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.