Logically, our differences should not matter so much. People of diverse nations and faiths ought to be able to live in harmony. However, the gap between what ought to be and what actually is has been a recurring source of drama throughout human existence.

Social conflict is an inevitability in human history, probably to its very end. Good and wise people might seek to prevent catastrophe, but they would likely be no match for the fears and ambitions that drive groups into confrontation. The pursuit of peace will always be uphill.

Our inherent shortcomings notwithstanding, we can still hope to create a better future. And we know that the right kind of leadership can do much to prevent wars, rebuild devastated societies, expand freedom, and assist the poor. If God has a plan, it will be carried out. That's sheaven's jurisdiction, not ours. If, however, one believes that creation has given us both life and free will, we are left with the question of what to do with those gifts. That is both a practical challenge and a moral one.

ooops a typo. It should read, "That's heaven's jurisdiction, not ours." sorry.

I'm mocking you BD, not God, so go poke yourself :)

In all seriousness though, one of the problems that Christians face in explaining their faith, is the concept of the Holy trinity. How can a God that is so loving on one hand, be so destructive, nasty and petty (think of poor old Lot here) on the other. I havent had anyone been able to explain this to me with any clarity, apart from the usual copouts. I do consider myself Christian (although I fall far short of the standards set by Christ), but hold a lot of suspicion for any organised religion, and this is one of the concepts that I struggle with (as I can explain away a lot of the biblical nonsense by reference to the fact that the bible is merely man's understand of events, not necessarily the utter truth). The only thing I can think of in relation to the trinity concept, is that the new testament has had many exclusions and no doubt many embellishments over the last 2000-odd years, and that some aspects of the trinity nature have been exaggerated (perhaps to assert the authority of the Church), or maybe just plain not understood at the time, and therefore not accurately expressed.

TRTL

Thanks for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt. You were spot on when you interpreted my post 'he meant that Gandhi was an example of man and all men have depravity in their hearts'. If their was any other way for man to be forgiven than through Christ then He would not of needed to die the horrible death He did. A person believing and receiving Christ has the start of a long transformation process. Even Jesus apostles showed great signs of weakness arguing with each other and having doubts. Gandhi like every other human was in great need of forgiveness which could only be found in Christ.

Hi Country Gal,

I too am a hopeful Christian (RC - actually), but also an inadequate one, with doubts. I respect other religions because I think they are reaching for the same truth though from a different angle. Having admitted uncertainty, I can hardly say that fundamentalists must be wrong, but I am fairly sure they are not wholly right. Evangelicals accord scripture a high degree of authority; fundamentalists go beyond that to insist that every word in the Bible is literally true.
To believe that of the Bible or any other holy book is to assume too much about the ability of human narrators to rise above the subjective influences of their time and place.

The scriptures are full of politics. To me, that is why the core teachings, not the minutiae, carry the weight of what a religion is about. I am particularly impatient with those who, having cited a few quotations, conclude that women should not be allowed to lead in church or that homosexuality is an abomination to God - who, after all, created homosexuals. As a practical guide to moral life in ancient Israel, a book such as Leviticus may have served well enough; but a piece of writing that accepts slavery, authorizes the sale of one's daughter, prohibits the trimming of beards, and bans the wearing of garments made from two different kinds of thread is neither timeless nor flawless. Jesus was not a fundamentalist, either. He was condemned by Pharisees for working on the Sabbath, sharing meals with a tax collector, and coming to the aid of an adulteress. He broke cultural taboos by conversing with a woman he met at a well and by taking children seriously. He explicitly rejected the doctrine of 'an eye for an eye.'

Boazy: "CJ's last post perfectly illustrates the very point I've been making"

And what point is that, exactly?

I see that runner's explained his miserable position, which makes sense within his abject worldview, I suppose. However, Boazy persists in trying to besmirch one of the greatest men to have lived in the last century.

II think that it's creepy, sexually obsessed fundies like Boazy that are the source of the literary trope of the deranged Christian.