Polycarp has used the phrase “God’s only begotten son” ad nauseam to refer to Jesus. He will then cite that nonsense as a core value of Christianity and cherry pick a nasty Islamic bit and say that is a core value of Islam. I really don’t think Polycarp knows enough about Islam to say what its core values are.

Of course if one reads the Bible one finds that God claims other sons:

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

The above passage says that all Jews are sons of God – apparently even females or don’t they count in the eyes of a male chauvinist God?

Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Here God again claims all Israel as his sons.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

In the psalms of David the LORD claims David as his son.

In order to see Jesus as “God’s only begotten son” one has to ignore Exodus, Hosea and Psalms. The books of the Bible contradict each other. It is a most unreliable document.

The God of the Bible in having children is like the pagan gods who impregnate humans. However the Jewish Bible doesn’t mention the females. Maybe that God is hermaphroditic. However, in impregnating Mary while the testghosterone was running the NT God is in the tradition of Zeus who impregnated many human females. Possibly a jealous God effected the destruction of the Tower of Babel as he didn’t want humans to have big erections.

No doubt Polycarp will continue posting the silliness of “God’s only begotten son”.

Dear David... I'll defer a heavy theological discussion about the use of the term 'son' in relation to God as it is beyond the scope of this topic.

PRIMARY CONTENTION.. I.E.. THE TOPIC.
My primary contention is that no religious group should have any exclusive structure built at either tax payers expense or even though donations..on State land.

I don't think any of you can disagree with that primary contention...can you?

Regarding the chaplaincy program.. well that's over to you folks to use your democratic voice to change it. I won't argue against that choice or your expression of it. I do feel that properly run, a chaplaincy program can be of benefit, but this is a matter of opinion.

I would not want an exclusive (or even an open) noticably 'Christian' chapel on state land, mainly because it opens the door for:

-Criticism about favoritism, and use of taxpayer funds.
-Suggests the State and that faith are a bit to comfortable and close.

Looks like Christianity is having some second thoughts of its own about this, Boaz.

>>I'll defer a heavy theological discussion about the use of the term 'son' in relation to God as it is beyond the scope of this topic.<<

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24568784-5006786,00.html

"a NSW priest, Peter Dresser of Coonamble in the Diocese of Bathurst, insists Jesus was not God and did not think he was God"

Does it occur to you that there are so many versions of just your own religion - let alone the hundreds of others - that it is extremely brave (in the "Yes Minister" sense) to claim that just one of them must be "right"?

I guess it is one of the great mysteries of life.

Being religious forces you to defend a position that is, ultimately, indefensible. This creates a poisonous cocktail of doubt ("surely I'm not wrong about this?"), and fear ("if we don't show them to be wrong, everyone will be corrupted by them"), which inevitably leads to loathing and violence. Even between adherents of what, to outsiders, looks like the same religion.

Paradoxically, but inevitably, it will be the religious who are quickest to incite in others the fear and loathing they experience themselves. While those without such mental baggage simply look on with dismay.

>>My primary contention is that no religious group should have any exclusive structure built at either tax payers expense or even though donations..on State land. I don't think any of you can disagree with that primary contention...can you?<<

Given that religions seem to mostly take on the mantle of "charity" when lobbying governments for their special privileges, arguing against them is like advocating the brutal bashing of baby seals.

Religion is about emotion, and emotional insecurity of individuals. There are a lot of people who still need it, so governments will have to keep an eye out for them.

The answer ultimately is not to withdraw these privileges piecemeal, but to elect a government that cuts off all financial support to religious groups, including all tax breaks etc.

And that won't happen, because of the baby seals.

Dear Pericles,

Amen.

Polycarp wrote:

Dear David... I'll defer a heavy theological discussion about the use of the term 'son' in relation to God as it is beyond the scope of this topic.

Dear Polycarp,

It wouldn't be an issue if you didn't keep repeating the "God's only begotten son" rubbish where it was not the topic of conversation. However, when it is pointed out to be rubbish then you'll defer discussion of the rubbish.

Rubbish doesn't require a heavy theological discussion.

Pericles said,
"The answer ultimately is not to withdraw these privileges piecemeal, but to elect a government that cuts off all financial support to religious groups, including all tax breaks etc."

Absolutely agree!