... was introduced in 1952, at the same time as the Executive Government dictated to the High Court that they make Order 58 Rule 4 Subrule 3, so that the High Court become an exclusive dining club, for the rich and wealthy.<<

The clauses that match this in the 2004 version are in Chapter 1, 6.06 and 6.07.

6.06 deals with "a person, [who] alone or in concert with any other, frequently and without reasonable ground has instituted or has attempted to institute vexatious legal proceedings", and prohibits action where there is an abuse of process.

6.07 restricts the actual filing of documents, where a "writ, application, summons or other document appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious,"

Which is all quite normal, and extremely reasonable.

There may be much for us to learn about the minutiae of the legal process in Australia, but I think your continual harping on Magna Carta and the probity or otherwise of our judiciary has nothing whatsoever to do with the "impossibility of atheism".

Have a nice day anyway.

You must be a Lawyer, Mr Pericles.

Only a lawyer whose mind was closed would not know that the Magna Carta is still a law in Australia and that the departure from its provisions embarked upon by the High Court and all the other courts of which it is head, is a gross insult to Christianity and all it stands for.

Before the courts had to have security, and before the lawyers decided we would have a republic on their terms only, the job of Justice and the legal profession was held in high esteem.

Oh yes, the High Court wants to be lazy. It must be lazy or it would have rejected the High Court rules you cite as unconstitutional. They want the power and the glory, but don’t want to work. It is certainly vexatious to them to give justice. Nine out of ten who go there in the mistaken belief that they will get it, never get a jersey.

The thing is the Parliament of the Commonwealth has given these lazy sods the power in S 44 Judiciary Act 1903 to remit every case that has not had a jury trial, back for retrial. Trial without jury was made void in the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, and it is still void.

Menzies was offered a jury in the 1950’s Communist Party Case. He refused and lost, and took it to the Big Jury in a referendum and lost that too. So he decided to ask the High Court to make it impossible for aggrieved parties to get a case filed. Like I said before we should send the whole High Court packing. This vexatious litigant stuff is a criminal offence against S 43 Crimes Act 1914. Every Judge and Magistrate who sits without a jury, gets well paid, but is instantly compromised, and can at any time be indicted and imprisoned or fined.

The only way a Judge or Magistrate can be safe, is to follow the system in the Holy Bible, appoint a jury at the expense of the Commonwealth and take their verdict

Your logic is - how shall we say - larger than life, PtB.

>>You must be a Lawyer, Mr Pericles. Only a lawyer whose mind was closed would not know that the Magna Carta is still a law in Australia...<<

Surely, if anyone would know the positioning of Magna Carta in Australian law, it would be ...a lawyer?

But please, I am not omniscient, so I'm wide open to an explanation of exactly where it appears.

While you are at it, you might provide a clue to the meaning of the bit that followed...

>>the departure from its provisions embarked upon by the High Court and all the other courts of which it is head, is a gross insult to Christianity and all it stands for.<<

An insult to Christianity? Where does that come from?

Before you answer, I suggest you do some research on exactly why the barons were upset with the king, and what they were trying to get him to accept. It certainly had nothing to do with cementing Christianity into the lawmaking process, or even legal process. If anything, it took a substantial step towards the separation of the church from those activities, given that it cut through the "divine right of kings" to make his own laws, at his own convenience.

Better still, do us all a favour, and stop referring to Magna Carta as if it were relevant to today.

Pericles

Thank you for saying what I would like to say to PtB, but really can't be.............

In other words; life is too short to waste on responding to the PtB's of this world. And I have already wasted 60 seconds with this post.

Pericles must have a defective logic chip. Probably like most lawyer types, he does not even have a Constitution or a Holy Bible on his desk. To understand the Constitution it is necessary to have a Holy Bible, or at least a New Testament so that the logic of it can be understood.

The Magna Carta is relevant today because the Constitution is a contract. The Contract was between the diverse Christian factions in Australia who got together to form a universal catholic Church to govern the Australiasian colonies with one government. The Magna Carta was a condition precedent on that contract as were the numerous Imperial Acts including the Australian Courts Act 1828 forming part of the matrix on top of which the Constitution sits.

Despite their faults, the High Court sometimes gets it right. State appointed Barons, who no longer subscribe to Christian principles, sitting in Courts, all over Australia offend Christianity by defiling the Word of God, on a daily basis. High Court deliberations are given as much weight as most lawyers give the Constitution and Holy Bible. Australia is governed by a system that is like a chook with its head cut off.

Australia is an unruly fractious lawless country, with no uniting philosophy, and a weak and timid High Court tucked safely away out of any practical usefulness by Rules approved and sponsored by the Liberal Party. An equally useless Federal Court of Australia was created in 1976, which has done nothing to unite Australia for the same reason the High Court is not working. Neither have unfettered access, or a democratic fair impartial or just panel of judges, drawn from the electorate even though the Parliament of the Commonwealth has agreed to pay for them. The Constitution contract has a condition that the Parliament has a commission to make laws for peace, order and good government.

Unless there is a separate fair just and impartial Magna Carta court to determine as fact whether these laws are just or not, the Constitution is ineffective. A Ministerial delegate, is NOT a fair just and impartial court

PtB, it would appear that you haven't the faintest idea what Magna Carta is, nor indeed our Constitution.

Quote me one single line from either that supports your - quite ridiculous - claim that:

>>The Magna Carta is relevant today because the Constitution is a contract<<

Until you do, I'll join Fractelle in the observation lounge.

Tea, Fractelle? Or perhaps something a little stronger...?

Waterboy

I missed your post of the 3rd of March.
'Within you" makes perfect sense if you look at he Gnostic nature of Matthew and Gnosis being a Greek tradition of the day.

Marshal's is a direct translation. As a direct translation Marshal uses 'within' and I am happy with his credentials. I have no idea what you r credentials are.
'Within you' is only awkward if you do not understand that 'spiritual' is what comes from within. The fact that I do not read Greek (from any period) does not mean my capacity to understand is any less than yours. I have no problem with the context and I cannot see why a person who understands 'spiritual' or Gnosis should either.

I think your 'Jesus was clearly saying' to be just pushing your own particular agenda without taking the trouble to think past dogma. To those who seek truth rather than dogma 'within you' is a perfectly acceptable spiritual or Gnostic answer.

Oops Sorry. I forgot I am a heretic and should be burnt an the stake.

From your posts I gather you are some sort of academic and a Christian. I have never been able to understand how the two can be reconciled. One requires thinking and the other require non-thing addiction to dogma.

Daviy

In this case Marshall is wrong.

The point is that Jesus did NOT teach an 'internalised faith'.
His message was political, social and in its context subversive.

The shift towards a religion of 'internalised faith', 'personal salvation' and a 'system of beliefs' is a corruption of Jesus' message and played its part in producing the set of circumstances that allowed Church and State to combine into the ultimately powerful and ultimately corrupt institution known as the Holy Roman Empire.

You indicated that you respected (admired??) Jesus for His teachings. Im just trying to alert you to the fact that the teachings of conservative and evangelical churches dont quite line up with what Jesus really said and did.

Pericles

Something stronger; perhaps water, which if I close my eyes and simply believe enough, will turn into wine.

;-)

Wow Fractelle. You'd be a cheap date.

Could you work the same trick for my gin and tonic? <vbg>

It gets a bit hard to talk to some people who have no idea at all about contract law. I talk of both Fractelle and Pericles.

Even university grads who have passed out of our Law faculties, in the last forty years, have very little idea how we are governed from cradle to grave by contracts.

Every time we buy a loaf of bread we make a contract. That is a simple contract where one party agrees to pass over a couple of dollars and in return gets a loaf of bread.

Statutes are Contracts of Record. They are written down so that everyone who can read, that is most of us, can find them and understand their contents and obey the commands contained in them.

Deeds are contracts of record, recorded in the Land Titles Office, as a guarantee that when a dispute arises over ownership, a solid basis of evidence is available. It was not always so. Until the Torrens system of Land Registration was invented, possession was nine tenths of the law and if a person could prove by receipts or other evidence the courts would recognize a persons title, and uphold a trespass action against any transgressions.

It is all contract law, and the English made a contract with Almighty God and so did the Australian people in 1900, and if Fractelle and Pericles have a Constitution they will see that the people relied on the blessing of Almighty God.

Further there is s 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and the contract was set to bind the courts, judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State. The words court and judges are uncapitalised. They had discrete meanings in 1900; the word judges referred to the 12 judges of fact universally accepted as the Christian jury, and court, was a place where a justice sat and presided over a political meeting, where the rights of property owners were decided.

Thousands of unbelievers, have destroyed that system, and no man can be relied upon these days to keep his word.

Cheeky beggar, PtB!

>>It gets a bit hard to talk to some people who have no idea at all about contract law. I talk of both Fractelle and Pericles.<<

[Puts down gin and tonic. Glares over the top of his half-moon glasses]

>>if Fractelle and Pericles have a Constitution they will see that the people relied on the blessing of Almighty God. <<

As it happens, I have a copy right here.

The contractual relationship between God and Australia seems to be confined to the preamble's slightly apologetic phrase "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God".

Any lawyer worth his cheese would drive a coach and horses through that, in terms of the commitment made by the Almighty that PtB seems to infer.

[Hey Fractelle, that reminds me of the joke where the Devil scoffs "and where are you going to find a lawyer up there, God?" Another G&T perhaps?]

>>the word judges referred to the 12 judges of fact universally accepted as the Christian jury, and court<<

Universally accepted, PtB?

Doesn't follow, I'm afraid. We're back in the land of your opinion - which is perfectly valid, but is not in any way backed up by Magna Carta, or by the Constitution.

The sooner you accept that, the sooner we can have an intelligent conversation about whatever injustice you feel has been wrought upon you by our legal system.

Because that's what this is all about, isn't it?

Pericles

"we can have an intelligent conversation about whatever injustice you feel has been wrought upon you by our legal system."

I can't wait.

I also can't help but wonder what PtB's take is on Sharia Law? Ooops maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that.

Another G & T?

Daviy,
>> ... academic and a Christian. I have never been able to understand how the two can be reconciled. One requires thinking and the other require non-thing addiction to dogma.<<
What a sincere, although strange, admission of ignorance about our Western civilisation! Do you really need a list of ideas, humane institutions, scientific discoveries, technological achievements etc. that could not have come into existence without the contribution of quite a few people who could "reconcile" being both an academic/scholar/scientist and a Christian?

waterboy,
>> I am just trying to alert you to the fact that the teachings of conservative and evangelical churches dont quite line up with what Jesus really said and did.<<
May I also alert you to the fact that what I - like many others - was teaching about modern implications and extensions of Euclidean geometry does not quite line up with what Euclid really wrote or would have understood.

Expecting Jesus to talk to his fishermen about the problems of e.g. metaphysics or bioethics would be the same kind of anachronism as expecting Euclid to write about pseudo-riemannian or non-commutative geometry

George

Thanks for the Geometric analogy... unparalleled in this discussion... Im sure. But fun aside....

Daviy made the assertion that Christianity was primarily a religion of internalised .. spirituality .. for want of a better word. His exact words were "If there is a God I feel it has to do with an inner connection not external observance." He then proceeded to quote a Bible verse to support this view. The verse he quoted was mistranslated and deeply misleading. Jesus talked about a 'kingdom' that was being 'realised'. The signs of the kingdom were that the blind would see, the lame would walk and the prisoner would be set free. I think we've had this discussion before. The kingdom is primarily a metaphor of society and justice in society. Naturally individuals must change in order to change society but for Jesus the 'goal' was justice for all in the 'kingdom' of God. The goal is not personal and individual salvation for its own sake.

Daviy falls in with a long line of detractors who assert that religion (or faith) is an individual (and internal) matter. This is a seductive notion but Christians cannot afford to succumb to it. It is NOT consistent with Jesus' teaching or with His own behaviour. I believe Jesus message was social, political and subversive. As illustrated by Daviy's choice of text and translation.. the truth about Jesus is sometimes lost in poor translations and even worse theology. I am prepared to argue that in this forum and others.

waterboy,
I agree in principle with everything you wrote, including where you state that "for Jesus the 'goal' was ... not personal and individual salvation for its own sake" with emphasis on "for its own sake". And I would add that neither was he a fighter/seeker of justice in society, or self-determination for this or that nation, race, class etc., for its own sake.

Without these qualifications these would be just two "partial truths" (complementary if you like) about Jesus‘ “goals“, in the sense of a (medieval?) definition of heresy as not a total denial of "truth" (as the Church saw it) but as "partial truth passing itself as the total truth" e.g. about Jesus.

The Communists liked to call Jesus the first Communist (Protocommunist) in the sense that he taught about the primacy of the collective, societal, over the individual, personal. And Thomas Merton warns against the other distortion of Jesus’ teachings: "spirtitual perfection is appropriate rather to a philosopher who, ... unconcerned with the needs and desires of other men, has arrived at a state of tranquility where passions no longer trouble his pure soul. This is not the Christian ideal of holiness“.

I think the same could be said about Daviy's claim that religion (or faith) is just an individual, internal, matter: a "partial truth" passing itself as the "total truth". As far as I understand it, the Hindus have a distinction between Atman (the God within us) and Brahman (the God without us); Christians do not have the equivalent of Atman: the “God dwelling within” is closest arrived at through the concept of Grace or the Catholic understanding of Communion (“Jesus entering your heart” as explained to children).

I admire your understanding of the bible, including the technicalities of various translations. My approach to faith is more through the “Book of Nature” supported by what I can understand from the “Book of Scripture” (Galileo), rather than the other way around, which seems to be the case with most contemporary theologians, and I have to respect this.

If Pericles and Fractelle did a law degree, then they should go back and do a history degree too, and they would find the Christianity is the template for the government of Australia /UK Union up to and including Menzies in 1949, and Atlee in the UK. Jingostic Nationalism replaced Christianity.

Christianity is incorporated into the Australian Constitution and also that of the US is by the making of either the President or the Queen representative of Almighty God and then having all Judges and Magistrates swear allegiance. The English in the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) incorporated the four Gospels, but not the Epistles into their existing Constitution, after James II a closet Roman Catholic did a runner. The army told him they would not fight for a Roman Catholic King.

He word Queen or Her Majesty appears forty times in the Australian Constitution, and the Oath of Allegiance as Schedule taken by all Federal Judges and Magistrates, means that if they refuse a jury trial when requested, they are breaking their word. Jury trial was the way that Christianity separated administrative power from judicial power, and s 79 Constitution judges plural makes juries mandatory.

Menzies was a power freak, and when he could not count on the High Court doing his bidding after the Communist Party case, he closed its doors by giving a Registrar power to refuse to let a normal person file in its original jurisdiction. That was 1952. Commonwealth is a word from the KJV Bible, where it is found in Ephesians 2:12.

In the BS Bibles used in the US, the translation is citizen, and these are misleading and deceptive. As for Sharia Law, there is no mercy in it at all, and might is right. The Allah of the Qu’ran is not obliged to keep his promises as the Christian God does, and as a consequence a man is not bound by his word, only by writing. It is totally antithetic to the Christian law where Almighty God has promised law and justice in mercy, in all the judgments given by the Queen

This is getting marginally tiresome, PtB. You manage to avoid every direct question, responding only with the vaguest of generalities. This one is classic...

>>Christianity is the template for the government of Australia /UK Union up to and including Menzies in 1949, and Atlee in the UK.<<

"Template", PtB?

I assume that you are confusing the Queen's position as head of the Church of England, with the Pope's situation as head of the Roman Catholic church.

The Pope's position is all-encompassing: "...by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church [the Pope] has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise." ( extract from "Catechism of the Catholic Church" 2nd Edition)

The Queen has no parallel authority to speak for God. Therefore your linkage between the UK sovereign's relationship with Australia and God's position in the Constitution, falls apart at the seams.

>>Christianity is incorporated into the Australian Constitution and also that of the US is by the making of either the President or the Queen representative of Almighty God<<

She isn't God's representative, and nowhere is claimed to be so.

As a consequence, your insistence that "juries = Christ's justice" fails utterly.

>>Jury trial was the way that Christianity separated administrative power from judicial power<<

Sorry. Complete logical fallacy. Juries over the years have simply been one way to resolve a criminal accusation - there are many others - and have no connection with God at all.

>>...the Christian law where Almighty God has promised law and justice in mercy, in all the judgments given by the Queen<<

The Queen is not God's messenger. Nor does she give judgments, even by proxy.

>>If Pericles and Fractelle did a law degree, then they should go back and do a history degree too...<<

I can't speak for Fractelle, but I don't rely upon a degree in order to apply normal common sense to a situation.

It's a beautiful day, Fractelle. How about I mix some Pimms and we discuss PtB's neuroses, out on the terrace?

Peter,

Suspect you could be cobbling thingss together best left apart. According to Christianity, Jesus' substutitionary randsom, ushered a new era, making the the Law of Moses obsolete. Why? How? Before the crucifixion, the Laws represented the OT coventant. By way of the crucifixion, the OT Law became obsolete.

Between the first and three centuries various Jesus groups were established and these stepped back from the old Jewish laws, for the reasons stated. By the time of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), dogma led to the establishment Church laws. These were/are not secular laws. Rather, these acted to unify the Holy Roman Church out of the ashes of declining Roman Empire (476).

The Vicar of Christ holds secular and theistic titles. Elizabth II the Second makes no such claim. The title Defender of the Faith, as you possibibly know, comes from the Pope, and was given to Henry VIII, recognizing his scholarship. The English Parliament adoped and conferred the title on Henry's descendents. Really very much not what was intended by the pontiff.

Elizabeth I did have input in framing the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Yet, the Catholic Church of England goes back to the thirteen centuries, and there were missionaries back to Roman times.

If the Spanish Amarda had succeeded in 1588, Catholocism may very well have quashed the separation of the English Church from her Mother. If so,the Catholic King of England would most certainly defer to the Pope on religious matters.

The above counterfactual aside, the other true histiories do not support your argument. Nor would any contemporary theology.

Above, that is, Peter the Believer, not Peter Sellick. O.