Boaz, the ultimate point of that post was that in attacking Harry Potter and witchcraft, gibo's having a go at free speech based not on safety or cultural considerations, but a simple "my religion's better than yours."

Regardless of whether the bible has bits about social justice is a moot point in this debate - it only underlines CJ's point about the gulf between Christ's inspiration and what is has created.

And runner: "Its a pity people like Gandhi rejected the free gift of salvation because of what he saw and perceived in others. If he could of seen the depravity in his own heart as well as others he would of run to the only One who could of cleansed him."

Now you're having a go at Gandhi?

To that I say:

"It's a pity people like runner rejected the free gift of peace and understanding of other peoples, because of what he saw and perceived in others. If he could have seen the depravity in his own heart as well as others, he would have run to the likes of Gandhi as one who understood kindness and peace above dogma."

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Gandhi was an inspirational human being who stood up against oppression but never used violence.
Now simply because he doesn't choose your Christian fundamentalism, you're saying there's depravity in his heart. That is truly disgusting, and that post was a fine example of the judgemental side of christianity that is so different to Christ, as CJ pointed out via Gandhi's words. This is what turns people away, and this is what truly gives Christianity an image problem.

Well said, Turnrightthenleft

Boaz, I don't really get what you are whingeing about yet again; Christianity through the likes of our pollies and many others achieves a very high profile and positive spin here. I seem to recall some fundy mozzies who got all rank about a cartoon ... once again you have sunk to the same level as those you love to diss.

Perhaps you could just be a bit thankful for a change and be aware of the fact that a nation that accepts many diverse people, films, books and opinions also tolerates you.

Hi JR
well.. I'm not exactly 'whinging'-I'm raising what I believe to be an important issue.

When it comes to Christianity, and as TRTL pointed out the 'Inspiration' of Christ.. has turned into something else, but hasten to add "in some cases and some places at some times"

I truely hope it will be recognized that at the most fundamental level, ie. the source material, (Gospels, New Testament) it is difficult to fault the Lord Jesus. I mean.. in terms of violence to achieve his 'political' goals. In fact.. what should also be abundantly apparent is the ABSENSE of political goals in the Gospels.

Jesus did not seek to overthrow Caesar.."give to Caesar that which is his".. he did not join the 'Zealot/insurgent/anti Rome' movement...but in stead took "Simon the insurgent" into his close group of trainees/Disciples.
Jesus never disputed Matthew's position as 'Tax Collector' but following on from John the Baptist would urge "collect only what you are mean't to".

So.. rather than see my topic as 'whinging' I'd rather you all see it as raising awareness of why the image of "Christians" and attitudes to the Church have deteriorated so much. No question about the 'sexual abuse' contributing greatly to this. The problem I guess is that I would be on the rough end of the intolerance stick should this image of Christians be continually promoted (as in the movie)

If someone says "Christians are very stubborn, intolerant of other faiths, believe they have the only truth from God"..I can accept this, because it is definitely our belief. I don't mind getting a bit of stick for that.

I just don't want 'stick' for things which are simply media generated.

Boazy says - "it is difficult to fault the Lord Jesus. I mean.. in terms of violence to achieve is 'political' goals"

Correct if you are willing to ignore that christain fundy's tend to believe that Jesus was one and the same with dear old dad who quite clearly was not adverse to the odd spot of violence.

So if you think that Jesus was just a man then then he appears to have been a good one and hard to fault, if he was one with his dad then it's easy to associate him with extreme levels of violence. Past and apparently future if those revelations are to be believed.

Robert

Yeah, but boaz, what say you to things like runner's claim that there was depravity in Gandhi's heart?

I realise that it's most likely runner is making the point that there is evil in all men's hearts.

I know the christian cure is to 'allow christ' in there, but quite frankly, all too often that seems to be permission to talk the talk, without walking the walk.

Where is the respect for the people who don't need to talk the talk of christ, and instead walk the walk - such as Gandhi?

I'll give runner the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant that Gandhi was an example of man and all men have depravity in their hearts, but to be honest, the tone of a post such as that, comes across as being that Gandhi was flawed simply because he wasn't a christian. I wouldn't like to believe that he honestly thought Gandhi was any less decent because he simply wasn't signed up to your club.

Quite frankly, any god that regards the label as more important than the contents would have a difficult time convincing me to sign up..

To the rest of us boaz, a comment with the tone of runner's stinks to high heaven, because there's millions of christians out there who have theoretically let christ into their hearts, but their actions couldn't hold a candle to somebody like Gandhi.

The whole world could turn christian but seeing the way many christians behave, it would still be a violent place. If everyone behaved like Gandhi did it sure wouldn't be.

Far too many christians, if not the majority then certainly a significant fraction, of christians act as if simply being a christian is some kind of get out of jail (or hell for that matter) free card. Worse still, some allow themselves to think that this makes them better than other people.

Which is so far from the christ described in the bible it's sickening - and that, boaz, is what gives the faith an image problem.

TRTL.... on Ghandi.. you might like to do some research :)

'slept with little girls' (ostensibly to 'test' himself in close proximity to temptation)

'was a racist' regarded blacks as inferior or something.

But that aside.. whether true, untrue, or partly true... yes, he was 'depraved' in the Biblical sense..just like Mother Theresa..and me, and you.

We attach a rather strong meaning to 'depraved' in our vocab, but all it means is that we are self centred.. away from God...and following the ways of this world by and large.
Perhaps a better term for one as high profile and peace loving as Ghandi might be simply 'fallen' as part of fallen human nature as a whole.

There is not a lot to be gained by comparing the goodness or works of mankind... sure we can learn from them...so in that sense its good, but the Biblical view is that we are (except for God's forgiving grace in Christ) alienated and fallen.

ROBERT... I totally see your meaning and reasoning there.
Perhaps there is another way of looking at this.

1/ Jesus and the Father are 'one'.
2/ The Father destroyed multitudes in the Old Testament and will at Judgement day.
3/ Thus, Jesus himself was and will be the 'destroyer'.

It all follows logically.

I guess the biggest question here is "Why did God change track in His dealings with Humanity in Jesus?" Why did Jesus not destroy the enemies of God in the same way?

And...of course my totally satisfying answer is.... :) No..I don't have one.
I can argue, as others do that in the OT God was not destroying 'people' as much as 'evil'.. judging sin, which raises the question of why He then altered course in Jesus "I came not to judge the world, but to save it"

Maybe... the incidents in the OT are in fact part of the same process?
After all..God did not destroy ALL evil.. ALL sinners. He was very specific. Nor did He command Israel to go and wipe out all nations which did not embrace the covenant