Christians want a bigger say in the political processes. Christian teachings - Jesus believed in honesty.

Is the Howard Govt honest when

- The PM stated Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction when they didn't? Does Thou shalt not bear false witness apply?

- The PM justified invading Iraq to Parliament/people using evidence that was proved false used by the USA in the United Nations. Does Thou shalt not bear false witness apply?

- That as a result many thousands of innocent Iraqi's and soldiers have been killed. Does "Thou shalt not murder" apply to Iraqi's when this is an illegal invasion?

- Whilst our ADF personnel were in harms way did AWB pay kickbacks to Suddam Hussein's regime? Did our representative in the USA tell US Senator Norm Coleman that no kickbacks were occuring? Did Alexander Downer write on a document that he wanted to know about the whaet price calculations and then deny knowing about them? Is this dishonest?

- Did the PM announce prior to an election sweeping reforms to the Politicians Superannuation payments and then after the election reverse the decision? Is this dishonest?

- Did the PM change many of the promises that he made by introducing core and non-core promises? Is this dishonest?

- Has John Howard spent up to $1,000,000 a day on Government advertising? Is this dishonest against Jesus' teachings?

- What would Jesus have thought about the tax cuts to the rich and minimal tax cuts to the lower and middle income earners?

- What would Jesus have thought about the fibs regarding interest rates? Treasurer Howard presided over bank bill rates up to 21.39% in April 1982 whereas Keating presided over bank bill rates up to 19.56% in December 1985? Is the PM being dishonest?

- Would Jesus approve of a religious organisation paying for advertising advantageous to he PM's party? Shouldn't Christian money go to the poor?

Now I'm not saying Labor will be any more honest but when a track record of dishonesty is in front of you... What decision should a Christian take?

What would Jesus do?

This post has gone from a question of honesty to an attack using half truths about John Howard. The bible declares every man a liar except Christ Jesus our Lord. It is not possible to find one politician or person who is not corrupted to a degree. To what degree a person is corrupt is a matter of bias and opinion. Mr Howard, Mr Rudd, Mr Brown are all corruptible and dishonest to a degree. For me it is the policies that best protect the most vulnerable (the unborn and the old) that matter most. People who refuse to acknowledge the murder of the unborn usually have very little honesty in their answers. People conveniently ignore that Mr Rudd would have done the same thing as Mr Howard when it comes to IRAQ, Then again you need a bit of honesty to face up to that fact.

I don't know what logic determines that Rudd would have gone into Iraq just like Howard did. He wasn't even Opposition leader at that time for a start.

Howard (and Downer in particular) were making loud war-like noises long before the invasion, only then in was "we don't want regime change, we only want to disarm Saddam" and it was going to take "weeks, not months" to achieve.

Anyway, we're all doomed because a talking snake told a woman to eat some fruit from a magic tree. Can't argue with logic like that.

Wobbles. To-sha! Politician's are just a bunch of little school boys and girls that are just really out there too feather their own nests.
Don't have much time for pollies. Their greed blocks out their divine commonsense. This is just a little joke! Vote liberal! What a downer.

Wow Runner so you are quite happy to settle for lies being told to people... Hmmm A strange form of Christianity that one. Are we allowed to look for a more honest politician and if not why not?

So seeing you are honest what are the half truths that I listed?

John Howard said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... Truth? Did he lie?

You stated "To what degree a person is corrupt is a matter of bias and opinion" Really so proved wrong doesn't count, so proved a fib doesn't count... Hmm your Christianity (if that is what your espousing) seems to be very flexible on moral issues.

You also stated "For me it is the policies that best protect the most vulnerable (the unborn and the old) that matter most." Well you had better check your Bible for references on this stuff!

Bibles out everyone - Please Read Isaiah 14:21, Hosea 9:11-16, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Exodus 12:29-30, Jeremiah 51:20-26, Leviticus 26:21-22, Isaiah 13:15-18 .... What was God thinking? Surely this stuff can't be right?

But there's more Acts 5:1-11, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 19:47

Funny how Christians never read these bits... Did God look after the vulnerable in these verses? Hmmm?

Oh and Exodus 21 is always a gem... What? You can sell your kids into slavery?

I'm not telling half truths... what does your Bible say about Christian values in the above passages? If you guys believe all this stuff what does it say about your ability to assess even the simplest moral issues.

So why not start with the simple stuff... demand honesty from our Politicians and vote out people known to be untruthful. You have to start conquering sin somewhere... Good luck with that!

Honesty is both a value for Christians and also for non-Christians of goodwill. Pre -Christian philospohers had much to say about honesty.

As for which political party is more honest than another that all depends upon its members and if they wish to place honesty as a virtue in all they think, say and do.

I have never voted for the Libs or the Nats and pray God never will however I stopped voting ALP a few elections ago as they are not really a 'labor' party anymore.
We as individual human beings and also as human beings in community or trying to gain, retain and improve community solidarity, need to place moral values and virtues such as honesty ABOVE the tribal loyalties of any political party. We need to put Christ Jesus number 1 and the rest will follow.

I think it best for people to vote for pro life candidates in thier electorates, even if this hurts their own sense of tribal loyalty to any political party. Christ who is God comes first remember.
The Liberal Party allows abortion which is the killing of 100,000 Aussie unborn babies annually through the Medicare levy. When a few 'Christians' usually Protestant , sometimes Catholics ( but not many) tell lies or are deluded in thier thinking that the Liberal Party is closer to God's preference than the ALP I think that absurd.
BOTH political parties are supporters of en masse abortion of our Aussie unborn children.
So it stands to reason that if God comes first in our thinking, only does through daily prayer to Him who is Lord, that we can only vote for pro life candidates of the above parties or of others such as Fred Nile's CDP.
Ideally, in the future, we will have committed pro life Catholics and non-Catholics of good will ( ie pro life of course) joining the politicla party of thier choice or being independents to promote pro life and pro trade union family friendly policies.

Opinionated. Runner is quite right, you turned your post into the following:

1/ Attack on a particular political party
2/ Attack on Christian belief generally.

It looks like you have accessed some kind of 'skeptics annotated Bible' or.. "50 million contradictions in the bible" site and just rabidly pasted a heap of 'ammo' to hold Christian belief up to contempt.

The passages you blurted out show basically that you have little understanding of prophetic/anthropomorphic language and the culture of Israel during the time of the prophets. I could go though each passage one by one, but your post does not come from a sincere heart.. quite obviously. For the record though..I "sell" my son daily to a company which employs him.. I 'sell' myself to the Commonwealth bank.. you are simply taking the worst mental image of 'slavery' you can conjour up and applying it without reservation to a totally different time.

When I was in Sarawak..the Punan jungle nomads SOLD themselves to the Kelabits regularly ... ie... did work..for food...

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION....
It seems that no matter how many times the point is made... people with heads in the sand just don't see it.. so I'll make it a-gain.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
By IRA STOLL
Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

Hope that helps your foggy mind.

Nice one, Opinionated2 - and good timing. Last night's "Four Corners" on ABC TV depicted some of the most obvious "Christian" dishonesty I've seen, as a senior member of the Exclusive Brethren told porky after porky on camera about his sect's covert and hypocritical funding of political advertising in Australia and elsewhere.

That Boazy is a member of the related Open Brethren is uncoincidental: he has demonstrated time and again in this forum that he has a similar disregard for truth and honesty in his many 'political' posts to thsi forum, in which he enunciates essentuially identical views to those of his Exclusive Brethren cousins. Perhaps it's something they learn in Brethren 101 - how to reconcile telling lies with the Christian faith.

Boazy's response to your identification of some of the less palatable passages from the Bible is instructive. Those parts of the Bible are evidently supposed to be taken metaphorically, while Boazy insists that similarly odious parts of the Q'uran must be taken literally. This blatant hypocrisy has been pointed out to him many times, but his disingenuous blathering continues regardless, such is his regard for honesty.

His WMD line is classic - rather than acknowledge that Brethren hero Howard lied to the Australian public in order to justify our participation in the ongoing disaster that is the Iraq War, Boazy clings to unproven claims that the supposed WMD were spirited out of the country prior to the war. What has always struck me as ludicrous about this claim is that, if Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, surely he would have deployed them in his own defence in the war that he knew was coming?

Honesty and belief in religion – a phrase that can only be oxymoronic. To believe in a religion – any religion requires suspension of disbelief.

For example, a belief in Christianity requires acceptance of virgin births, resurrection of the dead, walking on water, living in the belly of a whale, parting of oceans; well the list goes on and on and I’m sure the astute reader can think of many other impossibilities, er, ‘miracles’.

These ‘miracles’ require the religious to have an interesting relationship with the truth. One might even say a dishonest relationship, hence I was unable to resist Opinionated2’s discussion thread.

Truth and religion are incompatible; therefore to express surprise when our Christian pollies tell whoppers is naïve indeed.

Maybe JC was honest, no-one can know for sure. No-one who wrote the gospels was there and JC didn’t write anything down, or if he did the words have been lost (which is very convenient for some).

As for the bible, we all know you can prove anything you want in its much abused text, so why should the religious be expected to be honest when they are unable to be honest with themselves? We can at least be grateful when someone claims to be religious, we have been warned.

So now the post has gone from a question to an attack on Mr Howard and now an attack on the character of God. Well instead of deceitfully disguising the question why was not the post just straight out an attack on the character of God. I suppose I have answered my own question in my original post in that every man be a liar while God is true. Everyone knows that even the United Nations believed IRAQ had weapons of mass destruction. Mr Beazley believed it, Mr Blair believed it and Mr Rudd believed it.

AS for the creation having the audacity to question the Creators character I find pitiful. It is amazing that God's love and grace has extended so far and so long. No one on these posts would have anywhere near the love, patience and long suffering that God has chosen to put up with.

Runner... You have totally missed the point ... I am not criticising the creator at all OR attacking God...

I am pointing out the parts of the Bible (the Bible) that Christians say is God's inerrant word. Is it God's inerrant word or not? If it is and Jesus is God then what do you say to that?

How can I be blamed for attacking God when it is passages of the Bible that I am quoting? ... I didn't write it... you guys believe God did! And therefore you guys believe God ordered these horrid things! Seems to me that your belief makes you a confirmer of these attrocities allegedly ordered by God!

No all knowing, all seeing GOD would order such atrocities! But you guys have to believe he did because you guys call yourself Christian and the Bible is your inerrant book of choice. So is the Bible God's word or not? And were the atrocities ordered by God or not? Please don't blame me for bringing passages in your book to your attention!

Now getting back to Howard... he is a known teller of untruths... proven time and time throughout his political career. These things are proven... What decision must be taken by Christians if someone continues to mislead the people? OOps I think that is covered by Jesus when he talks about Pharisees and Sadducees!

David David David... as usual you miss the point.... Put your thinking cap on... There were no weapons of Mass Destruction .. the war was about oil! Come on David don't hang your hat on that old article... the guys a book seller! The Yanks have even decided that they were wrong on that score.

I guess the only two people who still think they existed are John Howard and David Boaz... Howard got us in this mess because of the lie... what's your reason David?

Opinionated2

Again you question God's character. Yes God did command the 'slaughter' of some who committed great atrocities in sacrificing children and committing many other unspeakable acts. Of course in the new testament we see how much He loved people by sending His sinless Son to die on a cross. The fact that we are all caught in sin and rebellion towards God is undeniable. As I continue to point out let every man be found a liar but God be true. You question God's right to be God. I suggest you look to the only Man never to lie and receive forgiveness for your sin and lies. Termination on earth is minute compared to an eternity of torment. Thank God that He has given us the opportunity for the forgiveness of sins through Christ! The righteous man is not the one who has never lied (there is only One) but those who have had a heart change by the mercy of God.

Is honesty a Christian value?

No.

If Iraq's WMD's were secreted in Syria, I assume that the US and its allies would be making menacing noises at Syria, instead of at Iran. If not, then the conclusion can be drawn quite easily that either the author pointed to was wrong, OR the war was always about something other than WMD's (eg oil OR Bushy jnr's ego).

CJ, I hadnt made the correlation between BD's absolute interpretation of the Koran and the wavering interpretation of the bible before. Thanks for that! What is good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander. BD is usually quick to point out the differences between the New and Old testaments, which I notice he didnt bother with this time. Is this because they are one and the same god?! Maybe god has multiple personality disorder... hence the trinity.

Oh runner and Boaz!

I am quoting God's alleged writings about his own character from his own words the INERRANT BIBLE. When God allegedly commanded (your words) "the slaughter of some..." were there women, children, babies, unborn babies, old people slaughtered also? Is it dishonest for you to say I am questioning God's character?

God allegedly wrote this stuff... It is he, who by his own hand, (if you believe he wrote the Bible), through his alleged writings, brought his character into question - not me!

Should I quote John 3:16 and forget the rest? You are judging me (judge ye not lest ye be judged) for quoting passages from your INERRANT BIBLE! Runner I think you should remove the log in your eye before you remove the speck in mine! I don't question Gods right to be God I question your knowledge about Christianity and moral teachings!

CJ Morgan - Funny about Suddam not using his WMD's when under invasion... Boazy this is a very simple fact that a person who holds your views must address! So under attack Suddam chose not to use his WMD's... wow... maybe they were just palace ornaments! Ha!

David Boaz ... So you have sold your son into slavery at the company that employs him ... and you are a slave at the Commonwealth Bank... I know they need security for loans but I didn't realise they took you as that security... Ha! That is the silliest argument I have heard in ages. "Talk about the blind leading the blind". Exodus 21 didn't mention any of that interpretation David...OOps!

1. You guys have argued that by quoting Gods word I am attacking God's character! Shameful!

2. You have twisted the INERRANT Bible to suit your own arguments! Shameful!

3. And you ignore so many of Jesus teachings because you want to vote for Howard. I love flexible Christian morality... Ha!

Luke 12:47-48

Runner will you or Boaz contact John Howard so that he can add the right to beat staff under his WORK CHOICES legislation... It appears to be acceptable to Jesus!

"Is honesty a Christian value?"

Certainly not!

Just ask the Exclusive Brethren and their robotic cult followers!

It all seems to be getting a little heated in this particular kitchen, quite possibly because the opening proposition demanded that we equate a politician with Christianity, and Christianity with honesty, which is, it must be said, a fairly well-loaded question.

Fortunately, it did get a solid response from runner, who explains the Christian's relationship with the truth as follows:

>>The bible declares every man a liar except Christ Jesus our Lord.<<

That says it all, really. They are just the same as anyone else.

So am I being unfair, runner, if I determine from this response that your answer to Opinionated2's question, "Is honesty a Christian Value", is, quite simply, "No"?

I know you already explained this, Ginx, but it somehow sounds so much more convincing, coming from a Christian.

Although, when I think about it, why would I be more convinced by a self-confesed liar?

Too confusing. On balance, I prefer it when they are devious and underhand in their mendacity, rather than when they trumpet it from the rooftops.

I pointed out in my post above how holding a belief in events described in the bible requires a suspension of disbelief (just like in Harry Potter books), now I intend to show just where lying rates in the Top Ten.

1) I am the Lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
5) Honor thy father and thy mother.
6) Thou shalt not murder.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.
10) Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor.

And the winner is: Numero uno is where God proclaims his supremacy.
Number two on the list (as if to drive a point home) rules out any other gods before him. Followed by an admonishment to be very careful when using his name. Ego anyone?

Lying comes in at number nine. Clearly not very important compared to remembering how important god is.

Respect mum and dad (which is the first bit of common sense to appear in the big ten) but sadly doesn’t include respecting one’s neighbours. I wonder how many wars could’ve been averted if god had been more into respect for others.

Anyway, some more common sense; don’t murder anyone. Solid advice that; although it makes me wonder why so many good, good, good Christians are pro-capital punishment.

Then this is followed by adultery by which placement must mean that it is more heinous than stealing! Go figure.

Number ten almost seems like an afterthought: don’t be jealous. Which is sensible; envy doesn’t really make for a well balanced individual.

A shame that a simple “be kind to one another” couldn’t have it into the set. The world may have been a different place. Maybe replace the one about adultery with that instead.

:-)

Johnny,
Just looked at your post quickly, you have obviously failed to understand period and context. These are the basis of Israels national code of behaviour placed in the negative. As it is only when identifying the negative that an act of violation can be identified.
Jesus summs up the laws of Israel in the positive by Love and devotion of the holy character [God] and love and respect of neighbour. To be continued!

Welllllll... there is so much work to be done here.. to demythologize all that :) from CJ, Opinionated and others... but speaking of work..I have loads to catch up on myself.. so this might be a bit brief.

Opinionated said:

3. And you ignore so many of Jesus teachings because you want to vote for Howard. I love flexible Christian morality... Ha!

err...where did you get THAT idea ? You should see my views on the thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6514#96418

CJ must have been so busy sticking pins into his little BOAZ doll/efigy he forgot how to spell :)

"METAPHORICALLY" says Perilous our ever vigilant 'Boaz Buster' :)

No Pericles... I mentioned 'anthropomorphic language' as being one aspect of the issue.. there were so many quotes there that it's not possible to address them all.
One with as much knowledge of pedantry as you should not need to be convinced that there are sound principles of interpretation which must be applied to any document.
1+1=2 is pretty clear "Mathamatical formula expressing the outcome of adding two separate entities together"

'Love the Lord your God'...is of that level. "Gouge out your eye" is of a different kind, definitely metaphorical. "The believers must respect their parents" is of the 1+1=2 type.. "The believers can have sex with their slave girls" is ALSO of that type..

"The believers shall occupy themselves with Joyful things" regarding paradise, is metaphorical. Interpreted by Ibn Katheer as "deflowering virgins"

Knock knock..is there a brain in that head of yours?

"The Lords nostrils"...= anthropomorphic.

So..Opinionated.. just by way of conclusion. Your attack on me about 'you just want a vote for Howard'...while not accurate, is nevertheless an expression of your OWN position....right ?
Hence..your readers might be forgiven for seeing your biblical quotes as a cheap 'vote getting' exercise for a particular party.

EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN.... If they have ACTUALLY broken any laws.. as opposed to just 'annoying' Labor supporters..then chuck them in the slammer.. nothing more to say about that.

JOHNNY ROTTEN

mate.. you said:

"A shame that a simple “be kind to one another” couldn’t have it into the set."

Please..PLEASE read the Gospel of Mark
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=1&version=31

.. where you will find...THIS.

Ch 12:28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'There is no commandment greater than these."

Don't you realize that those 10 commandments were actually ABOUT the very thing you spoke ? But Jesus actually spells it out.

He said also

28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

AMENNNN 2 that ! When you discover this... you will have discovered life :)

blessings

Now you are just plain inventing stuff Boaz.

>>"METAPHORICALLY" says Perilous our ever vigilant 'Boaz Buster' :) No Pericles... I mentioned 'anthropomorphic language'<<

Is this a comment on something I said in another thread, Boaz? 'Cos it didn't come from this one.

But, if I had made such an observation - and I wouldn't put it past me to do just that - this is hardly a credible response:

>>1+1=2 is pretty clear "Mathamatical formula expressing the outcome of adding two separate entities together" 'Love the Lord your God'...is of that level. "Gouge out your eye" is of a different kind, definitely metaphorical. "The believers must respect their parents" is of the 1+1=2 type.. "The believers can have sex with their slave girls" is ALSO of that type.

Sorry, but this is completely unconvincing.

None of these comes even close to a "1+1=2" position. Mathematics - at this level at least - is designed to be precise and immutable, but more than that, cannot be formulated as a command or instruction.

You even stated it yourself - "the outcome of adding two separate entities together". If all you need is two entities, then you and your eye (available for gouging) are equally valid as believers and parents (available for respect).

If you are going to attempt analogies, I'd suggest you need some practice - this one simply doesn't fly.

But even if we ignore the absence of logic, and simply concentrate on your conclusions, they don't stack up either.

You were attempting to explain that "'The believers must respect their parents' is of the [factual] type.. 'The believers can have sex with their slave girls' is ALSO of that type."

But beyond your opinion, what evidence do you offer?

>>Knock knock..is there a brain in that head of yours?<<

Yes indeed there is, Boaz. And in stark contrast to yourself, I am actually using mine.

And if you do really want to get stuck into something, try runner's theory that all Christians are liars. That should keep you busy for a while.

David Boaz ... thanks for your reply.

I apologise for presuming you were a John Howard toting right wing fundy. I have no political allegiances. I don't like any of them!

But also I think that people who have voted one way all their life are anti-democracy. I can never believe that someone has never been upset enough with a Govt to want to change their vote at least once! Wars, lies, unethical behaviour, greed ... nothing has ever caused them to change their vote. Amazing!

Democracy is always undervalued when it is described as "You get the chance to vote". Many countries have a vote ... and many democracies have rigged votes... Yep even good ol' US of A http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03EED91F3AF936A25751C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

The strength of a democracy is when "people of good will vote against the party they normally would vote for because they see too many lies and dishonest activities" An even stronger Democracy is where people are "totally not aligned and vote with absolute conscience" ...

I do not refer to myself as Christian but I certainly believe that the "religious right" is giving Christians a very bad name. In fact I would go as far as saying they could be the greatest threat to democracy in the future as they no longer vote with "conscience".

They have doctrine driven biases usually based on misguided interpretations of the Bible. An interesting word that "interpretation ". If it is Gods word... You aren't entitled to interpret it... Christians have to just accept it as "The Truth"!

So then getting back to the fundamentals outlined in it.. proven liars have to be voted out.

If we are involved in an illegal war... Thou shalt not murder applies

If we use false evidence in parliament ... Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor applies

If we lie because someone wants oil ... Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor applies

If we talk about aborigines and our taking of Australia ... Thou shalt not steal applies

There is no room for flexible morals!

Hi Opinionated....that was a much more palatable post :)

You said:

"I do not refer to myself as Christian but I certainly believe that the "religious right" is giving Christians a very bad name"

the "Lords Resistance Army" of nothern Uganda has not helped either :) but we need to examine...

LRA.. a close inpsection of that mob reveals that Joseph Coney is a spiritist....not a Christian.. he makes reference to the Commandments..but thats about it. He gets his 'guidance' from 'spirits'.

Christian Right ... interesting term. I don't think there is an automatic connection between 'Christian' and 'right' although on many issues Christians would be quite conservative over values.

I've just sent an email to my local Liberal member explaining:

"Remember when I wrote about using your Senate and HR majority to STOP the flow of xxx rated Porn from ACT to the rest of Australia"?

Then..I reminded him of the answer I got from Philip Ruddock... "We believe adult Australians have a right to decide what they view"

EXCEPT of course..if they happen to be an indigenous community in self destruct close to an ELECTION...... oh..THEN..we can pull the plug on them getting access to it.

Well... my values are firmly founded on Christ..and 'lust' is not one of His...so pandering to it is OFF my list of priorities.

You can fully expect a not too suttle reminder in a couple of posts from CJ and Perilous using the last sentence as the hook and then me being berated for 'hate speech' :) but that goes with the territory.

INTERPRETATION.. is really not that hard...and is based on very simple principles. I totally agree that many Christian denominations have placed undue emphasis on some aspects of doctrine.. Church of Christ comes to mind over 'Baptism' (you need to sus that out to know what I'm on about)
But Hitler clearly got it wrong when he used the cleansing of the temple to justify exterminating millions of Jews.
-"Jesus chased the 'Jews' out of the temple"....
-"We must follow his example"....
Where did he go wrong there ? :)

Pericles you ask

'So am I being unfair, runner, if I determine from this response that your answer to Opinionated2's question, "Is honesty a Christian Value", is, quite simply, "No"

The answer to that is that unless a person has a change of heart by the Truth Himself he/she is unable even with good intentions to always speak the truth. A value appears to be something we seek to attain to. Again you would not be able point to one person who has never told a 'white lie' or exaggerated beside Jesus Himself. Mr Howard along with Mr Rudd and every other politician is part of the fallen human race.

Honesty I believe is a rare commodity which few actually attain to. Churchman, scientist, environmentalist and people from every other area of life fail in this area. Until people face up to the human condition honesty is just measured in degrees or by perception.

Hi David... I think most of my posts are palatable because I tend to rely on facts or references to base my argument. It is like where I stated the not so pleasant verses from the Bible for people to acknowledge... they are there... I didn't make them up ... and Christians need to understand that they are allegedly Gods words and instructions.

The fact that no-one addresses them when brought to their attention proves that Christians also have problems with these verses. I'm not Christian and I have problems with these verses - they are outrageous and not to be ignored.

The news about the Exclusive Brethren is also a worrying moral development for Christians. If this organisation is using it's tax free status as a religion but paying for pro-Govt advertising from church moneys then is this immoral? Surely it undermines the tax free status of religions!

John Howard sees nothing wrong with it... again if not? why not? Surely he as PM can't allow organisations with tax free status to use the moneys for political advertising?

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.disinterestedparty.com/mt-static/images/brethrenad.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.disinterestedparty.com/archives/2007/01/completely_gree.htm&h=229&w=362&sz=28&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=wdKcWwx5VtAEIM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreens%2Bbrethren%2Bliberal%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

Scroll down and read this page for some interesting information

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://peebs.net/Library/News/TheAgeInBrief-20070215.jpg&imgrefurl=http://peebs.net/news.html&h=309&w=299&sz=44&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=0ywG95OPWS8ceM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=113&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreens%2Bbrethren%2Bliberal%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

If honesty is a Christian value - Do Mr Howard & co and the Exclusive Brethren have a lot to answer for? Isn't this group undermining Christianity and is Mr Howard being dishonest in his answers regarding this organisation?

Does he look like the cat that swallowed the canary when questioned on the Exclusive Brethren?

"There is no room for flexible morals!
Posted by Opinionated2"

But clearly there is, Opinionated2, the bible is interpreted as suits the Christian, we have examples of the differing beliefs from runner, to Boaz, to Philo, on this very thread – they all have a different take on it and little of it is straight forward. The only area where they appear to have some form of consensus is that they are somehow more enlightened than non-religious simply because they claim to be Christians – otherwise they wouldn’t proselytise like they do. They would live and let live.

Like the Red Queen they can hold more contradictory thoughts at any given time than angels can dance on a pin.

Impossible to hold a straight forward argument with any of ‘em. Except maybe Jack Spong or Father Bob, even Tim Costello seems a reasonable sort of bloke. But these men are well-educated, erudite and open and freely admit to the many contradictions in the bible.

Quote the OT and the seriously christian will counter with the NT and vice versa. Then they’ll add a plethora of cherry picking and there is no way to apply straight forward reasoning as you have attempted to do, OP2.

At least ‘runner’ admits that honesty is not a Christian value – ironically the most honest thing s/he has ever posted. However, s/he will still apply his/her moral code on others simply because of his/her religion.

There is no room for honest reason if you are religious, otherwise you might have to admit that very little in the OT & NT is based on fact.

As a believer I can't understand why the exclusive brethren have to hide the fact that they support Mr Howard. I personally find both the liberal and Labour party tending towards more and more towards secular values rather than our once held biblical values. I would have no problem however in publicly giving my money to those fighting for the unborn or elderly. In my eyes some in the Liberal party are ahead of the Labour party but not by far. I would love to see a man of conviction like Mr Abbot being our Prime Minister. The exclusive brethren have the democratic right to support who they want. I have no doubt that the porn industry in Canberra support the most degenerate politicians in Canberra. In this way they split and destroy far more families than any church while making massive profits. Why no objection to the kids being abused because of this industry? The ABC is a waste of space.

Opinionated and Johnny...

Re the Bretho's... as I said..if they have broken any laws..let the law deal with them.

I'm more concerned about interpretations of the Bible at this juncture.

There are many 'unpalatable' passages.. no question about that.

"I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" is one.. "If your eye sins..gouge it out" is another..

"unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh, you have no part in me"

might also be seen that way.

Given that the Bible CAME FROM Christians (New Testament) it is not surprising that the Church might have a view on how it should be interpreted.
The problem comes..when a particular denomination or tradition..knowing full well what it says.. CHANGES something to make it better fit their traditions. Example.. The Catholic Church has decided that Mary was 'immaculate and a virgin' till death. But scripture clearly shows "James the brother of our Lord"..and "His mother and brothers were calling for him"

So...they simply re-interpret these passages to make them harmonious with their doctrine.. you simply need a basic knowledge of Church history and New Testament background to see the truth here.

Jehovah's witnesses change certain verses to weaken Jesus divinity.

The Old Testament passages are the most difficult to relate to from our modern perspective, BUT..having said that.. and having lived in a Tribal culture for over 8 yrs... and seeing MANY of the same kinds of things...... I find them neither shocking or suprising.

Refer to my previous post about anthropomophic language etc please.
cheers

David you wrote:"The Catholic Church has decided that Mary was 'immaculate and a virgin' till death. But scripture clearly shows "James the brother of our Lord"..and "His mother and brothers were calling for him" "

Taht is because the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is THE nomination. The 'de' prefix refers to those people who broke away to form their own 'churches'. The Catholic Church quite authoritatively does not officially refer to them as CHURCHES.

The WRITTEN Word of God is the Bible however, there is a part many people miss, that is, that the Word of God also includes the un-written Word of God which is found in the authortative teachings on faith and morals proclaimed to the church universal through all of the Church Councils from the Council of Jerusalem ( which is in the New Testament) through to the ONGOING Councils til the end of time.
Teaching is not a MUSEUM piece NOR a DEAD LETTER.

Mary is Ever Virgin. Here are the quotes many Protestants conveniently gloss over, ignore despite them hitting poor Catholics over the head with their Calvin or Luther man made line:
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Here is the continuation of the Holy Scripture defending Our Lady's virginity:
Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

and lucky last:
Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

David B wrote
scripture shows James the brother of our Lord..and His mother and brothers were calling for him

So...they ( the Catholic Church)simply re-interpret passages to make them harmonious with their doctrine.. you simply need a basic knowledge of Church history and New Testament background to see the truth here.

Do you have those basics David?
Jesus' Brothers (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some translate kinswoman "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there's no word for cousin.

Luke 22:32 Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren. We clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 the gathering of Jesus' (brothers) amounts to about 120. That's a lot of (brothers). Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 some of many other examples where (brethren) doesn't mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 Paul uses (brethren) and kinsmen interchangeably. (Brothers) of Jesus doesn't prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 Lot is Abraham's nephew (anepsios) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is anepsios, Scripture also uses adelphos to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 Laban calls Jacob is brother even though Jacob is his nephew. This proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 brethren' means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for cousin.

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 here we see that brethren can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 King Ahaziah's 42 'brethren' were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 Eleazar's daughters married their brethren who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 more examples of brothers meaning cousins' or kinsmen.

Tobit 5:11 Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself still calls him brother.

Amos 1: 9 brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there's no bloodline

The meek shall inherit (alas a destroyed one )earth.So we should bow to our masters and do their biding as when it is lost and they face the maker it will all be mine.Oh NO I'm the only one left.

Tony Abbott for PM... Tony Abbott for PM... Give it a break runner ... you have just given Peter (Nobody likes me) Costello a heart attack. Don't worry Pete... it was a joke... Go back to giving tax cuts to the rich... you are good at that.

runner... Many of the rotten people who have hurt children have been priests, ministers, lay ministers and members of churches haven't they? Didn't one ex-Arch Bishop/Governer General have to resign because he forgot his duty under the law to report to the police a priest under him who was accused of these horrid crimes? Why don't churches report offenders in their organisations to the Police?

Do you have proof that these companies in Canberra are financing any politicians and if so who? If you can't prove it you have just broken one of the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not bear false witness! I think you need the proof to say such a thing. If there is a pollie being so financed tell us please?

runner/David - If the Exclusive Brethren are using their tax free status to raise money for political advertising isn't that immoral? I thought Jesus taught that people should give money to the poor! I don't think he said they should be paying for the ads of Politicians did he? Did jesus pay for Pontius Pilate's advertising?

Are your views on Christianity and right and wrong a little strange? I think your heart is in the right place... but is your mind?

You have a moral dilemna runner... either Churches are businesses and should pay taxes OR they are tax free organisations who use their funds for the betterment of poor, sick and underpriviledged people in society. John Howard knows he is in trouble on this one... and when did political advertising become a Christian value?

runner are you a bit lost on this thread?... afterall - all people are liars! You said it yourself! I see now this thread is going to be the catholics Vs Protestants ... great!

Opinionated2,

Well put.

For your info, here's an indication of the number of clergy charged with sex crimes as the result of one campaign (and one religion) alone.

http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html

Considering these figures in proportion the the number of clegy in the general population it seems they have a problem living up to their own rhetoric.

Not that I would ever want to get between a Catholic and a Protestant squabbling over who owns God ... and whose Church is the real Church but I think we should all be aware of the problems that churches have in their histories before we start taking the moral high ground.

Wobbles placed a most interesting link which regretfully shows a list of unholy evil people who have been charged and found guilty of abominable crimes in Australia.

Let me say that most people in most religions are good decent people who try to be honourable people in their daily lives.

So in an effort to keep to the topic Is honesty a Christian Value? I thought I might share these links with you.

If true this should be most worry some for honest catholics http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Popes.html

You can get another view from this Catholic encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

So many evil deeds have been done by those calling themselves Christians who belong to Allegedly Christian organisations that one has to wonder what attracts scumbags to Churches and why do churches ignore their histories?

You will note that in the Catholic encyclopedia they have stopped documenting what the modern day Popes did ... Most curious!
So from Benedict XV (1914-22) to Benedict XVI (2005—) they have decided for some reason not to comment on individual Popes.

You will note that is from WW1 (1914) onwards. Why?

Some people have called - Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) Hitler's Pope
as Hitler, who was allegedly a Roman Catholic was never excommunicated for causing the death of millions; whereas Martin Luther was excommunicated for criticism of the papal system. Strange but true!

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm Is worth a look!

Oh Oh now look at the problems we have with all things Biblical!

Somehow we have to get back to the original question relating it to modern politics but seeing some are claiming to own God I thought we might go for a stroll down memory (oops history)lane... lol

Hi there Webby..... welcome to OLO.

I appreciate that you took the effort to actually argue your case in contrast to some on this forum who resort to personal abuse to 'win' :)
I don't agree with your voluminous argument.. for reasons I will outline.

1/ Why is it neccessary to project 'back' a doctrine of perpetual virginity ? from when it was decided. It was 'decided' not revealed.
2/ What WAS revealed..is as follows:

Mark 6:1-3

1Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."

CONTEXTUALLY there is no reason NOT to read this as 'his own' brother.. James. The plain simple meaning... taken as we would intepret ANy text.. is that those referred to here are his immediate siblings. Real brothers and real sisters. If not... there is no point in 'singling' them out from the rest.. is there ? No..of course not.

continued in part 2

PART 2 Paul....

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Again...there is no reason whatsoever to read OUT of this that James is the Lords real and immediate brother. The only reason one might like to do that is to impose an artificial meaning on it.. as in the sense of a backward projection.

The absense of any specific teaching or even strong suggestion or hint of Mary not having any more children reduces the need to impose such a meaning. It just...does not matter. Plain and simple.

Mary could not possibly have been a technical virgin after Christs birth as the hymen would have been well and truly ruptured. Claiming that is may have been healed is again.. an argument totally from silence and 'dogma' rather than the plain meaning of the text.

Mary.. has been elevated to 'co-redemptrix' by the Catholic Church and this along with various other things (such as indulgences) is what differentiates it from the protestant tradition.
The idea that we can pray to any other than God... Father,Son and Holy Spirit.. is in direct conflict with the very first and second commandments.

CONCLUSION.. whether Mary had other children with Joseph.. simply does not matter.. it will not change an iota of the Lords saving work or teaching.. Salvation is still in the Christ who died for our sins.. conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.....

The only reason to add or invent any doctrine other the the simple plain language of the text would be to impose human tradition on it.
If it is not specifically taught... why even think about it ?
Will we be 'less' saved by the Lord if we believe his human mother had more children after him ? Would it change his miraculous birth ?
Is prophecy less fulfilled if she has more children ?
No to all :)
blessings.

Now I will enter the middle of a Protestant and a Catholic debate.

David ... I don't think praying to Mary is against the 1st and 2nd commandments ... I think it conflicts with Matthew 6.9 where Jesus, your Christ tells you expressly how to pray.

He says "This is how you SHOULD pray"

Is Jesus' precise explanation not enough? Also note he didn't say you can add bits to it or leave bits off... Can Christians simply follow there Christ' instruction?

Now I don't think praying to Mary is wrong or evil it just isn't biblical....

Is the Trinity biblical? .... Jesus said things like "Forgive them father for they know not what they do"... "If it be thy will" ... "Our Father who art in heaven" ... Um why would he say these things to himself...

Oh OH Christians re-interpreting the Bible again to suit their doctrines... God save me from your followers...lol!

So if you good men of Christ are going to fight on doctrinal matters... what does that say to us mere mortals sitting on the fence watching the silly debate?

See if my understanding is right... Christian = Christ's teachings... not Paul's, not the Vaticans, not Peters... but Christs! The others are man's interpretations...

You guys can't even understand and follow Christ's precise instructions. Who gave you the right to re-interpret Jesus' teachings?

There is only one ministry... It is the Ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ... Why do Christians have to name ministries after themselves? Isn't this sheer arrogance and pretending to be equal to your Christ?

Now if you guys can't tell us the truth about Jesus... why would we listen to you about anything? Could we non-christians know more about spiritual matters than you with your heads in the Biblical soup?

Is honesty a Christian value? Is following Christ precise teachings honest? Is it Christian to vote for a known untruth teller? Is a liar on the public record like a Pharisee or a Sadducee and just a snake ...as Jesus called them? Could you guys be Pharisees and not realise it?

Dear David
Our Lady as co-redemptrix will be made a dogma in the future. Currently it is ordianary teaching status; so you will get your imposition in another century LOL. This teaching is based,once again from the earliest centuries.
Indulgences are still valid; don't confuse them with Tetzel's abuse of them. An abuse doesn't negate a teaching/principle.

You mention Protestant tradition. So you hold to a tradition nevertheless which is curious as Protestants are meant to negate traditions as being man-made. The true position of course is that there are not only man made traditions but also apostolic traditions. Many Protestants do not know the difference.

You and I have provided bible quotes however the Catholic Church preceded the New Testament. The decision on which books were accepted and which were not to be accepted was made by the Council of Rome and 27 books that make up the NT were declared.
Divine Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Scripture records here that we go to the Catholic Church; not read the Scriptures from outside of the Church nor make up our own ideas to form 'churches' contrary to the one and only visible Church.
On Our Lady as Mediatrix:

Much of the devotion to Mary shown by Christians of the Catholic and other Ancient Churches depends upon Mary's mediation. This mediation is seen in terms of Mary's assistance in prayer and in obtaining grace.

Many Protestants oppose prayer to Mary and the Saints, citing this verse:

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; " (I Timothy 2:5)

As in other cases, Protestant fundamentalists often tend to quote just one verse completely out of context. let's look at the whole passage.

"I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings, for all those in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and holiness. This is good and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus."
1Timothy 2:1-5

From this full text of the passage we can see three important things:

1. Paul is asking fellow Christians to pray and intercede with God for those in authority and for other third parties.

2. These prayers and intercessions are being made on behalf of other people, and to God. This is a mediation of prayer. Christians are being asked to mediate between all people, Christian and non-Christian, and God.

3. Since this is all one passage, it is absolutely clear that when Paul refers to there being only one mediator between God and men, he is not referring to the mediation of prayer. Jesus's unique mediation is a different mediation - the mediation of our salvation.

Jesus is the one Mediator of our salvation, our only Saviour. But He is not our only intercessor, as the whole passage above clearly indicates. So the one passage that fundamentalists have used to deny intercessionary prayer, when read in context, actually backs up intercessionary prayer.

YES. BUT WHY SHOULD I ASK MARY OR ANYONE ELSE TO PRAY TO GOD FOR ME WHEN I CAN PRAY TO HIM MYSELF?

When we are ill, or someone we care for needs prayer, we ask other people to pray to God for us. Why do we do this if our own prayer is enough?
In James 5. 14-16 we are told to get the Elders of the Church to pray for us and to annoint us when we are sick. Reading on, we find:

Mediation is biblical
In James 5. 14-16 we are told to get the Elders of the Church to pray for us and to annoint us when we are sick. Reading on, we find:

James 5: 16-18 " ...The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful. Elijah was a human being like us; yet he prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain upon the land. Then he prayed again, and the sky gave rain and the earth produced its fruit."

So we see that intercession strengthens prayer. And the more righteous and faithful the intercessor is, the more powerful the prayer.

BUT THAT IS PRAYER ON EARTH. I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT PEOPLE IN HEAVEN CAN NEITHER SEE US OR PRAY FOR US.

That is a recent, man-made doctrine, with no authority behind it.

Hebrews 12.1 speaks of "a great cloud of witnesses" who surround us, and who consist of the faithful holy ones of God. Many examples of these witnesses are given in the preceding Chapter 11 of Hebrews.

Later in the Bible we see this vision of heaven:

Revelation 4.4: Surrounding the throne were twenty four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.
Revelation 5.8: ...and the twenty four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

The twenty-four elders are shown offering the prayers of Christians to God; which is a mediatory role

Dear Webby...
thanx for the voluminous response:)
I noticed one 'living dangerously' bit in your post:

"But He is not our only intercessor" woops.. heresy alert meter is banging on the full scale deflection point :)

Nevermind..we have both shared our views.. let it be up to grace to confirm or deny anything under God...

I want to mention a CHRISTIAN VALUE now.. not related to our parenthetical discussion, but of a general nature.

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXMjh_XbkiI&mode=related&search=

That video shows a marine hit by a sniper. (Snipers vid apparently) the events which followed are quite remarkable. The marine recovered, (flack jacket) was able to identify a lone 'van' about 75 meters away, and got off a couple of rounds into it as it fled.
The marines followed the van, and caught up with the wounded sniper in a back yard he had run into. The marine who was shot at, is a medic. He was interviewed on the news. He described how when they found the sniper, they immediately gave him medical attention and possibly saved his life. It was the medic who had been shot who gave that attention to the sniper.

Contrast this with the gruesome beheadings and torturing of Marines captured by Al Qaeda. Or even the 'Allahu Akbar' chanted by the sniper after he scored a hit on the Marine.

Yes..Christian values are alive and well.. God IS great..when the murderer/sniper experiences true greatness at the hands of his would be victim...the man he just tried to kill minutes earlier.

This is fun.

Following the Boaz vs Webby debate is like happening across a jelly-wrestling match in a Biloxi bar.

You've no idea what the rules are, you can't understand a word they shout at each other, but you hang around in case one of the participants accidentally exposes themselves.

Keep going, champs.

Hi there Pericles...I'm glad you dropped in at this moment.
Don't worry too much about Webby and me 'ripping each others throats out' :) My only concern really is that Webby knows and love the Almighty and knows the meaning of repentance and faith. I think he does. How he expresses that, and even though I may not adhere to his views.. does not diminish my deeper longing for his experience of Christ to be real and enduring.

But ....back to you :)

You may find this online article somewhat down your ally, as you often sternly rebuke we 'fundies' for our lack of credible historical evidence for Jesus.. ok.. if you have time, check this out.

http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/montgomerypap.html

He is not exactly underqualified...

John Warwick Montgomery
M. Phil. In Law (Essex), Ph.D.(Chicago), Th.D. (Strasbourg)
Of the Middle Temple and Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister-At-Law;
Member of the CA, WA,VA, DC and US Supreme Court Bars;
Emeritus Professor of Law & Humanities
University of Luton, ENGLAND;
Professor Apologetics and Vice-President for Academic Affairs-UK & Europe,
Trinity College and Theological Seminary, Newburgh, Indiana

He is also an international human rights lawyer.

Quite easy to listen to, but not sure how easy to read :) I'll try to find an audio link.

aah...found em...

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/montgomery.htm

Some easy listening :)

You never know...by the end of this you might even understand what Webby and I are going on about.

Actually Pericles, I would more liken it to two stablehands arguing over the interpretation of an ancient Roman text about how to breed and train racehorses. While much of it may hold true, since the essential nature of horses hasn't changed, many of the specifics will be irrelevant or obsolete to a modern racehorse. While you could still train them in the same way, and you may have a healthy horse, you would very likely not have a competitive horse.

There's no need to bother posting audio for me, Boaz, I haven't the time for it.

Written words, though, are something else.

I love them. I love them all. As much as anything, they tell us an enormous amount about their author, and the way they navigate their way through life.

Take your new-found Professor Montgomery. He uses words as a means to earn his living, so they are critically important to him, or there's going to be no marmalade on his toast tomorrow.

The offering you pointed me towards was "A Critique of Certain Uncritical Assumptions in Modern Historiography", where his first target was the - interestingly unattributed - assertion that "'Miracles' are not a proper subject for historical investigation".

Unfortunately, his entire argument can be summarised as "since you can't prove anything is impossible, you might as well study it anyway, just in case."

I defy you to put his argument any more accurately than that.

So when it came to the "did Jesus really say that stuff" argument, I wondered if he would use the same trick.

He doesn't disappoint, does he?

"The answer, surely, is to treat the biblical materials with utmost historical seriousness — and that necessitates, we have tried to demonstrate here, both an openness to miracle and an opposition to unscholarly styles of criticism as the historian confronts God’s self-proclaimed written revelation"

His position again is that since no-one can disprove the accuracy of the Gospels, we should necessarily accept them as... well, gospel.

Is there really nothing more to it than that? If there is, please point it out to me.

I expect that there are everyday pressures on folk like Professor Montgomery to produce lots of words. He is probably measured, professionally speaking, on his word-related output. I can only attribute the emaciated nature of his argument to his need to write words - any words - in order to butter that toast.

Thanks for pointing him out, Boaz. If only to show that it doesn't matter how much academic status you have achieved, you can still talk nonsense.

runner - the issue with the exclusive brethren was more complicated than that.

Of course they can support who they like - but one requirement of electoral advertising, is that a name and address is attributed.
An important part of our democratic process is knowing who is saying what - if a smear is launched, we need to know who is behind it, or the political negative campaigns would get utterly out of hand and there would be no accountability for what is said about any candidate.

The exclusive brethren did their best to hide the fact they were supporting candidates. Part of this is probably due to the fact that as EB, they don't vote, as they believe it is interfering in god's choice of leadership. Many people find it strange that they're happy to interfere in other ways however, which is part of what has driven the investigation.

It wasn't that the EB supported a party, it was that they tried to hide it because they didn't want to be seen for the hypocrites they are. If they'd been honest in their dealings, they wouldn't have gotten in trouble... which actually relates back to hte title of this thread, funnily enough.

Oh, and I'd hate nothing more than to see Abbott as prime minister, though it doesn't surprise me in the least that you like him.
Fortunately, he's got no hope.
Oh, and the ABC's the best TV news we have.

Care to illuminate a better Australian news television show? What's that? You can't? Golly. How surprising.

Oh, and porn is barely a blip on the political radar.
Darn I'm glad the christians haven't yet managed to seize control.

TRL

Regulations stipulate that donations under a certain amount need not be officially declared by a political party.

Donating money to the party of your choice, in "dribs and drabs," allows for a substantial amount of donations to be coveted without disclosure. I've forgotten the threshold figure for the moment though.

It will be interesting to discover how the EB, small business owner will attempt to justify the substantial deposit in his bank account - particularly to the Taxation Department though will we ever know?

I view the tax-free church of EB as hypocrites. If you want to covertly donate money to a political party, who is sympathetic to your ideologies, then it should be compulsory for sect members to vote.

The trinity - Jesus says,

Matthew 27:46 (Psalm 22:1) "My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?"

John 17:3, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

John 3:16, For God so love the world that he SENT his only begotten SON.....

PLUS the Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible...Itis a convenience but Jesus never mentioned it... If God knows all things past, present and future don't you think he would have known this debate would consume & divide Christians?

Most of you Christians are Paulians.... Your eat, sleep, and drink his words and call them devine! You use a man's words - Paul's to argue ... poor old Jesus is left sitting on the sidelines and yet he is allegedly your saviour.

So whose is the real Church... well I would have to say none of them... You guys have followed man's interpretations, man's teachings and forsaken the teachings of the one you proclaim as your saviour Jesus Christ.

So I guess it proves that the worst people to ask about Christianity is a Christian... for "Forgive them Father they know not what they do".

Your cherry picking of passages has created you great harm ...

So how can you remove "the speck from your brothers eye when you have a whole forest in your own"

Now back to the topic at hand... Is honesty a Christian value? Well maybe it is Are you modern day pharisees? Then at least you are honest about something!

If Jesus is the "Son of God" then he might as well not have come... for all the good it did... Christians can justify anything, from any source and ignore Jesus' words at any time.

If Christians can't agree on the simple things in your own religion - Christianity... what hope is there for you guys wanting to partake in political issues

David are the Exclusive Brethren doing a Christian deed and following Jesus teachings? Is what they have been doing morally correct?

OOps John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he GAVE his ONLY begotten SON... so that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish but have everlasting life!

If Jesus is God .... He would have said

For I so loved the world that I came to Earth to be amongst you so that whosoever believeth in ME shall not perish but have everlasting life!

God surely isn't about creating confusion over his words is he? So humans must be about creating confusion over his words!

Why would anyone calling themselves Christian undermine Christ their saviour by selectively quoting the Bible to divide the Lord Jesus Christ's Ministry?

Why would anyone invent a Trinity when their is absolutely no true evidence of it in the resource used by all Christians the Bible?

Why would any Christian put themselves in a position that undermines the Lord Jesus Christ?

Read Matthew 5 & 6 and know what Christ said to do.... Be that and stop arguing for Gods sake!...lol

Now is being involved in an illegal war causing the deaths of many innocent people breaking a commandment ?... Thou shalt not kill!

Is lying to the Australian People through parliament about WMD's bearing false witness? Thou shalt not bear false witness!

Is lying to the UN bearing false witness?... Yep

Is praying to Mary a sin?... Dunno I respect my earthly mum so I gather Jesus would probably respect his.

Is the world in a better state because of these lies? Nope!

Is honesty a Christian value?... Looks like the answer is Nope!

Wow... what a happy little bunch of vegemites ... Christians have become...lmao

The Sermon on the mount is wonderful ... go immerse yourself in it PLEASE! May God forgive you all!...lol It seems "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".... The Athiests get heaven lmao

You Christians my need to knock to get in...lmao

Webby,
I must say I agree with much of what you have said! [I am definitely not Roman Catholic] Mary was dedicated by her parents at the age of three to the education, service and life of the temple. When it was determined that because of her pubity she fulfil the role of Isaiah 9 to have a child. She refused sexual advances toward her by a known servant at the temple as violation of her lifelong vow. She only had one child nominated to be "King in Israel" who would save Israel. Jesus on his service to the Temple at about 12 states he must accomplish his fathers work. His genetic father was one Mary knew from the Temple who artificialy impregnated her to fulfil the Isaiah precedent.

The brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of Joseph and his wife who were in the household. Mary pregnant with Jesus [her firstborn] was given to Joseph who already had family as protection of Jesus because of his purpose to be Leader of Israel. Herod seeking the firstborn sons threatening his position had Zecherias [priest at the temple] murdered at altar of the Temple as Luke and Josephus records, because Zecherias fails to disclose the whereabouts of John his son and Jesus [whose mothers Elizabeth and Mary both lived with him in the early months of their pregnancies]. On Zecherias death John and Elizabeth flee to the caves of the Essenes where he was raised and schooled. The Essenes were close friends of Zecherias. Mary with Jesus flee to Egypt till the death of Herod. Joseph was a stone mason and it was probably his work took him to Egypt inspired by a dream. Mary according to her religious vow remained a virgin all her life and she was devoted to her son and his role in Israel's history. Jesus as an adult diverts from being a nationalist saviour to being a saviour for individuals who desire God.

A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive or mislead.

John Howard made a decision based on the facts he honestly believed at the time. He has not deliberately tried to hide known facts.

Airial photographs held by International observers of WOMD [which I've seen] demonstrate the dismantling of acres of factories where known chemicals were stored just prior to the entry of the allied forces into Iraq. The lies were the work of Saddam intended to deceive. Some prefer to believe Saddam's word while his second in command of his airforce now a friend of the USA uphold the fact Saddam was developing WOMD.

Believe the deceivers or believe those who actually believe what they observe and conclude as facts.

Ah Philo... Thankyou for popping your head up to defend the lie... beautiful just beautiful...

A lie is an untruth.... deliberate, partly deliberate, an exaggeration of fact can all be lies, deliberately omitting something can be a lie. It is the intent behind the action that makes it a lie.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/01/1077989476238.html

Now there are several lines in this article that would hit a free thinking person between they eye... I'll pick them out for you... cause I know I am free thinking.

It cleared the government of putting overt pressure on Australian agencies to beef up their assessments of Iraq's capabilities, but said "...some intelligence assessments may have been changed unconsciously to reflect government policy concerns."How do you change something unconsciously to reflect Govt policy concerns. Laughable! Perhaps it was changed in someone's sleep?

The ONA and Defence intelligence were sceptical about Iraq's threat but suddenly the tone changed in the September 13 assessment.

Why? Could it be that they were unconsciously modifying there assessments because unconsciously they were backing up their Govt who was unconsciously telling porky pies?

Here are a few more articles to remind you af what actually happened and what pollies said - Please dtry not to read them unconsciously... lmao

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/03/1075776060198.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/robert-manne/the-complex-politics-of-lying/2004/07/25/1090693832197.html

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1056607.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/06/1057430079142.html

http://news.sbs.com.au/sales/proginfo.php?type=Dateline&id=638&dte=2003-06-04&title=Andrew%20Wilkie%20Interview

When will the lies stop with this mob? Was it a core or non-core promise to raise the standards of Parliament? And is using falsified evidence to invade a country a crime under International Law?

Is Johnnie Howard praying for the honesty bug to bite him one day? Lmao

OPINIONATED....

mate.. you keep on with this 'The lie of WMD' spin... I showed you the personal testimony of the Iraqi who moved them to Syria..and all you can say is "he is selling books"... GOOD GRIEF mate.. do you actually hear yourself ? With such background..does it surprise you that such a person would write a book about it ?
Since when has that been wrong ?

Then..you just go back into your glazed eyed programmed state of "They did not exist"..

So..lets weigh it up in terms of 'probability'

1/ Opinionated says.. (based on many second hand reports in biased media) "There were no WMD's"

2/ General Sada says "I was there, I flew them to Syria"

Well no prizes for guessing who has more credibility mate.

Hmm...ur not a lawyer.. ru :)

TRINITY.. how did THAT get in here ? (startled monkey look)
a) It is NOT in the Bible....(as a word)
b) It IS in the Bible as a revelation. (look at ALLLL the verses)
c) It is neither here nor there for this thread.

PERICLES... back 2 u.

you said:
Unfortunately, his entire argument can be summarised as "since you can't prove anything is impossible, you might as well study it anyway, just in case."

No... not quite. I think his legal status does say something about how to view testimony.
More...like this.

1/ You cannot disprove the Miraculous, now.
2/ Thus, how can you a-priori say "It could not have happened then"

THAT.... dear Pericles is the substance of his argument.
If you 'begin' approaching testimony of people with the preconcieved and baseless presupposition that 'if they say such and such it cannot be true' then you will end up with the conclusion you desired at the beginning. They may as well have said nothing.

Now.. usually ur a bright boy.. yet you cant see this ?
If you want 'written words' and they are more juicy to you... he has lots of written papers there if you follow the links.

OPINIONATED.. you need some more heat treatment :)

You gave this article.

PM admits WMD doubt
By Louise Dodson
Chief Political Correspondent
Perth
February 4, 2004


I gave you THIS article.

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
By IRA STOLL
Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006

NOTICE THE DATES ?

In fact.. ALL THE articles you provided were dated prior to Sada's announcement/testimony.

Part of assessing evidence.. includes CHECKING THE DATES !

Aside from that.. have a great day :)

Boaz you are so hopeful that there were WMD's that you have lost the plot.

Sada is discredited mate.... Good old Sada saw an opportunity to make a buck with his new masters and wrote a book.

He says that the WMD's were secreted to Syria... Why hasn't Georgey Bush been saying this ad infinitum... Sorry that dates don't actually matter. And if this was proven why didn't Georgey "Mission Accomplished" Bush go after them? Its whether there is truth behind what is said that's important David not the date... Is honesty a Christian value?

The Yanks sinking deeper into the mire which is Iraq needed some justification for the war so out pops Mr Sada... What a wonderful opportunity...

It is an excellent ploy because people like you who are hoping for WMD's to justify this mess jump on it like it is manna from heaven...

Yee ha I hear Boazy say ... I'm right... well no your wrong...

And now to one more thing about honesty being a Christian value ... Johnnie (I can't lie straight in bed) as treasurer presided over higher 90 day bank bill rates than Keating ... Yep sad for not so honest John but true...

What would Jesus have thought about the fibs regarding interest rates? Treasurer Howard presided over bank bill rates up to 22.00% on April 8 1982 whereas Keating presided over bank bill rates up to 20.50% on 18 December 1985? Is the PM being dishonest?

http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/bulletin/F01DHIST.XLS

The Reserve Bank proves this point... What say ye now all your fib believers..

Now Boaz on this Holy Trinity bunkum.

Where does Jesus Christ your Lord who you worship ever say that he is The Father, The Son & The Holy Ghost? Simple question with no wriggle room on this one, David, where?

The reason that it is important in this thread is it goes to honesty as a Christian value... He doesn't ever say it so Jesus doesn't describe himself as man later chooses to. Are your thoughts on this Jesus' express instruction or a man's interpretation. I'm not going to read every chapter and verse again to see if you are right David... I would expect you to show me where Jesus said such things! It should be simple for a bible toting Christian.

The Trinity Lords Prayer

Our father, Jesus who art God, the son of God & the holy spitit, hallowed be thye 3 names ... thy kingdom come, thye will be done on Earth... etc etc. etc.

Be honest David ... Jesus never said he was God and the Holy Spirit...
He said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do... The Trinity is based on man's interpretation and man is very fallible.

Jesus either prayed to himself or you are wrong... Did Jesus opray to himself David... Christian honesty is being assessed by your answer david

It's OK David greater minds than yours have it wrong also...lmao

Oh by the way I hope you can get released from your slavery at the Commonwealth bank...lmao

Opinionated2,
I note you agree with me by this statement "It is the intent behind the action that makes it a lie".

John Howard based his action on what he believed to be true facts made by his advisors. Unlike some who want to hold the most important political office in the Nation that visit high class brothels and over imbible alcohol and fail to disclose they make poor personal decisions.

Dear David Boaz
Intercessionary prayers aren't to be confused with Christ as our one Mediator of Redemption. No heresy at all here.
Here's only a few of many Scriptures to show why:
Is it reasonable to invoke the Saints to aid us?

The most common Protestant objection to the intercession of the Saints is that it diminishes the intercessory role of Christ who is the "one mediator between God and men" (1 Tim. 2, 5). Understood properly, Christ is the one mediator of redemption, for there is no other name under heaven by which humanity is saved. Nevertheless, Sacred Scripture itself attests that Christ is not the sole mediator of prayer. The Holy Spirit "intercedes with sighs too deep for words" (Rom. 8, 26). Moses interceded for the people of Israel, asking God’s mercy and grace, for the sake of the dead Patriarchs who were righteous .
St. Paul continuously recommended himself to the prayers of his brethren (Rom. 15, 30; Heb. 13, 18); St. James:the prayer of "the righteous man has great power" (St. Jas. 5, 16); and Simon Magnus sought the intercession of St. Peter to save him from the wrath of God (Acts 8, 24).

At the Transfiguration - Mount Tabor, Moses and Elijah appeared talking with Christ (St. Matt. 17, 3). This would have been impossible if they had been "dead" according to the Protestant understanding of Psalm 115[113]. Relating to the Pharisees( parable of the Lost Sheep), Christ stated "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" In His discourse to the Sadducees, Christ declared that the just dead are "equal to angels" (St. Luke 20, 36) for God "is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive" (St. Luke 20, 38). Hence, it follows that both angels and humans in heaven are aware of what is transpiring on earth. If to emphasize the power of the dead to intercede for loved ones on earth, Christ proceeded to relate to the Pharisees the story of Lazarus and Dives.

Oh Philo... He based his intent on an all the way with a USA policy...

"...some intelligence assessments may have been changed unconsciously to reflect government policy concerns."

The ONA and Defence intelligence were sceptical about Iraq's threat but suddenly the tone changed in the September 13 assessment. Why?

And your weak kneed go at Rudd for having a few drinks and going to an OOps strip club ... Has Johnnie ever been to one? If that is your soul reason for voting against Rudd... Wow!

No I prefer to vote on the issues that effect this nation, Work Choices and the fact the fairness test was only brought in when Johnnie Howard couldn't get away without one. #1 years in the public life, a lawyer to boot and he didn't think protecting workers was necessary?

Core and non-core promise lies?

The lie about interest rates? see above chart... OOps!

Did the PM announce prior to an election sweeping reforms to the Politicians Superannuation payments and then after the election reverse the decision? Is this dishonest?

Has John Howard spent up to $1,000,000 a day on Government advertising? Is this dishonest against Jesus' teachings? What about the poor and the underprivilidged... $1,000,000 a day could save a lot of carers from hardship!

And the climate change sceptic... has changed his spots virtually overnight...

And what about the AWB enquiry farce... this Govt whilst our troups were in harms way allowed an Aussie company to give backhanders to this evil regime... What a joke! Is this OK by Christian values?

Smile Philo... I am...lmao

Hello people. Now let me get this right! Do you all really believe in all what you see and hear? " IS HONESTY A CHRISTAIN VALUE" Well the answer is no. Some of the worst people imaginable were hard core christians. See the pros and con's that are debating about is the exacted reason why it should be all banned!
Human nature has only one goal and Iam afraid mother nature has all living things in its control. Even this the so called good book cant stop whats inside us, and that's a fact.
Quote! God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. Well it looks like he hasnt been around lately.

evolution,
I suggest you read the rest of Genesis as it is evident you haven't.

Opinionated2,
I included the last snippet to disclose your political allegiance. It obviously worked!

Now we know your political bias. Let me tell you I do not give my "1" vote for John Howard or the Liberal Party and never will. I just believe in being honest about ones bias.

Webby... have a close look at those examples of intercessory prayer :)
they were by living people.
Then.. any contact with departed spirits is forbidden......

OPIONATED... I totally reject your attempt to lock me in a straight jacket.. you may as well have asked "How me where Jesus said "I am not a homosexual"... He didn't... but was he ?
You also may as well have said "Show me where Jesus said "I am God""
he didn't....
There is much he did 'not' say, directly, but if you REALLY read carefully say the Gospel of John.....you will see often in one sentence the interchangable nature of Jesus method of speaking, which clearly means he was both Divine and Human.
Who we worship..is "God" in all His fullness. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Have a look at Mark 8:27 Did Jesus say "I AM THE MESSIAH" ? or.... DID he use a differnt method. His works over 3 yrs tesssstified to his true nature..and he just ASKED "But who do YOU say that I am"?
and it finally tweaked with Peter "You are ...the Christ"....

It goes on "From that time Jesus BEGAN to teach them that 'the Christ' must... die, suffer, rise" etc...

I wonder if you actually see that? and why your question is really just a silly and inappropriate fishing expedition?

Sorry mate :) but it is.

David you do get rather silly in your doctrine driven way... It's cute but not all that intellectual...

So an all knowing Jesus who knows what has been, what is and what will come didn't say something.... and so Christians decide well I'll make up the Trinity...

You are a kangaroo in the headlights of a shooter David and you just don't realise that if you actually thought outside the square you can find the truth... You're like a student who has done the studies but lacks the confidence to do the test.

David, the Christ and the Messiah were never said to be God... That again is you and your doctrinal thinking. Matthew 27:46 "My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?" Jesus referred to himself as the Son of man.

The trinity defies logic, it defies intellectual thought it defies Jesus' teachings... Man made it up! But you Christians believe it as though Jesus said it.... He asked who do you think I am to see what their understanding was - he was the Christ. Christ in Greek means the annointed in Hebrew again the annointed- annointed by who? himself?

David... please for your own sake... broaden your thinking... the answers are out there but doctrines limit thinking not enhance it. A doctrine is a decision to believe something... and there is much much more available to those who "Listen if they have ears". Open your mind and feel!

Good luck on your journey!

But it points to one thing regarding this topic... Honesty is not a Christian value as Christians will defend doctrinal views rather than say "I don't know" but I will certainly consider it

Dear David,

How can two groups (the saints in heaven and the saints on earth) be connected to the Head, but not also connected to each other? There is no verse in scripture that says that the saints in heaven have been cut off from the saints on earth. Such a division in the Body is totally arbitrary.
Scripture tells us that the members of the Body, in their connection to the head, are also connected to each other. I provide EXAMPLES, not a straitjacket as follows: Please refer to Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:13,26; 2 Cor 2:5; Eph 1:9-10; 2:19-21; 4:15-16,25; Col 2:18-19; Heb 13:3).

If we aren't, if we are divided so that there is the Body of Christ in heaven and the Body of Christ on earth, then that means Christ has two bodies. But, Scripture tells us that we are all united in one body (cf. Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 10:17; 12:12-13,20; Eph 4:4; Col 3:15).
This is all courtesy of the one true Church which is the Catholic Church.

Webby,

Whilst I love your enthusiasm for your own Catholic Church... It seems that Jesus Christ your Lord and Saviour is silent on such matters.

Jesus' teachings are the 4 gospels ... Yep those ones... And the books thereafter are full of man's interpretations... Once again Christians aren't you placing way too much importance on man's interpretations and not the actual words of your Christ?

Can't you guys see that your overemphasis on Paul's teachings is exactly the cause of the division in Christ Earthly Ministry. Aren't you guys so busy arguing that "my church is better than yours" actually the cause of the division in your religion? Isn't that exactly what the Pharisees and Saduccees had done when Jesus rebuked them. Again I ask which are you Pharisees or Saducees?

Perhaps it is because I am not a Christian that I can see the folly of Jesus' so called followers... Simple - you don't follow Jesus' teachings... you follow Pauls! Jesus allegedly was the Son of God and Paul just a man...

Once again I say Jesus was "silent" on the Trinity and all this guff! Jesus predicted this would happen. Since he allegedly walked the Earth Christianity has splintered into over 22,000 groups.

Who gave you the right as Christians to bicker like this? Who gave you the right to follow Paul's teachings over Jesus'? If Jesus remained silent on these things why would you Christians fight each other over such ridiculous things.

My church owns God ... No mines does... Is infantile, unchristian and adding further divisiveness to your so called religion... Are you Christians or Paulians? I think you should take a step back and consider these things!

Remember Jesus is watching and if I were him I would be unimpressed with most Christians as they have divided his ministry and his message without his permission.

Please God - Save me from your followers...rofl

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5,3) - Wow it looks like the atheists and agnostics might get in afterall...lmao Christianity dividers aren't listed...rofl

Opinionated2,
It is true that many Christians do not grasp how God is revealed incarnate. He is primarily revealed by His spirit through the character of people in whom He lives, and who reside in Him.

The trinity is a 3rd century Roman idea trying to define God in spatial terms. God is spirit! Not three spirits as beings in one person or three persons in one spirit. As divine Love can be revealed in many persons it only has one source - God. God is expressed in character by his sacrificial love, by the secure expression of pure joyfulness, by the deep serenity of confident peace, by the patience that allows outcomes, by the gentleness as of a doting father, by the purity of wholesome thoughts and actions, by a gentleness that causes no offense and woos sinners to change their ways. His spirit is self controll.

The spirit of God is manifest incarnate in those that live such character, attitudes, wisdom and godly care.

The acceptance that we have fallen short in our expression of God that Jesus was that expresion of God makes one a follower on the basis we repent of our failure and emulate him.

Hi Webby :) well.. I'll look at those scriptures when I have time mate.. to me its very simple and very clear (of course..that's because I'm a dumb dum according to blessed Opinionated :)

OPINIONATED.. (now where is that chunk of rough sawn 2 x 4 ? :) I'm trying to work out if ur a Jehovah's witness or a Muslim here.. the patterns become predictable after a while.

You said:

David, the Christ and the Messiah were never said to be God... That again is you and your doctrinal thinking.

then: "He said 'My God,My God, why have you forsaken me'" and you took it to suggest Christ is less than God. TOOOOtally forgetting of course..that Jesus spoke those words to echo Psalm 22 which is totally messianic. (Pinch) You also fail to realize how that fits with the Lords own words in Luke 24:44-46

44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

Now..you say the Bible does not say the Christ is 'God'? (you get another pinch for that :)... READDDDDDD me boy.. actually open the book and readddd what's on the pages.

Isaiah 9.6 "and he (The messiah) shall be called MIGHTY GOD"

There are so many references in John...from the Lord Himself where God, Christ, Jesus, are used interchangably that I cannot cite them all here... you can read them yourself. But it IS....there.

Don't give me 'common sense' that's an abysmally subjective concept anyway. (its also code for 'my viewpoint' :)I'll talk 'Revelation' with you.. and them subject my 'common sense' to what is backed up by signs, wonders and the resurrection of Christ.

Dear opinionated and David,

The Church is not a creation each time anyone opens the Bible and begins to read nor is the Church created anew when you gather as a group.
The Church exists in time just as Jesus Christ its founder came in time through the Incarnation.
The so-called 'bible beleivers' and 'bible churches' are a contradiction in terms.
The Catholic Church preceded the writing of the 4 Gospels. The 4 Gospels were then written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by members of the Catholic Church.
To cease to be ignorant of real time history is to cease to be Protestant.

David - No I am not a JW (I hate knocking on doors)or a Muslim, I was raised a Methodist. Wow you sure saw that predictability... rofl Are you psychic?

Webby - "The Catholic Church preceded the writing of the 4 Gospels." It may? have preceded the writings but it didn't precede the "actual words and directions spoken by Jesus"... Arrogance?

Poor Jesus will be in heaven shaking his head ... look at my followers they are too blind to see the truth and the damage they do to my name.

Boaz ... You can hit me with a lump of 4 x 2 if you wish... When I wake up I will forgive you... Wow what a Jesus like trait... I will just say "God, Jesus & Holy Ghost be you one or 3 entities forgive David for he knows not what he does"...rofl

Then I will offer you my other cheek so you can take another swipe... lol

David Isaiah 9:6 does say that but 9:7 says ......He will rule as King David's successor.......... The Lord Almighty is determined to do this.

So God (Jesus) will replace a mere mortal King David as King David's successor - and God is determined to do this? He is already seated on the throne... why would Jesus sit on King David's throne? Wow that is some step down.

David the OT is a one sided history of a group of twelve nomadic tribes that formed together to form what we now know as Israeli's for their protection. It was written by man to tell of great feats and ugly battles - justifying all it had done in the name of God.

It is man's word....

Jesus knowing all things past, present and future didn't mention the trinity... man invented it... Like when Jesus was baptized Matthew 3:15 -16 ... ...Then heaven was opened up to him and he saw thw spirit of God.... David come on this is pretty simple stuff...

The spirit of God came upon him when he was baptised ... If he was God this wouldn't have happened!

I said:"The Catholic Church preceded the writing of the 4 Gospels."

Opinionated responded: It may? have preceded the writings but it didn't precede the "actual words and directions spoken by Jesus"... Arrogance? "

I reply: It id most definitely. The Catholic Church was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Some fundamentalists say that Emperor Constantine did but that is fallacious as all the Popes from St Peter through to the time of Constantine show these Elizabethan English claims to be mere propaganda as part of the political self justification of the rulers of England after King Henry VIII.
The term 'Roman Catholic' is also a false one made up by the civil service in the UK from the time of Elizabeth I.
SO too the three branch theory of Christianity which convert John Henry ( Cardinal ) Newman rejected as an Oxford scholar.

Webby,
The title "Pope" is a Roman Concept and first appeared when Rome established the Christian Church under Constantine. Early Christianity has no heirarchy as Jesus said he that would be greatest among you would be your servant - and he demonstrated this by washing his followers feet.

Every follower of Jesus was called to be God incarnate in the world, not just one person with Papal edict authority. The fact remains the history of many Popes in the Catholic Church demonstrate anything other than the character of God. The Church of Christ universal are those demonstrating the nature of God as Jesus demonstrated and taught and that not under an organised structure or denominational power, but only under the personal inspiration of the Spirit of God.

Dear Philo,

The Church was established by Jesus before Sts Peter & Paul even went to the city of Rome. In Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome".
Jesus commissioned all of the Apostles and upon Our Lord's Assencion into Heaven, all of the Apostles were united with and under St Peter the Apostle. "Rome " never established "the Christian Church", let alone under "Constantine". The Catholic Church had 31 Popes BEFORE Emperor Constantine allowed the Catholic Church to be legalised as it was previously subject to the peresecution of the Roman Emperors.
Please realise that the Rome of the Emperors and the Catholic Church's HQ in the city of Rome are two different entities.
Pope and also a saint Melchiades was an African. During his papacy from 311 to 314 Pope Melchiades and the Church were granted the freedom to exist legally under Emperor Constanine the secualr ruler.

Every follower of Jesus is called to be like God but none of us can ever BE God incarnate. Only Jesus is God incarnate. Bad Popes, who are exceptions, does not disprove the rule. Humility and service agreed is how authority ought to be exercised but this does not mean that St Peter, the other Apostles and their successors lack authority due to those whose character or sinfulness became known. That is angelism. OUr Lord saw much sinfulness amongst His Apostles, fear, denials etc but , like the Seat of Moses, Chrsit said to obey them but do not do the thinngs they do ( ie personal defects and sin).
If we all waited for perfect apostolic successors before we recognise their authority, we would wait forever. Also, such an attitude assumes that we are on a sinless pedestal; which is a denial of the raison d'etre for Christ to redeem us.

Where in the history of the first 300 years of the Early Church are Church leaders spoken of as Pope? The concept of "Pope" is a Romanised development.

The NT uses the word "Lord" to identify authority and role, it never uses the word Pope. So to understand authority and example in The early Christian Church is to recognise Christ only as Lord. As Christ's followers we bow only to his Lordship. Jesus said "The Lord thy God thou shalt bow to, and Him only thou shalt serve."(Matt 4: 10). Peter actually states Jesus was made both Lord and Christ and this after his ascension in Acts 2: 36 "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know, that this Jesus whom ye did crucify God make him — both Lord and Christ." Paul states in 2 Corinthians 4:5 "For we do not preach about ourselves but we do preach, Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves your servants because of Jesus."

According to the dictionary "Pope" means to the Roman Catholic Church; the vicar of Christ, and is the head of the Church on Earth. As do Pope also does to the Greek and Coptic outhodox.

Peter and Paul were never considered the vicar of Christ on Earth nor the head of the Christian Church during their life and ministry. They were leaders and teachers in the Church but never the final authority. The Council of elders in Jerusalem had more wisdom and authority than Peter in interpretring the mind of Christ for the gentiles. In all cases in the NT all servants of the Church directed people directly to God as Lord and Master. The Lord alone is the final and only authority for the Church. We are answerable to Him only, not to any stake burning Pope considering us as a heritic.

Dear Philo,
where is the word "pope" in the Bible? Well, where is the word "father,"because that's what "Pope" means ("pope" means "papa") . But you won't find the English word "pope" there any more than you'd find the word "Trinity." The reality, though, is there, in Peter, from the very beginning. The ecclesiastical offices of Bishops (episkopos), elders (presbyteros, from which is derived the word "priest"), and deacons (diakonos) were already in place in the New Testament (Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, Acts 1:20, 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 2:25, Acts 15:2-6, 21:18, Hebrews 11:2, 1 Peter 5:1, 1 Timothy 5:17). The Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is simply the successor of Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome and head of the earthly Church.

Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340) tells us in his "Church History" who succeeded him:

Ch. 2
"After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle".

Ch. 13
"After [Emperor] Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years [Note: it was actually 9 years], delivered his office to Anencletus. But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months."

Ch. 15
"In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: 'With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life.'

Philo,
Use of "Romanised" presupposes that there is somehow either a phantom church different from and faithful to Christ and also separate from the Catholic Church. This is false history Philo.
Christ is not "alone" and neither is Scripture "alone".
That is why Chrsit gave us the Apostles and their successors within the Church. We meet Christ through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which he commanded His Apostles to do in memory of Him.
Christ didn't establish a 'Home Alone' read your bible on your own type arrangement.
Personal prayer, scripture reading at home is good- but not to be pitted in competition with accepting teachings from the Church and the legitimate authority given to her by Christ.
One cannot privately interpret Scripure. That is a heresy.
Life in Christ and life int he Church doesn't come about by individuals picking up the Scriptures and then imagaining things for themselves or even as a group.
The false consitutions of Lutheranism and Calvinism from Eruope was used within the Anglican Constitution and thse wasy in which you are talking Philo originate in the 1500s. The Church and the Bible and how we use sacraments and understand the Scriptures existed for 1500 years before the conflictual and oppositional and the bible 'alone' and private interpreation heresies came on the scene.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") which means "to hand on" from one generation to the next.

Moreover, the Protestant argument is also refuted by the way in which the Church selected the Bible canon. While the last apostle John died around 100 A.D., the Bible was not finally compiled until 397 A.D. The Church was thus required to rely upon the oral apostolic tradition during this 300 year period in order to determine which letters were inspired and which letters were not. The tradition they depended on, of course, did not come from the mouths of the apostles (they were deceased), but from their successors. (There is also no reason to conclude that the Church should listen to the fourth, fifth or sixth generation of apostolic successors, but not to later successors such as those of our day)

Webby,
You're convinced by the Roman Catholic traditions, so-be-it. I'm not. I must say I agree however with your moral and spiritual stance in your relationship to God and the sacred values of life.

The Roman world-view traditionally copies Roman politics on how power is diseminated in Church structure. For me God alone as revealed in Jesus as Lord of the Church and all believers are equal brothers, though there are many servant roles in the body of Christ on Earth. Jesus structural powers were influenced by the Essene community of brotherhood. The early Church in Jerusalem was also influenced by this similar view of social brotherhood.

The Essene community held God as father as John the baptiser's prayer identifies and Jesus taught to his disciples. "Our Father who art in Heaven." One is our Father who is in heaven and all you are brothers. I therefore acknowledge only Our Lord has aythority over me.

Christ alone is the head of the Church. The answer Peter gave to the question of Jesus - "Who am I?" by confession Peter names him as, " You are the Messiah the Son of God". As Jesus then said to Peter you are Petra identifying him by name then contrasting the name enstating Peter's answer in identifying himself by name. Jesus by pointing to himself identifies Peter's confession said upon this ROCK I will build my Church. The rock is the confession of faith the basis on who is Jesus. He is the Christ who has built His Church on that very confession of faith - "You are the Messiah the Son of God".

Peter's not the foundation of the Church. The confession of faith in Christ certainly is. The fact is Jesus Christ our Lord is both the foundation and the founder. He is both the basis of our faith and the builder of our faith: both the author and builder of our faith(Hebrews 12: 2). He said "I will build my Church". He did not build his Church on Peter, but on the ROCK -"You are the Christ?"

Philo you're convinced by the man-made 'reformation' a.k.a. de-formation traditions. I'm not.

The Protestant world-view traditionally copies Luther's unbiblical insertion of his own theolgy which includes his insertion of 'alone' in resepct to both Scriptures and the faith as spoken about bySt paul. There is a curse in the Book of the Apocalyse ( which you Protestants call Revelation, the last book of the NT) in which those who ADD to the Scriptures are accursed for doing so.

don't be precious Philo.Politics ( and Roman is no different to any other)is found in all churches. It is also found in the one true Church as we are not risen and in Heaven yet nor are we angels. This idea that one is perfect like God as a beleiver is a false Protestant idea and is one of the justifications for not accepting the authority of the Church; an authority given her by Jesus Himself.

There is no iblical precedent for Protestant 'altar calls, or Hillsong guitars and preachers on stages like rock stars. catholics priests say Mass which is from the beginning in fulfillment of the OT prefigurements and completed by Our Lord at the last Supper and Calvary. Catholic focus is on the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist at each Mass. Each parish chruch is a Bethlehem ( which means House of Bread) in this case the Divine Presence under the humble appearance of bread.

Christ is the invisible head of the Church until he comes again. Your Lutheran use of the word 'alone' shows your rejection fo the Church.

Webby,
Luther was trained in Catholic Monastries and was a actually a Catholic Priest. He actually studied scriptual texts in the library of the Catholic Church and found the practise of raising money by offering indulgences was contrary to the words of the Apostle Paul.

I suggest you read his life and work sometime, rather than the bigotry you hold toward him. I am not Lutheran, and disagree with a lot of his theology, but I respect the man as a genuine spiritual giant in his relationship to God and the liberation he gave to those oppressed by the corrupt Catholic Church at that time.

I actually belong to a Church were all porsons are responsible to use their spiritual giftings including the ladies, for the edification of each other. We recognise each as equal and each are responsible alone to God. Not to any Priest or Pope.

Dear Philo
Have you noticed that yourself and David Boaz have sidstepped all the biblical quotes I have supplied thus far on this thread, huh. Also, whilst I am happy to answer all your objections the weakness in your approach thus far is to your declining to address one issue at a time. Rather you prefer to raise one objection after another with each fresh posting. That is a sign that you are prejudiced and are afraid to face up to a single issue at any one time.

Of course I know that Martin Luther was a priest. It is good that you acknowledge he studied scritural texts although your fundamentalist mates of which you belong, tell Catholics that the Bible was inaccessible. Strange that Luther found it huh. But I suppose that until the invention of the Wurtenburg Press the arduous hand copying of the bible is all the fault of the Catholic Church in your view. Is that right?
The abuse of indulgences, not indulgences per se, was the problem; ie Tetzel.
Luther was a rapid anti-Semite; the Jews of Germany ran to the Pope for protection against Luther and his whipping up of the German Princes to persecute them. YOU, yes YOU Philo, go read his actual words, Then report back to me.
Also, the handle name Philo ( from philosoher)has a pedigree in Catholic learning. All priest must learn PHILO-osophy to sort out their arguments, and right ordering before they are let loose with the Scriptures. Learn to be true to your handle name.

You are ashamed to even mention the name of your 'church' such is the love you have for it.

An indulgence is a remission through the infinite merits of Jesus Christ and His Saints of the temporal punishment due for sins committed after guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted.

Scripture's example of what's meant by "temporal punishment." Mary, the sister of Moses, was forgiven by God for complaining against her brother. Nevertheless, despite such forgiveness, God imposed upon her the temporal punishment of leprosy and seven days exile from her people (Num. 12). A thief may be sorry for stealing , but is still required to return the money; even do time in prison.

That Jesus has given the Church the power of granting indulgences is implied in Scripture: "I will give you the keys.. you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (St. Matt. 16, 19).

St. Paul's clear example of the Church using this power with respect to the incestuous Corinthian upon whom he'd imposed a severe penance. After learning of the Corinthian’s fervent sorrow St. Paul absolved him of the penance which he had imposed saying: "For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ" (2 Cor. 2, 10 [Douai]).

In this example we have the elements of a true indulgence: (i) a penance (temporal punishment) imposed on the Corinthian by St. Paul; (ii) sorrow on the part of the sinner for his crime; (iii) the relaxation of the penance by St. Paul (the indulgence); (iv) the relaxation done in the "person of Christ."

"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col. 1, 24);

"For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ;...If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it" (1 Cor. 12, 12-26).

Philo,

Please have some fun by taking this very quiz, and I thought easy, quiz. It is called the Martin Luther Quiz. I just love some of the funny choices available. Strictly without prejudice I promise ! http://www.stillcatholic.com/MartinLutherQuiz.htm

Regards

Webby

I am proud to announce the church to which I attend is a local community church of Churches of Christ. We have no creed but Christ, we have no heirarchy except the Lordship of Christ. We are pleased to use the quotes of wisdom from any source. Denomination is a non-issue it produces pride that gets in the way of serving people seeking help. We are followers of Christ first and last

I am more interested in a persons character, attitude, behaviour, wisdom, relationships etc; because this is how God is revealed by his image incarnate in humankind. God in scarcely revealed in religious / political structures that men create to serve themselves. But He is vitally interested in how men serve each other in whatever role they perform. I have been in Churches where the most Godly person I have found was an old lady devoted to her family who was a prime example to the young mothers in the Church. She was as Christ to them by her wisdom and encouragement.

I am not really interested in religious power structures but I am interested in how people personally relate to God. Among them are many close Roman Catholic friends.