The Speaker of Parliament has called for public debate on the relevance or use of the Lords Prayer at the opening of Parliament sessions.

Some are opposed to it, and various suggestions are offered to replace it.

-Acknowledgement of Indigenous ownership (4% support)
-The Anthem (around 19%)

There are others. But importantly, the support FOR the Lords prayer is a clear 63% at the time of writing. (Sky poll)

It was argued by one former Priest/historian that it is one of our major traditions, which looks back to the foundations of the nation during European settlement.

I tend to agree on that. Traditions are important for the feeling of framework and social values.

Perhaps we can explore the following:

Benefits of retaining the prayer.
Problems with retaining the prayer.
Benefits of replacing it with....?
Problems with replacing it with...?

We should also ask how strongly we believe in the separation of Church and State not only in principle but in action.

We should also seek to explore whether secularism is paid lip service or is a sincere principle for our politicians no matter their own spiritual beliefs.

The answers to these questions will assist in determing the relevance of the Lord's Prayer in today's parliamentary proceedings.

Personally, I like Senator Bob Brown's idea of replacing the Lords Prayer with a silent time for reflection.

For me personally, a recognition of traditional owners would be more appropriate and less alienating for non-Christian Australians. In a secular society, it would be equally inappropriate to replace the Lords Prayer with alternating prayers as was suggested in Victoria some time ago.

While tradition or ritual can be important for a nation's sense of identity it might be pertinent to recognise that nation's change and in a multi-cultural Australia comes a greater variation of religious and spiritual beliefs.

Religion and spirituality is a personal choice and not something to be forced on everyone at the beckoning of strong Chrisitan lobbies.

There are significant numbers of politicians on both sides of the fence who pander to the Christian lobby so I can't see the removal of the Lords Prayer anytime soon.

Last time I looked, parliament was full of people without scruples, who thought nothing of raiding the public purse for their own purposes, who would happily leave ethics at the door in favour of short-term gain or political spin, and whose entire lives are spent in the pursuit of their own heavily-superannuated and freebie-laden retirement.

In my view, the recitation of the Lords Prayer at the beginning of each session is entirely consistent with their attitudes, behaviour and accomplishments.

The recitation of the Lord's Prayer at he commencement of Parliament sessions is an anachronistic affront to the millions of Australians who are not Christians. If they have to begin parliamentary sessions with some kind of ritualistic incantation, I'd suggest that our elected representatives recite some kind of secular oath that affirms their democratic purpose for being there.

Hi Pericles and Pelican.

I see both your points of view.

Pericles.. sounds like we need a boistrous Isaiah to preach a sermon in addition to the prayer to sort out those attitudes.

Ah, sinful nation,
a people loaded with guilt,
a brood of evildoers,
children given to corruption!
They have forsaken the LORD;
they have spurned the Holy One of Israel
and turned their backs on him.

This rather ancient scenario does raise an interesting question. In the absense of an Ethical/Moral God who gives specific commandments, where, (other than the prophetic) could such a critical and credible "voice" be found?

What you mentioned about unprincipled people inhabiting the corridors of government simply means it takes more than the recitation of a formulated prayer to change their hearts.

I think it would be much more effective in countering the erosion of ethics if each member of parliament was in turn required to bring a devotional talk for 5 minutes from the Words of Christ.

It's not easy to harbour ill feeling, moral compromise or ethical breakdown when one knows that is looming close.

Pelican... yes, alas.. 'reasonably' it would seem that non Christians would be less alienated by simply having a time of reflection. One wonders though about 'what' people might reflect on :)

Finally, the unprincipled people in Government were voted there by us.
Generally, the process is
-'Politicians promise'
-We do our sums.. "more benefit/less benefit" (selfishness/greed)
-Then we vote.

If only this were so, Boaz.

>>'Politicians promise'
-We do our sums.. "more benefit/less benefit" (selfishness/greed)
-Then we vote.<<

What happens is:

- Politicians promise
- We elect on those promises
- We are thereafter totally ignored until the next time they need to capture our vote

You identify the key issue, but draw exactly the wrong conclusion from it.

>>In the absense of an Ethical/Moral God who gives specific commandments, where, (other than the prophetic) could such a critical and credible "voice" be found?<<

The recitation every morning gives the politician a warm feeling of sanctimony, and permits the assumption that what they are doing there is somehow OK, because they have invoked God.

If, on the other hand, they were forced to confront their own dishonesty with a personal affirmation of the purpose of their presence in the House, as CJ suggests, the responsibility for their decisions would clearly be their own alone.

As for your laughable suggestion that

>>it would be much more effective in countering the erosion of ethics if each member of parliament was in turn required to bring a devotional talk for 5 minutes from the Words of Christ<<

I can only point out that a daily dose of "the Words of Christ" has so far had a negative effect on their performance, with each successive generation of politicians more venal and greedy than the last.

Clearly, the morning ritual has failed its purpose, and needs replacing with something a little more binding.

Agreed CJ. Let’s dump the stupid thing …and replace it with silent time, so that the mob of silly mongrels can have at least a few seconds in each parliamentary session to reflect on how utterly undemocratic, big-business-pandering, continuous-growth-addicted, antisustainability and future-destroying they all are |:>|

Polycarp
As regarding reflection, I was thinking more along the lines of CJ and Ludwig's approach. To think about the purpose or role as elected representatives of the Parliament, their behaviour in Question Time, the standards of parliamentary debate and personal responsibility.

What do you think about the separation of Church and State Polycarp?

It is not just about alienating non-Christians but making a humanitarian decision to be inclusive of all peoples within a building that is one of the most democratic symbols of our nation.

Id like to mention the danger of trying to replace prayer in parliament.

For the unbelievers in parliament, its one way of finding out that there is a God....and for the people... if they follow suit and follow the ungodly parliamentarians.

Look to the north. Indonesia builds her armies.

Look to the north even further. China builds a vast army.

Often in the Old Testament, when they wandered away from The Lord, the children of Israel received an invader as a Judgment.

Could it happen here?

Its only the Hand of God that stopped Japan from getting here and that has stopped either Indonesia or China from claiming Australia...our land, our heritage, our fathers' efforts...our women.

Lets not tempt The Lord!

Australia is so far behind in Defence...we'd never stop the great asian armies from the north.

If it so suits the USA on that day to stay away, Anzus likewise, isnt worth the paper its written on.

CJ,
"I'd suggest that our elected representatives recite some kind of secular oath that affirms their democratic purpose for being there."

Hallelujah, I second that.

Christians who have an urge to pray should say their daily prayers before they leave home, in their own time.
In taxpayers' time they should focus on the things that benefit taxpayers.

Gibo,

I'm a tad confused by your advice.

First you say: "Its only the Hand of God that stopped Japan from getting here and that has stopped either Indonesia or China from claiming Australia...our land, our heritage, our fathers' efforts...our women. Lets not tempt The Lord!"

Then you say: "Australia is so far behind in Defence...we'd never stop the great asian armies from the north. If it so suits the USA on that day to stay away, Anzus likewise, isnt worth the paper its written on."

My question to you is this: If we stop the daily prayer in Parliament, will it be the hand of God or the US that will bring about the invasion by the Indonesians and Chinese?

Oh, and a supplementary question: Will it be Islamic Indonesia or atheistic China that win the race for Australia - or will the Japanese have another go knowing the hand of God and/or the US won't get in the way again?

The fact that there is a "wall of separation"
between church and state in this country is
largely a myth.

Religion is an element in oaths of office,
court-room procedures, (swearing on the Bible
to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help me God),
and indeed nearly all formal public
occasions. Even the Scouts give a "God and
country" pledge, that implies, to say the
least, a compatibility of interest between
the two.

Such sentiments are not allied to any specific
faith or political program: they are sufficiently
broad to be acceptable to almost everyone.

Regarding the Lords Prayer being said at the
opening of Parliament - this was inherited from
the British Christian parliamentary tradition.
In today's Australia of ethnic diversity and
religions, a suitable neutral adjustment to
the parliamentary prayer system should be made.

The National Anthem, which encompasses everyone
residing within the national boundaries of this
continent, would be more representative
than a Christian prayer.

The Lord's Prayer is not that long, and those Members of Parliament who don't believe could not take part. Consider what's in the Lord's Prayer. If it doesn't do any good, what harm does it do?

Whether you believe in God or not, our Constitution does acknowledge God.

Hi Spikey.
Both China and Indonesia have plans for the invasion of Australia. All they are waiting for is the right world climate. The Bibles endtimes will provide that climate. Whether or not the Hand of God stops an invader... is up to us.

If the nation is up to its neck in sin...we wont be getting Gods Staying Hand. Lots of prayer stopped the Japanese from getting here.
I believe it.

..and what is sin?

Abortion, homosexuality, idolatry (the love of junk tech), the political attempt (Labor/Greens) to overthrow God, Queen and Constitution, drugs, drunkenness. the great falling away from the Word of God and the Christian churches, violence and apathy (even to our our defence), blasphemy and on it goes....
Gods the Creator and He expects our attention on Jesus the Sacrifice to avert Judgment.

I really think the invader will be China if one is coming.
Though a fool takes his eyes of Indonesia.
All of the land north of Townsville they call SOUTH IRIAN. Ive heard they have already been here storing up arms on Australian soil...though I didnt get a confirmation.

Why not a simple animal sacrifice as an offering to appease whatever Gods may be overseeing proceedings in the House that day? That way we can cover all bases and leave nobody out (depending on which way God usually votes).

The wearing of amulets to ward off the "evil eye" of members of the opposition is also an option that may need to be revisited.

We've come such a very long way in the last couple of millennia in shaking off the superstitions of the past.

It's a total non-issue. If you want to pray, then pray. If you don't - then don't. Making it a compulsory act is only reducing it to a hollow token gesture.

Faith is a personal thing. Gone are the days where you HAD to scream the loudest for fear of being burned at the stake.

Taking the Lord's Prayer out of parliament is about as denouncing Christ as it is if you did the same at an under 7's footy match.

A lot of what that has gone wrong in history is a direct result of church and State combining policy. People who scream the loudest about faith being taken out of societal 'institutions' may need to reassess their REAL reasons for 'believing'. Save yourself, let the universe sort the rest out.

Hi Gibo,

You say: "Both China and Indonesia have plans for the invasion of Australia." Are these plans found in the Bible or did you FOI our security forces?

You also say: "All of the land north of Townsville they call SOUTH IRIAN. Ive heard they have already been here storing up arms on Australian soil...though I didnt get a confirmation." So that fact wasn't in the Bible?

You also say: "Lots of prayer stopped the Japanese from getting here." What happened to the US (you know, General McArthur, Battle of the Coral Sea, the Kokoda Track, and all that)?

You also say "..and what is sin?" And your answer includes "(Labor/Greens) to overthrow God, Queen and Constitution". So we're stuck with the monarchy until God says otherwise? And referenda to change the constitution are sinful? I can't see how the ALP and the Greens could overthrow God. Or would the Indonesians and Chinese collaborate with them on that?

Fascinating stuff, Gibo.

I probably differ from some Christians here. I see no point in offering a prayer acknowledging the only True God and then passing legislation to murder babies or promote immorality. This kind of thinking is more in line with the earth worshipers who have their own fake outward morality. Let those who want to pray to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ do so and allow the heathens to bow to their dead gods.

Though any honest person can see that the adoption of Christian values led to people being educated and the sick and elderely being cared for we are now more influenced by god haters who would prefer the fruit of securalism (immorality, drug usage, homosexuality, teen pregnancy, violence etc) in order to maintain their own rights. The prayer for many (not all) of our politicians is symbolism at best.

I agree with runner.

>>This kind of thinking is more in line with the earth worshipers who have their own fake outward morality.<<

That's exactly the point, isn't it.

It's nothing but fakery.

Sanctimonious lip-synching.

>>The prayer for many (not all) of our politicians is symbolism at best.<<

I'd venture to suggest, runner, that it is precisely that for every single man jack of them.

After all, as you pointed out most succinctly, once they've finished mumbling the words, they spend their time "passing legislation to murder babies or promote immorality".

If the prayer isn't symbolism, it must perforce be hypocrisy.

Please, god, allow me to live in runner's universe, where all goodly people share my extreme beliefs, and only the infidels fall prey to vice and immorality.

Oh, hang on, god. Which universe has all those child-raping priests you allowed to speak for you for decades?

We are not happy in the sand box today:) Pray in parliament is an old tradition, and again! indoors, there,s nothing wrong with that. Runner. you cant stop having a little dig at me, can you?

I think the anzac's minutes silence shows the best respect for how far we have all come.

EVO

Pelican.... "separation of Church and state"...

I believe in this to the extent of not legislating to try to enforce 'belief', or.. adherence to one of a number of denominational groups. (the usual ones implied here are RC and Anglican)

I see nothing wrong with Parliament reflecting our cultural/religious history in that they include a non sectarian 'pep talk' where each member who admits to faith is given a turn. (Non Christians would not be required to do this) At least then, when peoples performance is monitored, what they 'said' can be brought to bear on what they 'do' :)

PERICLES.. ur right.. the 'ritual' has failed, because rituals always do. They are not of the heart but of the body. "Let us now prayyyyyyyy" (monotone) and then read some lines from a prayer book.

This is why the prophetic voice is needed. Nail some verses from Isaiah to the door of Belinda Neals(federal) office and Delabosca's (state). Grab a megaphone and YELL it from the lawn of Parliament....
Preach it outside the home of MP's :)

If words such as the Lords prayer don't have an impact when used as a kind of ritual, how can silence do any better? (Ludwig et al) I imagine peoples thoughts would drift to that thing most people are said to think about many times a day, or.. to how they can 'GET' the last person in Parliament who rubbed there nose in the poo.

An instructive video story illustrating this is "The Last Chance" starring Brendan Fraser and Micheal Keaton. Quite a parable indeed.

Oh Pericles.. one more thing, on your revised list of 'what happens'....

I would alter it a bit... just slightly.

Politicians promise
We weigh up those promises.
We vote.. they get in.
Then they fulill some of them (selectively.. core and peripheral) but ADD ON many they didn't mention which we would not have voted for in a million years.

Dear SANCHO.... be careful what you ask for :) I've seen stranger things than the likes of you humbling themselves before the Almighty.

I can't wait till I can say "Brothers.. Runner, Gibo...Sancho,..

Celivia says:

<<Christians who have an urge to pray should say their daily prayers before they leave home, in their own time.
In taxpayers' time they should focus on the things that benefit taxpayers.>>

You have 2 good points there. A person who fills their heart with Godliness before heading for work will surely be a different person from one who is just seething over the last political knock.

I actually think a person walking in the Spirit of Christ is of GREAT benefit to tax payers.. after all Zacchaeus the corrupt tax collector said to Jesus "Lord.. those who I've defrauded, I restore to them forefold" :)))

Now THAT I'd like to see!

It seems that a major component of your problem, Boaz, is that you have such an incredibly low opinion of your fellow man.

>>If words such as the Lords prayer don't have an impact when used as a kind of ritual, how can silence do any better?<<

Your assumption is always the basest, isn't it? Without your guidance, the entire parliament would find themselves members of NAMBLA, or worse.

Silence is actually very powerful - just consider the silence on Remembrance Day. Does your mind wander off onto what you might be having for lunch, or do you spend the time contemplating the sacrifice made by others so that you could live your life free of oppression?

Silence forces you to stop and take stock. Putting the brain into automatic while mumbling some ritual does not. Encouraging our politicians with a few well-chosen words that remind them of their obligations and responsibilities to the citizens of this country, followed by a minute of silence to mull over them, can only be an improvement.

Your suggestion of a show-and-tell from each member is actually very interesting.

>>...a non sectarian 'pep talk' where each member who admits to faith is given a turn.<<

But why do you propose to exclude non-believers?

My guess would be that because you can only see evil in atheism, only the godly would take it seriously.

But surely, if the objective is to instill a culture such that "when peoples performance is monitored, what they 'said' can be brought to bear on what they 'do'", why exempt anyone?

Are you suggesting perhaps that only religious people need to be held accountable?

Or that it is a waste of time to expect non-believers to do anything except lie and cheat?

Leaving that aside, I think it is a stunningly brilliant suggestion.

To ask each politician in turn, selected by ballot to avoid manipulation, to open Parliament each day with a minute's reflection on their purpose, and their commitment, to us.

And follow it with a minute's absorption.

I'll mention it to Kevin when next we meet.

AaAH Pericles.. I think you have the shoe on the wrong foot.. you interpret my post from the point of view of a low opinion of me :)

You didn't quite get what I intended. Let me try to elaborate.

I suggested only those who have a faith, because they claim to be under the personal heart rule of a higher being. An atheist would not make such a claim. It doesn't mean they are only and always intent on screwing the system for the sake of ill gotten gain, but it surely means they have no ultimate sense of accountablity?

To their fellow man.. maybe..but that kind of accountablity boils down to 'will they catch me or not'.

I will agree though, I do have a rather low estimation of the moral fibre of the natural man. (including myself) I observed a long time ago...that the only thing which changed with the sophistication of the person was the equal sophistication of the sin. Quantity was not the issue, just the quality.

A pep talk from an atheist would be welcome, but it should refer to some kind of standard, even if it's just the 2nd great commandment, "Do for others...etc" they can still be brought to book for that.

I wonder how John Delabosca would feel if some Liberal political identity had his wife, his cousin, his son, and his dog on high paying political persuits? :) Oooh I'd love to be a flie on the wall if he ever piped up about that in parliament.

SANCHO.. I'm ensuring I give you a wide berth for a few weeks :) never know what might happen.. I've seen it b4.

Inspirational readings from secular readings should be heard to inspire and empower our legislators.There are passages from all "holy" books and other forms of literature that make now reference to dependence on supernatural powers. Go to some of the speeches by Abrhham Lincoln Tom Paine Jefferson, Gandhi,Mandela the Dalai Lama etc and let the power of their visions flood the legislators hearts and minds.
How's that for an alternative?

socratease

Porkycrap: << It doesn't mean they are only and always intent on screwing the system for the sake of ill gotten gain, but it surely means they have no ultimate sense of accountablity?

To their fellow man.. maybe..but that kind of accountablity boils down to 'will they catch me or not'. >>

When they are in Parliament, elected Members have no higher accountability than to their electorates. It's called democracy.

What Porky and his Christian mates want is for our governments to retain their vestigial nods to Christianity. My prediction is that the recital of the Lord's Prayer in the Australian Parliament will be history within a decade, if not sooner.

It will be good riddance, I reckon - for all the reasons stated above.

'It will be good riddance,'

It might be good riddance for a short period of time but it is obvious that God will not strive with the complete arrogance of man forever. It will ultimately be good riddance to all the unrepentant evil doers who are self righteous enough to ignore the Creator and His wishes. Some people are naive enough to think that God is going to totally surrender the planet He made to those who worship created things. How pathetic to listen to the clay telling the Potter how things should be run. No wonder the West is in such a mess.

Runner said, “good riddance to all the unrepentant evil doers who are self righteous enough to ignore the Creator and His wishes.”

Polycarp said, “it surely means they (atheists) have no ultimate sense of accountability?”

Gibo said, “If the nation is up to its neck in sin...we wont be getting Gods Staying Hand.”

Phil Zuckerman, professor of sociology and author of Invitation to the Sociology of Religion, said:
” …the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute.
One must always be careful, of course, to distinguish between totalitarian nations where atheism is forced upon an unwilling population (such as in North Korea, China, Vietnam, and the former Soviet states) and open, democratic nations where atheism is freely chosen by a well-educated population (as in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan).”
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=pzuckerman_26_5

Good riddance to the Parliament’s opening prayer indeed!

PS Polycarp, “I actually think a person walking in the Spirit of Christ is of GREAT benefit to tax payers.”
I’m sure that any government, praying or not, will be of GREAT benefit to some taxpayers. But which taxpayers are the chosen ones?
Certainly not the people who’ve been paying tax all their lives- our elderly.

Because religion has steeply declined in Australia, we could say that there were more faithful churchgoers in the past then there are now.
Most of today’s elderly were raised in Christian religious families. These elderly now live in poverty, more so than other groups in our society.
Why is that? WWJD?

What would Christ say (if he existed) about all those past and more recent parliaments that supposedly walk in the spirit of Christ but did so little for the group that is probably more religious than other groups; our elderly? But many live below the poverty line today.

Prayer doesn’t make our ministers anymore accountable to the taxpayer

CJ says:

"It will be good riddance, I reckon -"

Which...is always easy to say from with-in such a framework, but seldom does such reasoning grapple with the unforeseen consequences of breaking out.

The clearest indications of what does happen when a nation abandons God, is found in the prophets such as Isaiah.

4 What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?

5 Now I will tell you
what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will take away its hedge,
and it will be destroyed;
I will break down its wall,
and it will be trampled.

6 I will make it a wasteland,
neither pruned nor cultivated,
and briers and thorns will grow there.
I will command the clouds
not to rain on it.

I draw all of our attention to vese 6 especially.
What are we having.. hmmmm I think its the worst drought in living memory. Sobering thought.

Socratease mate.. I guess a reading from any inspring person would be good, except Thomas Payne? eeeuuuuwww that man was a pain in the neck.
No, not him, maybe Sheakesphere or some philosopher... as long as each person speaks from their own philosophical framework..I can see social value in it. My preference is that what we say refers to the One to whom we will all one day give account, but as I said.. it's my preference.

I would not see any value at all in some witch getting up and telling everyone how 'nature' does it for them.. or a Satanist.. so I guess this brings us back to the 'tradition' issue does it not?

Porky: << seldom does such reasoning grapple with the unforeseen consequences of breaking out. >>

I think most sane and rational Australians wouldn't be too worried about the spiteful reaction of a scorned deity - particularly since (to follow Porky's logic) he's already "commanded the clouds not to rain", despite the current ritual incantation at the beginning of Parliament. Wasn't it just last year that the erstwhile PM was urging the faithful to pray for rain? What happened?

Perhaps the ongoing drought is punishment for the Australian electorate deposing the Lying Rodent? Oh hang on, Rudd's a godbotherer too...

The attitude of prayer is a reflection of several spiritual realities. That is best stated in the ancient prayer first used by the Essenes and John the Baptist and taught by Jesus to his disciples upon their request to pray as John's deciples. If it is believed removes human pride, supremacy and arrogance to our environment and our relationship with others.

1. We are not the masters of the universe. Our life is dependent upon providence.
2. We must deeply respect the nature that formed our reality.
3. The true and fulfilling state of society is the purity of relationships, justice, mercy administered in love.
4. We pray that will be acomplished in the Earth.
5. Help us to secure our daily needs as a society, as war and catastrophe upsets that security.
6. Where we have wronged others we are repentant and sincerely will seek to reconcile with others.

We can recognise such arrogance of spirit in those who wish to remove prayer

I'm not sure it is prayer itself that is on the table here, Philo.

>>We can recognise such arrogance of spirit in those who wish to remove prayer<<

It's about the use of a prayer that is the exclusive property of one specific religion.

It occurs to me that the words you present here would be a fine substitute. They seem to embody all the personal reflections that a politician should consider before beginning their day.

"1. We are not the masters of the universe. Our life is dependent upon providence."

Highly appropriate humility to start with.

"2. We must deeply respect the nature that formed our reality."

Not bad at all. Even allows the religious to recognize their God as the nature that formed their own particular reality.

"3. The true and fulfilling state of society is the purity of relationships, justice, mercy administered in love"

Lovely imagery. If only our politicians reminded themselves of this every day.

"4. We pray that will be acomplished in the Earth"

Even a call to action. That's what we're here for, people. Let's do it.

"5. Help us to secure our daily needs as a society, as war and catastrophe upsets that security."

About as good a job description as you're likely to get as a parliamentarian.

"6. Where we have wronged others we are repentant and sincerely will seek to reconcile with others"

And another bit of humility to finish up with.

Thanks Philo. I'll mention it to Kevin when next we meet.

Dear CJ.. we are getting there.. step by painful step... in the end, you might even understand :) I hope and pray so for sure.

You said:

"despite the current ritual incantation at the beginning of Parliament."

Yep.. and this is what the Almighty said to the Israelites who were strong on ritual, light on heart committment.

11 "The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?" says the LORD.

"I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?

13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.

14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.

15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood

Verse 15 might provide an insight as to why things are as you described. Isaiah 1.

I reckon you will increasingly enjoy my little excerpts from Isaiah..a truly seriously great book.

In summary, blessing is dependant on the relationship of the heart to our Creator.

Oh I get it now, not only should we maintain the ritual incantation of the Lord's Prayer at the commencement of Parliamentary sessions, but our MPs have to mean what they're mumbling - it's only because they're not sincere enough that Porky's invisible friend is punishing us with a drought. In other words, we're doomed to famine and pestilence unless we only elect Christians to the Australian parliament, because they'd be about the only ones who'd take such nonsense seriously.

Riiiiiggghht.

Now, about that lie of yours on your Henson thread...

Mt 6:9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“ ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
Mt 6:10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Mt 6:11 Give us today our daily bread.
Mt 6:12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Mt 6:13 And lead us not into temptation,but deliver us from evil.

I preferred your first proposal, Philo, for the reasons I stated. God can be invoked through the "nature that formed our reality" clause by those who need one, otherwise it's simply a humble recognition that our place in the universe is pretty damn small.

The reality is that if you are sufficiently self-aware to understand that the prayer is a form of meditation and reflection, and strong enough to take the responsibility upon yourself to "answer" those prayers, you don't need any external involvement.

Introducing the random instruction "This, then, is how you should pray:‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name'" adds nothing to the need for the pollies to take ownership of the task ahead of them. It has no impact on those who know there's no-one up there, and is probably the wrong format - and therefore insulting - for the vast majority of "other" religions.

Pericles,

Your imperturbable logic has a seductive beauty. Yes, you are a seasoned rationalist, and while I don’t believe you are completely non-partisan (your belligerence for Poly aligned with a certain soft spot for those ‘ “other” religions ‘ proves only that your “reasonableness” is an imperfectly-cultivated facade), I am almost joyous that you can discern the wisdom in the Lord’s Prayer (as long as it is not called the Lord’s Prayer, of course).

Philo, that was a very elegant post, and while I watch from the sidelines on this thread, if this exciting exchange was a real ball game, I would be cheering loudly (which doesn’t mean game over, just that this thread is particularly good from the stands).

My child’s secular school has a similar tradition of reciting the Lord’s prayer (or at least A prayer) at assembly and a Christian heritage formalized in the school motto “Laus Deo” (“In God We Trust” or “Praise be to God”).

I personally feel the only harm done in public recital is to the practicing Christians in the audience! My overall impression of this whimsical treatment of prayer, is that the practice is diluted by insincerity. Surely the muslims in the school can see how nominal the “Christian-ness” of western society is, or at least how non-threatening the claim.

Footnote: Malcolm Turnbull is a graduate of aforementioned school. (such a history of lip service will not be hard pressed in parliament!)

"Perhaps the ongoing drought is punishment for the Australian electorate deposing the Lying Rodent? Oh hang on, Rudd's a godbotherer too..."

Alexander Downer stated in 2004 that an unusually high proportion of Federal politicians on all sides were practising Christians who had a sense of faith and listened to what the churches told them and the rest of the community.

Senator Lyn Allison wrote in 2005 of the Federal Parliamentary Fellowship which met during sitting weeks to read passages from the bible. She estimated that between 60 and 75 parliamentarians out of a total of 226 members attended these meetings.

(The Purple Economy by Max Wallace)

The godbotherers certainly had a place in government during the Howard years. Whether it's any different under self-confessed Christian, Rudd, is probably unlikely.

Dear CJ....

"but our MPs have to mean what they're mumbling"

let me try to bring this into the context of the topic.

In a word....."Yes". But I can't venture too hard and fast down the 'we are being punished with a drought' track, because it might be more a "We are now reaping what we have been sowing due to our selfish greed and lust for things" in terms of climate change.

Does God have sovereignty over the weather? Absolutely. (Jesus calmed the storm with His word).. I've seen a couple of examples myself, but remaining focused on the "Prayer".. it's as Isaiah said .. if you speak with the mouth, but deny with the heart.. it certainly won't be heard.

Katie! ^5 ! you are a legend. Please remain in the vicinity always, even on the sidelines, I sometimes need a 'tag' team buddy :)

To all. My main interest in the issue at hand is that those who confess with their lips the said prayer, will do so with their hearts not 'far from the Lord'.

Ouch, KatieO.

>>your belligerence for Poly aligned with a certain soft spot for those ‘ “other” religions ‘ proves only that your “reasonableness” is an imperfectly-cultivated facade<<

That'll teach me to tangle with the mum of a Grammar boy.

>>My child’s secular school has a similar tradition of reciting the Lord’s prayer (or at least A prayer) at assembly and a Christian heritage formalized in the school motto “Laus Deo” (“In God We Trust” or “Praise be to God”).<<

My old school's Latin motto was a sixteenth century pun on the founders' name, which was a constant source of amusement to us schoolboys. It also taught me that "in God we trust" was "Deo confidimus", but for all I know that's a pun as well.

It is certainly a failing of mine on these boards that my attitude towards Boaz comes across as belligerence. The relationship began as a running commentary on his bully-pulpit tactics, which reminded me strongly of the antics of one Oswald Mosley, a one-time idol of my grandfather who attended his Limehouse rallies in the thirties.

Unfortunately, it has been downhill all the way ever since.

But KatieO, an "imperfectly-cultivated facade"? I'm hurt!

Bin the lord's prayer, begin with a period of reflection on parliamentary responsibilities. It's inclusive and actually means something. Christian pollies may recite the lord's prayer anytime they like, if they find it brings them guidance.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for. What is your hope in . I hope it is not in sinful humanity traped by their soul in violent pendulum swings , up one minute down the next . Our soul runs on feelings and Jesus came to save our soul so that we could then make responsible life and death choises . Never ever eat from the tree of the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil . Adam did and death entered the human race . Since that day man has lived in the knowledge of good and evil and this thread is a testament to that fact all about feeling .

Dear Pericles.. what Katie did is simply show you how you are perceived by (some) others.

She also showed you a very skilful use of language :) In short, she put you in your well deserved place.

You are perceived as beligerant because you are.. and you spend more time on pedantism than core issues, attacking credibility based on that pedantism and avoiding like the plague anything resembling reasoned argument on simple issues like 'Surah 9' :)

You attack me because you neither understand that chunk of (un)holy writ, nor its circumstance, nor the character of the writer and thus, you have no grounds for attacking the ARGument.. so you go for the arguER....i.e.. me.

But.. why should I waste words when Katie can use them so much more eloquently to slice, dice and hang you out to dry.. *TAG* ur turn Katie :)

Veronika... I sympathize with your point about silence. But I find myself rather encouraged at least by the symbolism of the Lords Prayer... so I'd not be one to 'oust' it.
I'm one of those who believe that Government should send symbolic messages to the community on issues of morality and spirituality, but there is no ritualistic substitute for us doing the hard yards of bringing Christ to each person individually.... which after all is what the Lord commanded.

Dear Polycarp,

Pericles does exactly what you say Katie O did.

Pericles consistently, and patiently, and eloquently,
points out to you flaws in your arguments, and,
tries to show you how you are perceived, by
others on this Forum.

Therefore it comes as a surprise that you see Katie's
arguments as valid, but not those of Pericles.

Could it be that it's because her arguments were directed
at Pericles, and his were directed to you?

Pericles to many of us represents a reasoning mind.

However, I suppose, "The hardest thing to explain is
the glaringly evident which some have decided not to
see..."

Polycarp

Foxy was restrained yet eloquent - and spot on.

But you'll ignore her, as per usual.

It’s like going for popcorn at the top of the 6th, getting stuck at the ladies toilet, finally getting back to my seat only to see my face on the big screen while “Take me back to the ballgame” fades out.

OK. I’m guilty of embellishing my post with words that Pericles would understand. And I stand corrected on a Latin translation (the infants headmistress has led me astray!). Pericles’ flinch is de rigueur old school…erudite and even poignant!

However, Foxy and Spikey, while Pericles is a purist when it comes to the “reasoning mind”, credibility is lost over that one small departure, ie. when it comes to debating Poly. Even Pericles acknowledges that my interpretation may be justified given the history.

When Pericles really engages with the Christian message (see the response to Philo above), there a positive exchange of ideas which doesn’t encourage “side” taking.

That was fine work from both contributors, a meeting of the “reasoning” mind, and the more primitive, subjective ‘intuitative’ mind. Disambiguation boils that down to one “mind” (thinking). It is not really about pointing out the flaws, but growing to maturity.

Hmmm, it's an interesting side effect, KatieO. I'll give it some thought.

>>credibility is lost over that one small departure, ie. when it comes to debating Poly. Even Pericles acknowledges that my interpretation may be justified given the history.<<

But to find myself, after your gentle chiding, on the receiving end of some classic Boaz condescension, is simply too much to shrug off.

Boaz, I really didn't need yet another interminable lecture from your good self about bloody Surah bloody 9.

>>You are perceived as beligerant because you are.. and you spend more time on pedantism than core issues, attacking credibility based on that pedantism and avoiding like the plague anything resembling reasoned argument on simple issues like 'Surah 9'<<

Has it not yet penetrated that skull of yours that I couldn't give a tinker's cuss about bloody Surah bloody 9?

It is your hobby-horse, not mine. Your fixation. Your paranoia. Your knee-jerk reaction. Your infatuation. Your monomania.

Boaz, there is no "reasoned argument" to be had with you on the topic of bloody Surah bloody 9.

You have taken great pains to prove that, many times over.

>>you neither understand that chunk of (un)holy writ, nor its circumstance, nor the character of the writer and thus, you have no grounds for attacking the ARGument.. so you go for the arguER<<

Understanding or not understanding is not at issue. As far as I can tell, yours is itself an idiosyncratic reading.

But what I object to more than anything is the manner in which you use it - and other carefully selected snippets - as a kicking-off point for one of your whack-a-mozzie rants.

And you know it.

Sorry, KatieO, I had to get that off my chest.

After reading Katie0's last post, I didn't know whether to swoon or puke.

But many thanks to Pericles for cutting through the crap and providing a chuckle on the way.

Incidentally, I don't think anybody's provided a cogent, rational or persuasive argument for retaining the recitation of the Christian prayer at the opening of Australian parliaments.

Like I said before, the sooner we get rid of it, the better. It's divisive, anachronistic and - above all - rubbish.

Ah, the measure of maturity (raised by Katie O)...

According to Encyclopedia Dramatica,

"People who are truly mature do not
need to advertise their maturity,
because their actions basically speak
for themselves. Ironically people
who are the least mature use words as a
weapon to claim superiority over their
rivals..."

Or as another poster wrote,

"Well, I must be regressing, because I
find maturity drab, and boring.

Excuse me... I must go and pull faces at
my neighbours."

Foxy,

You read ED? OK, now I'm impressed.

Actually.... this thread, and the sweeping dimensions of some of the posts, is .. dare I say it... becoming almost like a good episode of FRAZIER... which is VERY therapeutic for me as I've now seen the re-runs on FOX so many times.

Pericles asks:

<<Has it not yet penetrated that skull of yours that I couldn't give a tinker's cuss about bloody Surah bloody 9?>>

Ok..I already knew that Pericles.. I mean..by now I soooooo know it, it ain't funny. THE PROBLEM is.... that most of what I write contra Islam is BASED on that very surah... and here you are saying:

"I don't give a damn about it" but that illustrates the very problem of your belligerance against me.

IF.....

a) you don't care about it.
b) you don't understand it.

WHY then.. do you attack me when I refer to it:) That my dear P is irrational. You are attacking me for speaking about something YOU don't understand... now.. some head scratching might be in order here.. as you contemplate this.

How in this wide world can you declare someones posts a 'whack-a-mozzie' when you don't comprehend the reasons for the 'whack' ?

Such an approach is.. to be kind..absurd.

Nuff said on that.

CJ is stretching out his shepherds crook and reigning us all back to topic...

COGENT ARGUMENT 'FOR' retaining the Lords Prayer?

I don't have one CJ.. I'd just say that it is a valued cultural tradition which gives me a 'feel good' moment.

Dear Foxy.. all your words are noted. But please don't poke your tongue out at ur neighbours, they might not come to help when the next intruder invades and you scream :)

Spikey.. are you noting this acknowledgment?

Oh, I most certainly can, Boaz, believe me.

>>How in this wide world can you declare someones posts a 'whack-a-mozzie' when you don't comprehend the reasons for the 'whack' ?<<

Once upon a time, there was this guy called Oswald Mosley.

He was well educated, well brought up, well off - a bit of a toff, actually - and mixed with the top echelons of society.

He had this thing about Jews.

He believed that they were at the heart of all that was wrong about British society, especially a society that was going through hard times.

He also disliked foreigners. He believed that they were anti-British, and were taking away jobs that rightly belonged to Englishmen.

He made it his life's work to bring these facts to the attention of the British people.

So far so good, I hear you say.

Sounds a perfectly reasonable thing to do - everyone has to have an interest in life, after all. And looking after the welfare of your fellow citizens - that's a pretty worthwhile objective too, is it not?

Now, our Oswald didn't have bloody Surah bloody 9 to help him. Or any other number come to that.

But he did use "evidence" that - coming from a bully-pulpit, and from someone so eloquent and totally engaged - sounded very convincing to the man on the street.

In large numbers. On many streets.

Helped along by guys with small brains and substantial muscles, to keep any objections from the crowd to a minimum.

The "evidence" was largely in his own head. It involved attributing conspiracy, hatred, financial duplicity, all manner of crimes, to his enemies.

It did not involve much by way of fact. What facts that did exist were twisted and distorted.

Because of this, no intelligent argument was possible. Only he could make sense of it, which allowed him to continue rabble-rousing for a very long time.

Nobody could understand the reasons for his "whack-a-Jew" stance either, Boaz.

It still didn't make him "right".

Aaah Pericles.. we are perilously close to something resembling 'meaningful discussion' here.. a good sign.

You said:

<<The "evidence" was largely in his own head>> exxxxxxxACTLY... that was his problem.. he made it up.

Which is of course the WHOLE difference between my focus on Surah 9 and Mosely's approach. He did not have real evidence, I do.

But let's not wail away on that now or FH will spike my next big mac and my demise will be certain :) I feel that observers can see what's going on in your head.. some kind of Mosely fetish and maybe an overbearing Grand-dad.... who knows.

LORDS PRAYER... The only thing I can repeat about this is that I like the idea. The future of the Church does not depend on it being mentioned in Parliament, but the values which it contains certainly can have a positive impact on the community.

Imagine how many crimes would evaporate if we just had the

"give us this day our daily bread" and "forgive us AS we forgive those who sin against us".

...approach eh?

Our jails would just about empty overnight.

The problem of just emphasizing such values in a godless world, or community, is there is no reference to the ultimate sanction of judgement... hence they will not be felt with much clout.

This leads back to the issue of the heart and loving God above all else.

10 "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4)

Polycarp,

"COGENT ARGUMENT 'FOR' retaining the Lords Prayer? I don't have one CJ.. I'd just say that it is a valued cultural tradition which gives me a 'feel good' moment."

"Spikey.. are you noting this acknowledgment?"

Yes indeed, Polycarp, I am; and you could have knocked my socks off! You admitting you don't have a COGENT ARGUMENT FOR anything. (Now if only you'd knock off the capital shouts.)

Next you'll be conceding that Muslims have 'valued cultural traditions' that give them 'feel good' moments. And we can all sleep safe and sound at night knowing it's all sound signifying nothing more than warm fuzziness.

PC: "He did not have real evidence, I do."

Poly, you are deluded.

PC: "The problem of just emphasizing such values in a godless world, or community, is there is no reference to the ultimate sanction of judgement... hence they will not be felt with much clout."

Pollies, along with the general population, should strive to do the right thing *because* it is the right thing, not because they fear their personal judgment. The self-interest at the heart of Islam, or Christianity (sorry, I forget which one you are), is the reason we should separate church and state.

Dear Polycarp,

I appreciate your noting my posts.
And, please don't worry about my
neighbours not coming to my aid in
case of intruders.

We're all good
friends and regularly play with our
Lego sets...

Please, Boaz, do not try amateur psychology as well,or I might be tempted to analyse your contributions in a similarly superficial and insulting manner.

>>some kind of Mosely fetish and maybe an overbearing Grand-dad.... who knows.<<

And we are indeed at the nub of the discussion, right here.

>>Which is of course the WHOLE difference between my focus on Surah 9 and Mosely's approach. He did not have real evidence, I do.<<

You don't, Boaz.

I know that you think you do. I know in fact that you have convinced yourself that your selective usage of verses from the Qur'an constitutes evidence.

But I would ask you to contemplate carefully.

Evidence of what?

You move rapidly from a personal and idiosyncratic interpretation of ancient texts, to a position that the existence of these texts somehow constitutes a threat to us all.

Precisely the actions of a Mosley. He used different - more contemporary, for one - texts, of course, but to precisely the same end: to instill fear and loathing in the hearts of his audience.

As I carefully explained:

"It involved attributing conspiracy, hatred, financial duplicity, all manner of crimes, to his enemies. It did not involve much by way of fact. What facts that did exist were twisted and distorted."

This is an accurate description, Boaz, of your writings here.

Just out of curiosity. How many Surah are there? How many verses in total? And how many have you chosen to be representative of the goals and objectives of an entire religion?

I would remind you once again of the words of the mighty Rab:

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion"

Your "foolish notion", Boaz, is to imagine imminent mortal danger. Your mistake is then to believe that promulgating this foolish notion is somehow important enough to ignore all other realities.

Have a great, hate-free day.

Policarp,
Here's my contribution and the consultancy bill is in the mail.

The Lord prayer is too long, tedious and outdated for today's Australians.
I recommend it be redesigned for our times. After considerable public consultation (the mirror)I have come up with a prefered option but would be open to alternatives.
Recomended

"Our lord,lady....to whom it may concern.
PLEASE help us because this lot won't.
Amen
Your's truly rulely."

followed by 'Whose turn in the trough is it?'
:-) Snigger snigger he he ha HA

Dear Polycarp,

Pericles wished you a "hate-free day."

I second that for all of us.

"Fac alteri ut tibi vis."
(Do unto others).

Or ...

"Facta non verba."
(Deeds not words).

Foxy
A person can take an Afirmation as an alternative to the Oath.
In this you affirm to tell the truth etc.
Oddly enough it was originally adopted because some Christian denomenation are not allowed to swear on the Bible.

"The religious society of friends" ("Quakers" as they're commonly incorrectly known) are one such group.
'Quaker' was derisory nick name on account of the length of sermons (often over 2 hrs and the preacher would sway, not surprisingly) given to them by the founder's disapproving father in law, a judge.
It's very different now they're a non dogmatic church and meetings are largly quiet,contemplative. Betcha Polycarp didn't know that! :-]
(smug look)
By oath I don't mean like one person in Adelaide years ago was supposed to have done when asked "Do you swear to tell the truth.." he intejected with" 'ken oath your wigship" He was fined $20 for being a smart arse.
and no it wasn't me either :-)

Foxy your contribution to these threads reminds that not all Christians wish to impose their religion on others.

Another Christian, like your good self, posted the following in yesterday's Age 'Letters to the Editor'

"Quiet, please

AS A Christian, I feel the question of whether or not the Lord's Prayer should be read in Parliament can be answered by following one of Jesus' teachings: to treat others as we wish to be treated.

Just as we Christians would not feel comfortable with a prayer from another religion or an atheist declaration of the inexistence of God being read in Parliament, we must respect that atheists and people of different faiths do not feel comfortable with the Lord's Prayer being read. Perhaps in a place where silence is so rare, a moment of quiet time instead of any specific prayer would allow our MPs to pray, or not, to whomever they believe in."

30/10/08

Cheers

Hi Exammy.. u do like to snigger don't you :) Hmmm..I imagine you like old Steptoes dad...

Pericles.. I could run with those predictable comments of yours but it would defeat the purpose of the thread.
Let me just say that you simply underlined the problem.

1/-You don't know anything about it.
2/-You then declare those who do to be wrong.
3/-It is irrational and absurd to claim ignorance then authority in the same breath. "I dunno bout that but sure as eggs you don't either"

You have no basis for statement 2 if statement 1 is true...that's basic logic.

Fraccy.. as I've said.. I can find no other argument for retaining the Lords prayer than that I like it being there. I'd prefer it was something all members of parliament could subscribe to, but the nature of people and the Christian faith itself necessarily means we cannot impose it.
Currently 68% of Australians claim "Christianity" as their religion.
(2006 census)

Why should parliament not reflect this ?

Reasoning is:

1/ Most Australians by far are Christian (almost 70%)
2/ Parliament is representative of 'the people'
3/ Thus, it should reflect the religous flavor of the people.

Just in terms of democratic process..is there a problem with this?

I cannot accept the argument that something is being 'imposed' because the very nature of democracy means SOMEone will have SOMEthing 'imposed' on them by the decisions made in Parliament.....no?

The only argument I can accept is that there is no Biblical need for it to be there.

PC: "Just in terms of democratic process..is there a problem with this?"

Not at all. Your understanding of representational systems is remarkable.

I further propose that, because 80% of Australians live on the Eastern seaboard, that Australians who live south, west, north and inland should no longer be represented in parliament.

Democracy, innit?

Boaz, you have a great and apparently limitless capacity for missing the point entirely.

>>Let me just say that you simply underlined the problem.
1/-You don't know anything about it.
2/-You then declare those who do to be wrong.
3/-It is irrational and absurd to claim ignorance then authority in the same breath. "I dunno bout that but sure as eggs you don't either"
You have no basis for statement 2 if statement 1 is true...that's basic logic.<<

But I do know about rabble-rousing, Boaz, which is my statement 1.

I have made a study of it over the years, and recognize its characteristics, its strategies and its tactics.

And what I see in your bloody Surah bloody 9 argument is a classic instance of the famous South Park Chewbacca defence.

"This is Chewbacca, Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! None of this makes sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!"

The Wookie in your case is bloody Surah bloody 9.

Explaining at great length the import of this particular translation, or enlightening us with a statement of corroboration from that Imam, is exactly analogous to the South Park lawyer's claim that Endor, Ewoks and the planet Kashyyyk are relevant to the case under consideration.

I have no need to study different versions of ancient texts to recognize when rabble-rousing is taking place, in much the same way as Mosley's audience didn't need a detailed knowledge of the Torah or Talmud.

Let's see if I can sum it up.

You are talking about the meaning of bloody Surah bloody 9.

I am talking about using ancient texts - any ancient texts - as rabble fodder.

Dear Examinator,

I don't have a problem with whatever the Parliamentarians
decide they want to do. Take an oath, have a moment's
silence, the National Anthem, or whatever.
They will decide what they want to do anyway.

My personal preference is for the National Anthem, which
as I said in an earlier post - represents all of us on
this continent.

However, I think it was Pelican who said that it probably
won't happen anytime soon. I tend to agree. Look how long
it's taking us to become a Republic.

Dear Fractelle,

As always, your words warm my heart.
Thank You.

I fully agree with you in that politicians who are our
representatives should choose something more
appropriate in this day and age to open parliament
with. Something that would represent ALL of the people,
and not just one section of the Community.

My preference is for the
National Anthem.

While Pericles and Poly are warming to their long-running dispute, I thought I could address Pericles’ bewilderment as to why Sura 9 has a special relevance (to Poly, if not to this discussion).

Rodwell’s English translation of the Qur’an counts 6,151 verses (ayat) in 114 chapters (sura).

The Qur’an is peppered with 783 threats of hellfire, wrath, eternal judgement and perdition.

1 threat of hell in every 7.9 verses (longer verses with two or three warnings each are counted once).

Seven different chapters recount a jumble of Jewish scripture and myth, describing satan’s expulsion from heaven due to failure to prostrate before Adam (a man).

Another Jewish fable, Abraham’s rebuke of his father Terah for worshipping idols, is placed on the same level as Scripture and appears in six chapters. One story, one narrator, told six times.

The retelling of aspects of Abraham’s story appears in 24 of the Qur’an’s first 87 chapters. 1 retelling in every 3.6 chapters.

Other favourites in the first 89 chapters, involve the retelling of Moses’ confrontation with the pharaoh (omitting the story of the Passover in all 27 tellings).

Recycling other apocalyptic stories, includes references to Noah in 28 of the first 71 chapters (once in every 2.5 chapters)

Lot comes up in 14 chapters.

Tales of legendary Arab cities and heroes Ad, Thamud, Shu’aib and Salih are also repeated 6 or so times each.

Pared back, the book is rendered unintelligible by the incessant repetition and mix of Jewish scripture/fable, but also due to basic lack of nouns. Who did what to whom?

Surah 9, is one of the few (very few) verses that gives us insight into Mohammed’s brand of “revelation”. No obfuscation.

(quick aside: I take it you don’t like baseball CJ? It took a few innings for me to get it too, that is, until I found the beer). I may well be morphing into a Poly apologist, however, I am a genuine fan of Pericles’ prose as well. Nauesous? Another side effect!).

(I’ve drawn heavily from Don Richardson’s “Secrets of the Koran’ in this post, quotation marks omitted).

Dear Katie... I appreciate your apologetic efforts there.. anything resembling symathy is always welcome :)

The primary reason I make a fuss about Surah 9, is the same reason Geert Wilders does and most thinking non Muslism who have an appreciation for 2 things.

1/ History
2/ Contemporary attitudes and practices in Islamic countries related to their own history and holy books.

Specifically, Surah 9, curses Christians and Jews, and includes a general (and currently applicable) call to arms against Dar Ul Harb.. the world of non Islam. (9:29 and 30)

What Pericles does not see, is how this mode of thinking has been applied throughout history where Islam holds sway, even to this day.
He only sees a safe secure and comfortable Western social invironment where it is inconceivable that such things might ultimately (no Pericles..not 'imminent invasion') mean problems for Christians.

I've mentioned the irony of being criticized for this king of thinking by the Kurdish girl who ridiculed the thought that "If we get power do you reallllly think we would harm Christians?".... to which I responded "Kurds in 1910 to 1915 spearheaded the massacre of 500,000 to 750,000 Assyrian Christians"

BUT back to the topic a-gain :)

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR of keeping the Lords prayer at opening.

1/ Has their been a time when it was NOT used in our parliament...ever?
2/ Is it not a fact that most Australians claim to be Christian? (68%)

3/ How can it be an 'imposition' when it has always been?

4/ Thus, removing it, (in the light of points 1 and 2 above) would be more of an 'imposition' by a minority on the majority?

Let me repeat though.. I find no Biblical requirement/argument for it to be used (apart from the obvious moral/ethical benefits).. I'm just arguing from tradition.

Polycarp

Have you ever made an argument on OLO that has not included quotes from the Bible or the Koran? You continue to do this despite an awareness of the inevitable responses - perhaps a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy at its most raw.

On a thread about religion of course it is entirely appropriate to quote the Bible, but sometimes we would like to hear from Polycarp the man not Polycarp on a religious mission.

On another thread (I think it was Sells' thread) you made a comment about the usual "religous villifiers" and on other threads you put on your "hard-done by" martyrs hat.

Your own views towards various other faiths (particularly Islam) are among the most villifying I have seen on OLO. It is difficult to take you seriously when there is such marked hypocrisy. Is religious villification okay when it is directed towards non-Christian faiths?

Perhaps what you perceive as the defence of Islamic faith on OLO is manifested only by your own extreme views against it. Australians by nature tend to come to the defence of the underdog.

Why not try sometimes to argue from the viewpoint of a human rather than as some self-imposed instrument of your God. If your intent is to brainwash us it does not seem to be working, perhaps this suggests another tack might be in order.

Poly

Basing your argument from the point of "tradition" is very weak.

Attitudes/traditions change, that's why we no longer have slavery.

I realise that you do not ever consider the feelings of others who do not share your dogma, therefore even attempting to discuss the anachronism of a contemporary parliament saying a Christian prayer, is completely wasted on you.

Foxy
I figured your views were that it is each to their own.
I simply meant to fill your brain with more information. OK much of it was guilding the orchid but when didn't I....I just love input me and 'Johnny Five' ('short circuit')
Just being friendly. :-)

Pelecan I never cease being impressed by your abillity of sucinctness.
Well put...I'm jealous :-o

Dear examinator,

'Number Five is alive...'

You're into input.

Whereas '(I've Had) The Time of My life.'

'Nobody puts Baby in the corner!'
(Dirty Dancing).

Did you ever see, 'Metropolis,' ?

Just curious.

I am sure that your intervention is well intended, Katie. Well, almost.

>>I thought I could address Pericles’ bewilderment as to why Sura 9 has a special relevance (to Poly, if not to this discussion).<<

I am far from "bewildered" as to why bloody Surah bloody 9 has relevance to Boaz.

It provides him with material with which he can sustain his perpetual animosity against people who believe in a religious system that is not his own. And use this to further his campaign of vilification against Muslims, whom he would have us believe are about to murder us all in our beds.

My concern is not with the text, it's provenance or its adherents, but the fact that it is used to manufacture an image of an enemy that will stop at nothing to subjugate the world.

From the standpoint of logic, I find it frustrating that all the arguments are self-fulfilling and circular. An extract from a text is displayed for us, an explanation is provided (that this foreshadows our doom as a civilization), and when questioned - hey presto! - we are referred back to the text, as if we are some moronic cave-dwellers.

It goes like this.

Let 'a' represent bloody Surah bloody 9, and 'b' the imminent demise of the civilized world.

Boaz's hypothesis can be stated as:

a = b,

for which the proof is...

b = a

It is a stance that, apart from anything else, I find both arrogant and insulting. Which is possibly why I occasionally become a little heated.

Fundamentally our disagreement centres on the fact that Boaz believes implicitly in the power of ancient scriptures to rule every aspect of our twentyfirst century lives.

I don't.

Pericles:

"Boaz's hypothesis can be stated as: a = b,

for which the proof is...b = a"

...in which 'a' = animosity and ' = bulldust.

"Your own views towards various other faiths (particularly Islam) are among the most villifying I have seen on OLO. It is difficult to take you seriously when there is such marked hypocrisy."

Dear Pelican... actually.. I'm not sure if you can accept this, but.. it's really simple.

The Quran...CURSES Christians Jews BY NAME.. and...FOR...their core beliefs.(as understood by Mohammad at the time of writing.
9:30 Please read this.

How do you construe 'exposing' vilification as an act of 'vilification'?

Pericles has it quite wrong. He seems to still have the persistant view that I'm simply criticizing Islam JUST because they "believe differently from us"....

NO....NO....NO.. How many times must I repeat.. My approach usually is to show what Islam SAYS about Christians..and to show by contemporary and historical events how dangerous this is/can be.

My comments are as vilifying as a witness testifying to plain truth.
Feel free to explore the massacre of the Armenians and Assyrians by Muslims in recent history to persuade you of this fact. I've had it explained and underlined to my face by a Saudi Missionary in MELBOURNE Last June...exactly as I describe it to you mob.

Buddhists and Hindus believe 'differently' from us also.. so why do I focus on Islam? *think*

Dear Fractelle..
yes, traditions change.. or more accurately.. "are changed".
Speaking purely on democracy grounds..
1/ 68% of Australians claim Christianity.
2/ The Lords prayer has been there since the beginning.

If you can show 30% of Australians are Christian..then your argument against tradition has more weight.
Be assured, the only thing I say about it is a 'feel good' element. I cannot support it on Biblical grounds.

Why do you say I don't consider the feelings of those who don't share 'my dogma'? Given the above argument, it might also be said that supporters of abandoning the LP are exactly that (inconsiderate) no?

PELICAN (again) 'my' opinions as a bloke don't have much going for them :) I prefer highter wisdom which can change lives.

Poly/Boaz

IN the 2006 census approximately 63% of Australians ticked box marked christian. The vast marjority of the "christians" who may or may not be active and practising, are Anglican and Catholic.

A very tiny minority are extreme fundamentalist christians like yourself. Most are like Foxy - moderate and considerate of other people.

You do not hold the balance of power here, and even if you did, that doesn't mean saying the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each parliamentary session is appropriate or even useful.

And you ARE a member of a minority extremist sect, Poly/Boaz - check my post on how to recognise yourself here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2236&page=0#48925

examinator
Thank you - I read your posts and think the same thing. You have a way of saying exactly what I am thinking at times, and wish I could say it equally as well. :)

Polycarp
The trouble is that one can cherry pick passages of the Bible or events throughout history where Christians have not always behaved with purity or compassion.

I am not arguing for or against Islam, I only point out that your judgement of Islam is based on highly selective material.

" The Quran...CURSES Christians Jews BY NAME.. and...FOR...their core beliefs.(as understood by Mohammad at the time of writing.
9:30 Please read this."

I'll take your word for it Poly. I am not advocating for any religion to be able to curse or disrespect others - just the opposite.

Aren't there passages in the Bible that do similar in disrespecting others' beliefs?

"(for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)" (Exodus 34:14)

A quick Google found this: http://www.submission.org/god-bible.html
which shows how similar the Bible and the Koran are.

I am thankful that we do live in a nation where people are free to go about their business without fear of being arrested or worse, for failure to adhere to one particular doctrine. Or a nation where women can go around without head-dress without fear of judgement or perhaps stoning. These behaviours are aberrations of a faith which has been distorted by powerful men such as the Taliban who do not represent the majority of Muslims.

Regarding higher wisdom - that is fine but in the context of this forum it would be refreshing for some personal insight. Is is there any part of your life that you choose to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do? I cannot believe that you would commit an awful act suddenly if you were to find out one day that there is no God - you have a higher functioning brain and can make these decisions for the good of mankind.

Foxy
Yes, I thought it was great.
The late Isaac Asimov (one of my few favourite fictional (?) authors) addressed similar issues in a number of his 'robot' books.

While I think of it you might find "Afluenza" an interesting read. (comments)

Many years ago I attended a seminary (believe it or not) but walked out largely because they were training conversionists. Having grown up in PNG I learned the wisdom and comfort of one’s own beliefs. I still don’t accept proselyting.

When my children were at an age to understand the place of religion in peoples lives I took them to various religions’ meetings.

We settled on the ‘Quakers’ because they accepted all, didn’t preach or have dogma.

The movie ‘Amazing Grace’ was about a Quaker.
Quakers have both started and run many of the peace organizations World Wide. Likewise many NGO relief organizations today. Yet they are almost unknown.
If you were to list great historical British social reformers most would be Quakers. They go about their work quietly as if it was no big deal e.g. Florence Nightingale, Shaftsbury, were Quakers.
Like you astutely said actions not words.
Some years back a newly married couple were kidnapped and killed in Algeria (?) while delivering aid. The parents ASKED for ‘Blood Money’ (Islamic law) rather than have the perps executed. The money was donated to the same charitable program. Ask yourself would you if it was your children? I hope I would but ….
Quakers are always conscientious objectors (anti war, anti violence pro environment, prison reform etc) and oppose capital punishment. While I am an atheist (sort of) I have immense respect/admiration for the Quakers. They’re a fascinating lot.

I guess my subtle advice to him is either missed or unappreciated. Oh well I wish Polycarp could experience Quaker (Christian) peace and acceptance of others. I think he’d be better off and could turn his intellect to more positive pursuits. But like Voltaire said “I disagree with what he says but would defend with my life his right to say it.”

Pelican,
Did you read my response to my unintentional gender reassignment comment?
Be careful agreeing with me you may find yourself being categorized as
being a wannabe Emeritus Profs or looking down on people. Then again
as I've said before acknowledging a fault(s) isn't judgemental merely observational. As Long as I know the difference even though others mightn't keep on pluggin' Some out there will appreciate your wisdom. To paraphrase Isaac Newton "if I can see further it is because I stand on the shoulders of others" Giants are optional. ;-)

Dear examinator,

Thanks for responding, and for your book
recommendation. I will look into it.
After all Tor Hundloe's was a winner.

I'm not at all surprised that you visited
a Seminary. I went on "Retreats" quite a
few times myself. And, for a brief period,
entertained the thought of becoming a nun.

My father had a deep respect for Quakers.
One of his favourite films was one called,
"Friendly Persuasion," starring (I think)
Gary Cooper, as the patriarch of a
Quaker family.

Anyway, Thanks again for sharing.

Fractelle: Quoting an inexperienced writer, taking a few cheap pot shots by focusing on the stale, bad and ugly?

There is a simpler test to identify a Christian of any stripe:

-Does that person believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God, who came and died on a cross for the sins of all mankind?
-and believe the bible to be God's word?
-If put on trial for being a Christian, would he/she be found guilty?

Breathe a sigh of relief that you’re not living under shariah law if answering yes to the above.

Pelican:

<“highly selective material….. I'll take your word for it Poly”.>

Sura 9 is straight from the source.

<“Aren't there passages in the Bible ...?”>

Ad hominem point...It is not helpful to view the Qur’an through the lens of the bible (unless you are absolutely confident that both are equally in error). View the Qu'ran on its own merits and claims.

<Re: the website quoted>

This is a site promoting Islam. It serves the Islamic purpose to have others believe that the Bible and the Qur’an are similar (they aren't).

Note: the “aberration” of hijab and burqa is applauded in the muslim world as the ideal.

<“Is there any part of your life ...?>

Apostates don’t typically become mass murderers or criminals.

Buying Californian oranges fails the test of making a call that would benefit all of mankind, yet this type of decision is typical of the “higher functioning brain”. It doesn't seem to influence the choices of common criminals either.

(Oh yeah, Poly, I’m for the LP. But I think that the person who raised its removal from parliament is guilty of exactly the same rabble-rousing that Pericles has a radar for: polarizing people on an issue which is practically a non-issue for the majority of Australians. Or at least was.)

Aaaah..but Katie.. secular rabble rousers are in reality "High minded and balanced individuals who always have the deepest interests of humanity at heart" haha.. no.. no one said that as a quote, but if you read Pericles and his Chihwawa friends yapping posts they sure imply it.

If a Christian points out something aaah..'that' is rabble rousing :)

EXAMMY...which seminary in PNG mate? most curious about that.

PLECICAN...this incessant "you cherry pick" is becoming wearisome old son. EVVVVVVeryone cherry picks when presenting a case for something.

Cross examination is what sorts out the 'relevant' from the irrelevant'.

Lack of understanding by Pericles and some of his cohorts in conversational crime...(gee..that aliteration surprised even me :)
is at the root of the constant criticism.

You asked an important question though.. "Arn't their similar passages in the Bible which disrespect others belief"?

Hmmm possibly.

If we limit ourselves to the New Testament (and avoid the old testament outcry against futile idolatry) there is only ONE verse which is remotely similar to Quran 9:30.

"If any man preaches a different gospel (to them)let him be accursed eternally"
Galatians 1:8

-This does NOT name a particular faith.
-It is NOT preceeded or followed by a call to arms "fight those who do not believe UNNNNTIL THEY ARE SUBJECTED" (9:29)

It is purely in Gods hands.. at the divine-judgment level. i.e. the hereAFTER not the here and NOW. (as the Quran is)

<<I am thankful that we do live in a nation where people are free to go about their business without fear of being arrested or worse, for failure to adhere to one particular doctrine>>

annnnnd...THAT is exactly why I say what I do.

DOCTINE? check THIS out mate..and see exactly how it works out in Islam for 'those who stray'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VJnNab2zYI

Dear Plucky... one more for you...

You said:

<<I cannot believe that you would commit an awful act suddenly if you were to find out one day that there is no God - you have a higher functioning brain and can make these decisions for the good of mankind.>>

A more appropriate question might have been "Wow.. you did all that when you didn't think about God?" (i.e. in the past)

Now..the wisdom I apply asks the following questions of your statement:

1/ "What is 'awful'"? (relative to.....what?)
2/ "What is Higher" functioning? (relative to....what?)

You see young Jedi, there are so many assumptions about good/evil, right/wrong encased in your statement, which I assume you have inherited from the popular consciousness and education.

Without God, and our reference to Him.. we are left with Machievelli...Sartre and so on.

Mr Derrida (if I understand his position) would have us believe that even WITH a consciousness of God and obedience to His Word.. that each of us can arrive at our own truth about that. On the peripherals I'm tempted to agree.. (infant/adult baptism and the such like) but on the core.. that Christ died for our sin according to the scripture and that He was raised on the 3rd day according to the scripture..that we remember his death for our sin in communion, there can be no leeway at all.

The conundrum of your statement about values ('higher') etc is well illustrated by this:

http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/pomo.htm

1/ Postmodernism is highly debated even among postmodernists themselves. (no kidding)

2/ The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity.

Wellll duh... of course.. if it's all based on SUBjectivity..then.. people will jump on their ideological horses and ride off in....all directions.

I believe that there is benefit from reciting the Lords Prayer, but that benefit will be limited to those who accept it as true and meaningful, and do not have a carnal and greedy agenda which is opposed to it's values

Your powers of invention would be highly valued in Parliament, Boaz.

>>Aaaah..but Katie.. secular rabble rousers are in reality "High minded and balanced individuals who always have the deepest interests of humanity at heart" haha.. no.. no one said that as a quote, but if you read Pericles and his Chihwawa friends yapping posts they sure imply it.<<

It's a good thing we have your word that only other people descend into personal attacks, Boaz. Otherwise I might have suspected that you have yourself succumbed.

Thank goodness we know from the most reliable source that you are above such antics.

The most interesting aspect of your latest pot-shot, though, is that you are unable to find a quote that supports your accusation, and have to stoop to "implications". You need to be reminded that putting words into the mouths of others is the lowest form of argument.

And for the zillionth time, nobody - certainly not I - gives the proverbial monkey's what you believe in. If it makes you feel good, warm and secure, then fine, no-one begrudges you the emotional support your religion provides.

But I would remind you that you regularly place yourself on a higher moral plane than the rest of us, with your insistence that we "make it up as we go", with the inevitable conclusion that we all end up joining NAMBLA.

And that is a statement I can support with your own words, many times over..

As for the Lords Prayer in Parliament, I can only repeat my initial observation on the topic.

"Last time I looked, parliament was full of people without scruples, who thought nothing of raiding the public purse for their own purposes, who would happily leave ethics at the door in favour of short-term gain or political spin, and whose entire lives are spent in the pursuit of their own heavily-superannuated and freebie-laden retirement.

In my view, the recitation of the Lords Prayer at the beginning of each session is entirely consistent with their attitudes, behaviour and accomplishments."

Polycarp ole bean
There was a full stop in between the two sentences.
Location in Aus. I toyed with becoming a purveyer of christianity but
BECAUSE of my experiences in PNG etc I was unwilling/unable to become a converter.
New glasses for you? :-)

I grew up in Pt Moresby, Kerevat and Kavieng and visited much more.
Ejumacated in Bris religious pivate boarding school
S....P....L....C
Kumada kumada cara cara etc
(NZ Harkea) We were told it meant "we are the hairy men that make the sun shine...(pity for the girls...then again there was this one girl... I'm kidding)
Now you know why I hate hair cuts and have a beard

and Melb Northcote High when it was boys only.
"Here's to the green the purple and the Gold,
The colours of the School we love so well....(like hell)
To play the game both on the on the field and off
Firm to our moto will we swell
Never let the victors scoff
....et al 3 verses Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz most of us got to the ad lib "like hell" and then mubbled not so vague obscenities (sorry Janice Ian and "seventeen")
Wake up the senile beast and see what you unleash shame polycarp shame
:-}>

Katie

You are admirable in your continued support for Poly/Boaz. However, perhaps you need to remove your blinkers when evaluating much of what Poly/Boaz has to say. Apart from his continued offensive condescension towards any who hold different opinions, my link to the definitions of a fundamentalist, while intended in jest, have more than the ring of truth when applied to Poly/Boaz. Time to take your blinkers off regarding this particluar evangelist. Poly/Boaz based the legitimacy of retaining the LP on 2 points; tradition and majority rule. He is a member of a Pentecostal sect which accounts for exactly 1% of all Australian Christians, he is hardly in the majority that he likes to believe. Nor does his reason of tradition hold any weight.

Katie your definition of a Christian is simple, generic and finally homogenous - that you are intelligent enough to know there is great diversity within the umbrella of the Christian church, yet fail to make this distinction does you no credit.

Of course I am grateful that I don't live under sharia law - red herring? Yes, introduced by you to suggest that I am better off under christian rule. I disagree. I believe that for government to be effective in caring for its citizens it is vital that there be true separation of church and state, irrespective of which religion is followed by the bulk of the population. Rituals outlive their usefulness when they become perfunctory. Hence the need to dispense with the LP. I have no doubt that this prayer means a great deal to you, equally I do doubt that it has any meaning whatsoever to the majority of politicians whether they are religious or not.

We have the opportunity to replace the LP with something profound, that has meaning for all of us. Perhaps 30 seconds of silence, perhaps the national anthem or something else entirely that is both inspiring and relevant to all Australians.

Polycarp maintains:

"1/ Postmodernism is highly debated even among postmodernists themselves. (no kidding)

2/ The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. "

Substitute 'postmodernism' and postmodernists' with 'Christianity' and 'Christians' - Nothing changes in his two propositions.

As Polycarp comments: "Wellll duh... of course.. if it's all based on SUBjectivity..then.. people will jump on their ideological horses and ride off in....all directions."

According to my reading of the Bible sincere Christians and Jews in parliament would not participate in public prayer. According to the Jewish Bible God does not want it.

Isaiah [1:15] And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

A few verses later God declares some of what he does want:

Isaiah [1:17] Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

I am not a Christian, but I sometimes read the New Testament and even sometimes find wisdom in it. Christians and other religionists generally do not observe the following, but I think it might be better if they did.

Matthew [6:5] And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. [6:6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

From the above words of Jesus one should not have public prayer in the Commonwealth Parliament. Let each parliamentarian enter his or her closet and pray as the spirit moveth. Public Parliamentary prayer, according to Jesus, is hypocrisy.

I have been a consultant to a former leader of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. He told me that when he looked at the members he saw the greatest scoundrels in parliament.

Fractelle,

Your view of Poly:

“Apart from his continued offensive condescension towards any who hold different opinions”

Your view of me:

“Katie - that you are intelligent enough to know …. “

Tu quoque! And not even the slightest bit of irony.

Perhaps I’m even intelligent enough to describe the failure of this argument in Japanese, which I speak reasonably well:

mekuso hanakuso o warau;

Translated thus: "The sleep in one's eyes laughs at the snot in one's nose".

Or in my native language:

"Dares thus the kettle to rebuke our sin!/Dares thus the kettle say the pot is black!"
(Henry Fielding, “Covent Garden Journal”)

On how to spot a Christian:

“your definition of a Christian is simple, generic and finally homogenous”

Yes! This is not the liquorice allsort version of Christianity: it starts with a simple conversation with God...telling Him that you accept "His version" of who his Son was, and what He did for you...this is the straight and narrow path.

On professing Christians:

“Of course I am grateful that I don't live under sharia law - red herring?”

Evangelism is the mark of a Christian. Under hostile circumstances, martyrdom is assured.

I actually believe that it is impossible for a Christian to be “better off” under any type of rule (secular democracy may be more compatible with the evangelistic life, however, the offer of salvation is less attractive to fellow citizens and the fruit less plentiful).

On the brand of Christianity:

Does it matter if we live by the same biblical principles?

On rules to live by:

“We have the opportunity to replace the LP with something profound…”

Something profound, as opposed to the Lord’s Prayer? Whatever alternative we adopt, there is no doubt in my mind that it will require a lowering of the bar (not the opposite).

Dear Fractelle,

You and I both know that -
some people are satisfied to judge things by
their own narrow experiences, never knowing
of the wide world outside.

Or as the Japanese put it:

I no naka no kawazu taikai o shirazu
(A frog in a well does not know the great sea).

Or

Deru kui wa utareru
(It's better to conform than to stick out).

I think you get my drift.

And finally to quote Henry Fielding:

"There is an insolence which none but
those who themselves deserve contempt
can bestow, and those only who deserve
no contempt can bear."

Take care,

Fractelle,
Go girlfriend you're spot on.
Perhaps you should have a look at my post.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2245#49022
consider what the second alternative may mean.
Think in terms of whistling as one walks past a country cemetary at night.
I keep thinking of the Quakers their commitment and belief are quiet and unquestionable they are fact. If one really believes then there is little need to convince others about ones own beliefs, they're obvious. If a child tells you several times that they didn't break your favourite wing dangle what do you have grounds to suspect?
Shakespear said it well "methinks he protesth too much."

Shiteru koto to shiranai koto ga zen zen chigau desu ne. Kore wa, hontoh no imi desu. Tatoeba, Lao-Tse no monogatari to seisho wa chigau to omiimasu ka. Zen zen chigau desu ne.

(the things you know, and the things you don’t know cannot be compared, can they? This is the real meaning. For example, Lao-Tse’s story and the bible are different, don’t you think? Totally different wouldn’t you say.)
- katieO

Examinator: H. Fielding said it well too “Guilt has very quick ears to an Accusation” (‘Amelia’)

So at risk of learning neither patience nor humility, I should tread carefully (or you could just try the usual gagging technique of yelling whack-a-mossie!).

Foxy, you are flaming! Argumentum ad personam...you cannot find fault so there is only a thinly veiled critique of me, personally. Isn’t this Poly’s main gripe?

reductio ad Polycarpum! Guilt by association. (not one which I’m ashamed to declare).

In the absence of procedural rules, it is overlooked that Poly is only demanding cloture to this filibuster.

Our Father, in heaven, your name is the highest in heaven and earth

Bring it on Lord. For your will is done, in heaven (it goes without saying),

And on earth (even though we are in denial)

Knowing all things come from you, we are not ashamed to ask for all our needs, for us, and for all those who go without. Not just our physical needs, but our spiritual needs as well.

And Lord, we have sinned against you. With absolute confidence in your power to forgive, we ask you to forgive us. Also, please send the power of your great love to dwell in our hearts, so that we may be able to forgive others with the same measure.

Lord, there are temptations all around us. Please stop us from going down that track. In fact Lord, only you have the power to do so.

Amen.

As they said in Caesar's day,

Merda taurorum animas conturbit.

Furthermore,

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

And finally,

Romani ite domus!

Amen

CJ, Please!

CENTURION:
'Domus'?
BRIAN:
Eh.
CENTURION:
Nominative?
BRIAN:
Oh.
CENTURION:
'Go home'? This is motion towards. Isn't it, boy?
BRIAN:
Ah. Ah, dative, sir! Ahh! No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No! Ah! Oh, the... accusative! Accusative! Ah! 'Domum', sir! 'Ad domum'! Ah! Oooh! Ah!
CENTURION:
Except that 'domus' takes the...?
BRIAN:
The locative, sir!
CENTURION:
Which is...?!
BRIAN:
'Domum'.
CENTURION:
'Domum'.
BRIAN:
Aaah! Ah.
CENTURION:
'Um'. Understand?
BRIAN:
Yes, sir.
CENTURION:
Now, write it out a hundred times.

Have a great day!

Pericles - mea culpa!

Trust you to pick up the Python allusion.

Have a great day yourself.

Thank you Foxy

I agree, I do think that Katie0 doth protest too much. Unable to construct a lucid response she resorts to sophistry.

Examinator

I overestimated her, I expected debate. What I got was along the lines of your erudite definition:

<<< Debating (A structured contest between two delineated diametric opposing points of view)… is entertainment not reality, necessarily advance the topic and is never conclusive.
Yet some presumably intelligent individuals take every opportunity to hijack all topics in this way in the mistaken beliefs that
• They might win conversions or
• Have some ulterior/more personal reason for their tactics.

firstly all they succeeding in doing is entrenching others deeper into their own convictions.
The second is not the purpose of this site.>>>

So easy for me to google some pithy and profound quote in whatever language takes my fancy, however I prefer the moral high-ground.

Peace to all.

Dear Fractelle,

As somebody once said ,"You're a Class Act!"

I believe in
God, and the power of His victory in Christ.
But I would never dream of enforcing my belief
onto others, or think that my belief is
the "One and Only," and that others should
follow suit. Religion is a private matter,
and I have no intention of trying to convert
anyone.

Faith has passed from the passive and complete
acceptance of a body of truths to the honest search
for total commitment. Today religion which expects
its members to march in identical step and to chant
a univocal doctrine ceases to draw members to their
churches.

Today, thinking Christians evaluate what is Christian,
and what is simply tired and imperious tradition.
They ask for honest dialogue, an open hierarchy,
a Church which does not have all the answers or
expect its members to walk in the wooden cadence
of frozen categories.

I find it sad that some people still see themselves
with a "missionary complex," and chant the "My God
is Better Than Your God," mantra. While others
denounce everything that doesn't comply with their
beliefs.

But enough said, here are two Chinese proverbs,
that I'd like to end with:

"Outside noisy,
Inside empty."

Or

"A closed mind
Is like a closed book;
Just a block of wood."

Dear Foxy

I take heart in your post that you do not take offense when I criticise various religious aspects. I respect you and your right to religious belief. While I consider myself to be an atheist, by no means does this mean that I claim to have explanations for 'life, the universe and everything', I just find formal religion be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu to be limiting in an infinite universe.

That said, I enjoy reading the musings of Shelby Spong and frequenttly listen to talks given by the Unitarian Church, their motto: "Seek the truth and serve humanity" is one to which I aspire, although I would phrase it as "Seek the truth and serve the world" as I value all of the natural world not just humans who comprise a small part.

Perhaps our politicians could meditate on truth and serving Australia?

Dear Fractelle,

Politicians could take a pledge, like
the athletes and judges do, prior to
the Olympics. I'm sure that there are enough
writers in Parliament House who could come
up with the appropriate wording.

As former governor-general, Sir Paul Hasluck once
put it, "...The highest single expression in
the Australian governmental structure of the
idea that Australians of all parties and all
walks of life belong to the same nation."

Therefore politicians need a unifying influence.
They need to be reminded of the responsibilities and
privileges of the offices to which they've been
elected.

They need to be reminded that they represent not just
the Right, or the Left, Christians, Muslims, Jews,
Non-Believers, and others, but us all.

That's why I feel that the Lord's Prayer is limiting,
in representing only a select group of Australians.
We need something that would encompass us all.

A more appropriate opening to Parliament should be found.

In respect of the position that an Aboriginal welcome to country has only four percent support, I want to add that, many Aborigines will be believing that the Lords Prayer is a valuable contribution to the general feeling of welcome in parliamentary settings, which the Rudd government has enabled in committing through the Statement of Sorry now in official record. The Parliament of Australia received an official message stick, at the opening of Parliamentary sessions this year, and while all non-Christian Aborigines will appreciate a welcome to country being enabled through Federal Parliament, the message stick's message will be transmitted also through the Lords Prayer because of the many Aborigines who are practising Christians.

Often mainstream Australians over-emphasise the cultural distinctions between an Animist based belief system, (that enables god-head type figures to represent religious concepts), and religous belief based in acceptance of a single spirit of all creation, (ie God).

Is there any real issue in the matter, or is it a mountain being made out of a mole hill?

Some of the outpourings of evangelical conservative Christians make me wantto puke.it is hard to keep reading the gibberish that comes out of their threads.

Foxy,you seem to be the rare breed of level-headed humanist or secular thinker I can respect.

readings from the works of the Dalai Lama,Eckhart Tolle or other similar thinkers are universal in what they encompaass.Their insights are empowering and liberating and inspirational.Some passages from the Bible,carefully chosen!, the Bhagvata Gita or other Hindu scripture are also worthy of acceptance as beacons to help us in our search for truths and insights.

Why not accept them instead of anachronistic prayers like the Lord's Prayer.

socratease

HAI' (Katie)... it is indeed my main gripe... it's my T-REX gripe... "ad hominem" in the absense of skilled debate.

I am yet to see one person who can legitimately show that surah 9:29 and 30 do not apply to today. Considering I have had face to face encounters with those from Saudi Arabia..and other places who affirm they do.. I have not the slightest doubt about this.

If I had a dollar for each time people get close enough, poke their nose through the door, observe the party and the guests and then retreat outside and just throw stones at the tent....I'd be retired.

I must say though, that this thread has brought out some interesting sidelights.

Sometimes my points might seem like 'wax on...wax off' (not making much sense initially) to some of our less educated (on Islam) participants, but close examination of the purpose of wax on and wax off shows the moves are extremely useful in self defense.

David F your point abut Mat 6:5 is very true. It is also wise.. you need to look a bit closer though. It is aimed at the person who tries to use public prayer as a means of selfish self advancement and personal glory.

Your observation about the scoundrels who attended the Parliamentary prayer meeting, wellll.. you are of course without sin right? :)

We all need to look to ourselves before criticising others. That doesn't mean criticism is not valid.

I criticize Rev Tim Costello for his THUMPING great salary while he himself criticized a fellow charity leader for his much lower salary in times past.. publically.

The Lords prayer.. Parliament? I like it, but won't be crushed it if isn't there.

Polycarp

"We all need to look to ourselves before criticising others."

Funniest line of the year to date!

Fractelle, you are right. I take no personal slight from your comments.

After some reflection, I have realized that you genuinely believe that Christians are somewhat stupid for holding their beliefs.

It comes as a real surprise that any Christian could have a modicum of intelligence (before your retraction, I was credited to have some!)

It is obviously not meant to be personal, but this commonly-held assumption does need some myth-busting. Under another name, this is bigotry.

We have had this discussion before, and others may not be aware that there is a precedent.

The great privilege in a democracy, is not just holding but expressing an alternative view. The burden of democracy, is tolerance of this freedom (even when it makes you want to vomit), with no corresponding obligation to have dissenters conform to the majority view.

Protest seems to have fallen out of favour. Yet can we all be expected, reasonably (if not fashionably) to conform to the (intelligent, superior, rational) atheist worldview?

What about Martin Luther King (first and foremost, a Baptist Minister)? Would there be an Obama without MLK? How about the Vietnam Protest Movement….Greenpeace?

Christians are not just pushing a barrow, but have deeply-held beliefs which shape their worldview. Foxy too, with the desire to live and aspire to a life modeled on Jesus Christ, is acting based on beliefs which appear unshakeable.

Online debate may not be constrained by the rules of formal debate (call me old-fashioned!) however, there is no debate at all if everyone is in agreement.

Curaezipirid: I have very much welcomed your post. It challenges many assumptions, especially that regarding the position of indigenous Australians on the Lord's Prayer.

At a recent afternoon tea party, given in honour of my family to welcome us into a new (predominately white) neighbourhood, an older Australian said (quite charmingly, and obviously relieved):

“we were led to believe that the new neigbours were Asian!” Quite blinkered to the fact that my husband is (100%) – as are both my children (50%), who all look well-tanned rather than "coloured".

Assumptions can be wrong.

Fractelle, if you enjoy talks from the Unitarian's (I've never been to one of their talks) you may find Robert Fulghum's writing interesting. He's a former unitarian minister that I've learned a lot from over the years through his writing. He has a website at http://www.robertfulghum.com/ I've not always agreed with him but have regularly been challenged by his thinking and sometimes found the incentive to expand my own as a result.

There is a christain writer named Adrian Plass with a quite different style who challenges those who want issues of faith in neat box's. I don't know how his writing would work for those without a church/christain background, possibly not well. His web page is at http://www.adrianplass.com/ His writing could be useful as a counterpoint to the very ugly representation of faith we so often see around here from some who claim to follow christ.

R0bert

Is there any writing that could be useful as a counterpoint to the very ugly representation of secularism from those who claim to follow science on these posts?. I am yet to find them!

Speaking of 'ugly' posts.. one only needs to look at the level of personal abuse to see them :) Some debate issues..others debate people.

Katie.. ur Asian? with mixed offspring? hmmm welcome to my world. Almost a parallel family :) you don't happen to have 2 boys and a girl do you? (r u Japanese background?)

SPIKEY I was not exactly surprised at your post about 'criticism of others' but.. I'm curious, can you find a nice juicy chunk of my posts which criticise 'others' in a personal way? or.. is it just that when you read cricitism of a faith or an idea, your brain just goes 'TILT' and you process that as 'personal' condemnation?

I've let loose a bit on John Pilger.. (confession)

"Pilger would be the miser who squeezes the last drop of political juice from a very squashed lemon."

Ok.. can you find more? More pertinent can you find anything on a par with the regular mockery and ill feeling of "You insufferable godbotherer" from CJ?

Pericles calls me a "rabble rouser and a hatemonger, spreading fear and loathing" hmmm a tad strong I'd've thought.

Look at Socratease "puke" "gibberish".. how enlightened.

FOXY.. a pledge is not a bad idea. There is another alternative, we could get out there more and share Christ and the Gospel with people and give some spiritual rebirth to the country (Starting with Politicians) such that those left outside the fold would see criticism of the LP as something to be embarrassed about.

Fraccy.. do you sense I take offense at your criticisms of my faith?

I worry whenever anyone enjoy's Spong... he just says what he knows certain people want to hear....not a strong qualification for a prophet.. please see Isaiah chapter 1 and chapter 5 for one who tells it like it is without fear of favor.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=1&version=31

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=5&version=31

Quite poetic and pulls no punches.

Speaking truth, no matter how unpalatable, was never, is not and will never be the pathway to social popularity.

Porky: << can you find anything on a par with the regular mockery and ill feeling of "You insufferable godbotherer" from CJ? >>

Can you find where I've said that, or anything equivalent to it, on this thread? Granted, it's probably been warranted, but I thought I'd let you hoist yourself on your own petard. In case you hadn't noticed, about the only one who agrees with you on this issue is your godbothering handmaiden.

I've only called you an insufferable godbotherer when you've been unusually OTT. In this thread you've pretended that the ritual incantation of the Christian prayer in our parliaments is a question of tradition for you, rather than a religious one, in which case you've been more of a hypocrite than an overt godbotherer.

It's always amusing when Porky adopts an injured persona in this forum, given the number of posts he's devoted over the years to vilifying anybody who doesn't subscribe to his very peculiar worldview.

Polycarp to SPIKEY 6 November 2008:

“I was not exactly surprised at your post about 'criticism of others' but.. I'm curious, can you find a nice juicy chunk of my posts which criticise 'others' in a personal way? or.. is it just that when you read cricitism of a faith or an idea, your brain just goes 'TILT' and you process that as 'personal' condemnation?"

Let’s see – over the past week or so on a couple of threads (if I had the time and could be bothered, I’d dig deeper and also look at his alter ego BOAZ).

“I've let loose a bit on John Pilger.. (confession)” Polycarp, 6 November 2008

“I criticize Rev Tim Costello for his THUMPING great salary” Polycarp, 5 November 2008

“Hi Exammy.. u do like to snigger don't you :) Hmmm..I imagine you like old Steptoes dad...” Polycarp, 31 October 2008

“Foxy… please don't poke your tongue out at ur neighbours, they might not come to help when the next intruder invades and you scream” Polycarp, 31 October 2008

“You are perceived as beligerant because you are…”Polycarp, 30 October 2008

“Robert.. 'my mind' ? hmm I detect a bit of self righteous sermonizing there also.”
Polycarp, 4 November 2008

“Once again.. a-gain.. you seek to turn a serious thread into beligerance and mockery against a person. Cheap...low.. shabby.. etc etc etc. Let me expand on your (barely) contribution to the topic (rather than sink to the bottom feeder/creeping thing level of constantly reminding people about things they themselves freely disclosed oh.. about 2 or 3 yrs ago?)” Polycarp, 31 October 2008

“BELLY (with his self confessed HUGE pot) will be wandering around Swanston st in SPEEDO'S.. oh.. aargh.. yikes... the thought alone is enough to make me seek therapy :)”
Polycarp, 31 October 2008

Now, about brains that just goes 'TILT'? Who was it who said: "We all need to look to ourselves before criticising others"?

Hi CJ I'm at a loss "OTT"? please expand.

Spikey.. I think you're confusing 'boistrous interaction' with personal criticism. Quoting Belly's own words about his pot belly hardly rates as personal criticism..I was illustrating a point about attire not picking on Belly.

Let me make it more narrowly focused. Have I called you a derogatory name? U've been pretty full of vitriol against me.. I don't recall calling you anything bad .. perhaps u can help here.

What you showed is that once you get an idea in your head, you will resort to almost any lengths to prove it right.... giving Foxy a dig is not exactly personal criticism of a hurtful nature... is it?

Personal criticism I find unnacceptable is this kind "You don't see it because you are a moron/racist/islamophobe/fill in the blank" -that kind of attack. It's the 'you are' bit which is where my opponents tend to vere off the straight an narrow of debating the actual issue.

On Tim Costellow.. it was Pericles who ferreted out his salary..then when I read his criticism of another Christian for a high salary, it behoves we of the faith to point out such things which can damage our image. If I just protected Tim and justified it.. you would be more likely to attack me for bias and simply protecting my own.

CJ.. why do you say it's hypocritical to discuss the Lords prayer here? I've clearly stated that I find no compelling Biblical argument for it to be there.. I just like it. What's hypocritical about that?

David says "Personal criticism I find unnacceptable is this kind "

Yet I don't notice him rebuttink his good mate runner for the same. Nor correcting buddy Gibo for it.

Oh that's right when fundies do things they are inspired by god and good things, it's only when others do so that the actions are wrong. Likewise when other people's ancient texts say bad things about non believers thats bad but when David's prefered ancient texts do the same thats just gods loving kindness and justice.

David, you and your fundy mates promote a faith that is supposed to transform you, that is supposed to produce fruit which is outwardly visible, which is supposed to value truth and according to Gibo which is supposed to produce good mental health.

Other posters are frequently reminded by your little group how vile non believers are and how your Jesus would make such a difference. It seems justified to point out how little about youu online persona's is something those seeking further personal development would look to as an example or aspire to. You and your kin claim a moral high ground
which you clearly show you don't have a clue about.

Maybe if you took more care with the truth in your posts, took the effort to seperate your faith from your passion for violence and prefered dislikes things might be different. Maybe if you made the effort to rebuke (in love of course) your compatriates in their excessses of nastyness oand or extremist ideas things might be different.

But no you sit in silence while runner sprays his obvious hatred around. You sit in silence while Gibo expounds on very extreme ideas prefering the appearance of solidarity to the risk of public disagreement. (I hope that you don't agree with much that he posts, if you do the bretho's have slipped a long way).

If you are claiming that your side has something that the rest don't have then you need to do something about the evidence.

R0bert

Polycarp

It was your text that advised us all: "We all need to look to ourselves before criticising others".

When I suggested that this was hypocritical cant on your part, you challenged me to find in your posts anything that criticised others in a personal way.

When I found several within the space of a week in your most recent postings, you immediately complained that I was "confusing 'boistrous interaction' with personal criticism".

So when WE attack your postings it's 'personal criticism'; but when YOU attack other people it's 'boistrous interaction'. Nice double standard.

It seems you are incapable of looking at yourself with any detached objective judgement.

"I don't recall calling you anything bad'" you say, " .. perhaps u can help here."

Well how about suggesting that "...when you (i.e. Spikey) read cricitism of a faith or an idea, your brain just goes 'TILT'"?

If you can't take it, Polycarp, may I respectfully suggest you stop dishing it out (and then denying that you are)? It really trashes your credibility.

Porky: << Hi CJ I'm at a loss "OTT"? please expand. >>

It's shorthand for 'over the top' - you know, like when you gratuitously interject some biblical quotation into an unrelated discussion.

<< CJ.. why do you say it's hypocritical to discuss the Lords prayer here? I've clearly stated that I find no compelling Biblical argument for it to be there.. I just like it. What's hypocritical about that? >>

You're right. I should have said it's disingenuous - as if the reason you "just like it" is somehow divorced from your fundamentalist Christianity. It's also a really dumb argument, somewhat reminiscent of Pauline Hanson's "I don't like it", but in reverse.

An excellent post from R0bert!

I've been meaning to raise the exact same point. Unfortunately though, I fear that we will get nothing but the infamous disappearing act.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong...

RObert,

Christianity in not known for a united front; there is no "Christen-dom". No conspiracy theory. Just some simple instructions to not argue amongst ourselves.

Gibo, Runner and Poly have a very visible identifiable "Christian" presence here. The rest of us may disagree over style and delivery, and if there was a departure from biblical truth, there would be howls of protest. A fellow Christian would spot it, in neon lights.

Personally, I take to heart the attacks on Christians who proclaim their faith overtly on this forum. I pay attention. I reflect. I wonder if it could have been said better. I pray.

I don't see much evidence that Christians are intentionally alienating those who are closed to the gospel message.

I see the byproduct, that unbelief is confirmed in those whose hearts have hardened. The polemic is thus, unavoidable.

Given that unbelief is the ultimate sin (the one for which there is no forgiveness), Christians must exercise both wisdom and caution without compromising their own faith.

Tossing a few well-chosen biblical passages out as a rebuke (like scraps to a dog) is a fairly empty gesture from those who don't believe the words came from God in the first place.

Our detractors here are many, 'vocal', and increasingly intolerant. The way forward is certainly going to be defined by our capacity to love, understand and correct, but mostly....to believe and have faith.

Poly, I'm the other 50%! Just two delicious boys (both "Grammar" boys as it happens. I'm in quite deep!) and one Japanese husband - I praise God for them constantly.

KatieO

"Given that unbelief is the ultimate sin (the one for which there is no forgiveness), Christians must exercise both wisdom and caution without compromising their own faith."

You tell your fellow Christians to 'exercise both wisdom and caution' and yet in the very same sentence you accuse 'unbelievers' of committing the ultimate sin and damn us all, I presume, to eternal hellfire. Hardly cautious and certainly not very wise, Katie. Statements like that will do nothing to build bridges. They just put you firmly in the loopy category as far as most of us are concerned.

"Gibo, Runner and Poly have a very visible identifiable "Christian" presence here. The rest of us may disagree over style and delivery..."

I wouldn't waste my breath trying to separate yourself from 'Gibo, Runner and Poly' if I was you. No amount of sugar coating on your part will disguise the fact that you're assaulting us all with the same patronizing clap trap we've heard many times before from the other three. Hold hands, Katie, you're very firmly one of them.

"I don't see much evidence that Christians are intentionally alienating those who are closed to the gospel message."

You don't? The 'evidence' is glaringly obvious to the rest of us. Why don't you study the posts of the 'non card-carrying' Christians here on OLO - the ones who don't 'alienate' us. Hopefully, you'll find your evidence, or lack of it, and learn from it.

I don't think so katieO, the message from many of your bretheren goes far deeper than "style and delivery". You say that about their posts, "if there was a departure from biblical truth, there would be howls of protest. A fellow Christian would spot it, in neon lights." But I have seen these howls very rarely. Very rarely indeed.

Am I to assume then that when Gibo's message of "Asian invaders" that he has gleaned from what he calls "christian prophesies", that is close to the biblical message?
Or when he talks of the war with the spirit world, that is closely aligned with your biblical views also?

No, katieO, I don't believe you when you say that if there was a departure from the biblical, there would be howls of protest. Most of you are far too scared of not presenting a united front as (evangalical) "christians" against the "unbelievers" to do that.

Amen to what Bronwyn and Bugsy said!

TEAM... we seem to have drifted from the topic.

Katie..thanx for the fill in.(PTL:)

Bronny.. regarding the ultimate sin of unbelief. The point here is that the Gospel..which is primarily about salvation...a positive message...is a coin with two sides. You cannot have salvation unless you also have it's opposite.

The fate of unbelievers is spelt out in scripture, and there is considerable emphasis on the fact that it is we who in fact judge ourselves.. or.. the words the Lord spoke are our judge..not now, but when we face Him.

<<47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.>>

During this life, we have choice. Some choose to follow the Lord..others choose to reject Him. It's a free country.

Yes..there is a dividing line between those who follow Christ and those who do not. But in spite of the passion of debate here, and frequent disagreement, Gibo, Runner, Katie and I all absolutely care about you. We fumble at times in expressing things.

TOPIC
We are even free to decide democratically whether we want the Lords prayer opening Parliament. At the present time, the momentum of the democractic process appears to support the retention of the prayer.

This topic is as dead as Jesus.

Bugsy

"This topic is as dead as Jesus."

LOL!

Poly's hoping to resurrect it.

You two are going to burn in Hell. I'll bring the marshmallows.

You'll need a fair few, CJ, I think there's going to be a lot of us down there.

Strange how Katie0 and Poly/Boaz actually believe that you can be made to believe something, for which there is no evidence, by threat.

"You are eternally damned, if you don't believe...." insert whatever biblical commandment.

Poly & Katie if you were commanded to believe that the sun sets in the east and rises in the west by your religion, would you do so? Even you would have difficulty with the mental gymnastics required for that request. No doubt you would claim it as a parable rather than to be taken seriously.

That you condemn everyone else for not believing in something that cannot be proved is very childish and not a little intolerant, and is why you cannot even countenance the question of relevance of the LP at parliament. You can't provide a good reason for its continuation because there is no reason. Instead you threaten others and make the absurd claim that belief is a choice.

Therefore, I continue to believe that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west - there is evidence every day for that conviction. There is nothing supporting your empty threat; that disbelief is a sin. If that is true then eating shellfish (Leviticus 11.9), banking (Deuteronomy 23.19) and wearing mixed fibre clothing (Deuteronomy 22.11) are also sins - you'd better watch out for those cotton/poly fabrics or face eternal agony.

Have a hate-free day.

Fractelle; “You can't provide a good reason for its continuation because there is no reason.”

Yes….so it seems.

Polycarp, I thought you would have jumped at the opportunity to answer the question that I put to you on the ‘Mass delusions and their consequences’ thread, which directly pertains to reasoning for the continuation of Christianity, or any religion.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8121#126923

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8121#127118

Oo goodie….marshmallows! \ :> )

This has been quite an emotive thread,
but an interesting one. However I'm beginning
to think that it's run its course.

Re-reading some of the posts it's obvious that
there is enough of a diversity of opinion amongst us,
which reflects our individuality. That is as it
should be.

Some feel a need to cling to religious values.
Others feel that as science provides
rational explanations for the mysteries of the universe,
religion is nothing more than superstition.

Because of the diversity and division of opinion
that this thread has
brought out - logically thinking, something as subjective
as the Lord's Prayer should therefore be replaced by
a broader representation that would encompass all of us.

We need something that everyone could accept.

The Lord's Prayer does not appear to meet that criteria.

I guess the final decision should be left to the members of
Parliament to vote on.

All The Best,

Ah, Foxy, wise words as usual, but allow us a bit of fun while we can! Afterall, us 'unbelievers' are going to be burning for a long time.

Still not sure if that same fate also awaits those 'believers' who cannot exercise 'forgiveness'. I've had no response from you or Poly to the biblical quote on forgiveness I posted to you on another thread in response to your condemnation of the Bali bombers to their fate.

"If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Matthew 6:14-15

I'm open to correction, but my reading of this verse is that Christians who are unable or unwilling to 'forgive' could be just as damned as those unable or unwilling to 'believe'.

Not sure about you, Foxy, but I'll definitely be saving a few marshmallows for Poly.

What a waste of time and pace with nutters like Foxy,and christians going on and on - clean off the point most of the time.

So self-indulgent!
Time to get rid of this thread for goodness sake!
socratease

Dear Bronwyn,

Very funny...

I can appreciate a good tease.

An open fire, marshmallows,
good company - I'll bring the
wine.

Luverly!

ooops...

Dear Bronwyn,

I've just re-read your posts on the Bali
bombers. Sorry, I didn't mean to be
so frivolous.

My personal stand on the death penalty has always been
that its not about deterrence. But about retribution.
About society's revenge on a person who takes
another person's life.

Whether such retribution is justified is not a
matter of measureable facts. It is a moral
judgement for each individual to make.

Some people feel that those who kill others
should pay the supreme penalty and forfeit their own
lives, others feel that human life is sacred and that
society is demeaned when the state kills, however grave
their offense.

I never favoured the death penalty, but I do admit
that the Bali bomber's grinning faces - irked the
heck out of me. Thus my reaction on the other
thread. But - you're right of course. When reason
returned - my hysteria died down.

As for religious teachings on forgiveness?
Mea Culpa.

Of course - to forgive your enemies -
is one of the basic teaching of Christianity.

Can I still get a marshmallow?

Are we using commercial marshallow holders or should I bring some sticks from the garden.

Katie, a little challenge for you. Set aside an hour broken up into two half hour slots.

Start with runners posting history (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=25098&show=history) and read as many of his post in that half hour as you can. Then come back and using as much of a vow as you can tell us that you really believe that runner is not trying to alienate unbelievers and nothing about his posts deserves correction from other believers.

If you can pull that off move onto Gibo's posting history and spend the second half hour there. Come back and tell us all that you don't believe that any of Gibo's claims are not worthy of correction by fellow christains.

In my time on OLO the only other christain with what appears to be fundy leanings who I've seen challenge Gibo on a point of theology was Philo. I suspect that Philo's views would not be shared on the topic by most fundies.

My guess is that given David's (Polycarp) claims of bretho involvement many of Gibo's claims would be contrary to David's understanding of biblical teaching.

"Tossing a few well-chosen biblical passages out as a rebuke (like scraps to a dog) is a fairly empty gesture from those who don't believe the words came from God in the first place. "

Not at all. Those who loudly proclaim their belief in a literal interpretation of scripture and claim to follow it as well as trying to convince others to do so should be held accountable where they clearly fail to follow what they proclaim.

R0bert

I cannot understandhow the moderator is letting you lot from airing your views on Biblican passages and other theological topics UNRELATED to the simple question of the suitability of the Lord's Prayer in our Parliament!

You lot are clean off the point and irrelevant.

socratease

Dear socratease,

Re-read my earlier posts.

When I was sticking to the topic you called me
a 'nutter.'

Lighten up old chum.

At least ONE of you - Foxy - has owned to be off the subject.So have all the others.

And yes,Foxy, from all you have said , you are a mild nutter compared to some others with all this talk about MARSHMALLOWS et al. No other website would allow such aberrations. Waffle.That is all it is.

What a waste of space.

socratease

socratease, you are apparently bothered by posts which are not strictly on topic yet you appear to have made 5 posts on this thread with only two of them touching on the topic (and one of those starting with "Some of the outpourings of evangelical conservative Christians make me wantto puke.it is hard to keep reading the gibberish that comes out of their threads.")

The other three that I could find were entirely off topic. By the way the marshmallow thing is a gentle payout at the fundies for their gods plans to burn the rest of us in hell.

It's often an uncertain line about how far off topic a comment and discussion can go. You will find plenty of discussions (especially in the general area) which drift significantly from the original topic. Sometimes that seems to be a waste and at other times it can be very productive. Relax, if you don't like the off topic components ignore them and give us some more suggestions on what our pollies could be doing for inspiration. Some of your earlier suggestions were good.

Your attacks on off topic comments after your own use of them on this thread don't make a lot of sense.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2242#48603
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2242#49208
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2242#49605
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2242#49622
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2242#49627

R0bert

Dear Foxy

Thank you for you well-considered and gracious response to my question on forgiveness. And also for maintaining your sense of humour even when the subject is one we all know you take very seriously.

You are one special lady!

Now, if only I could get a response from Poly. But as usual, he's disappeared and started another thread!

Bronwyn I didn’t mean to accuse or condemn anyone.

Scripture fills in regarding “ sin” and “forgiveness”, so while this message was addressed to RObert, it was pointed at Christians (the offenders here, right?).

From the reaction on this forum to Christian contributors, these concepts are alienating to anyone who does not believe the bible to be the word of God.

My point was this: it is the message which is unpopular and rejected, therefore all Christians have a responsibility to get it right.

I can’t even accept the concept of “damn us all….to eternal hellfire” as being biblical, or more relevantly, put myself in the position of doing the damning.

Hell was a literal place on earth, where the Israelites set up altars to “idols” or other Gods, and followed the practice of child sacrifice by burning children alive.

While Hell is mentioned in the NT (12 times), it is used to evoke an image of this consuming fire, the fire of Gehenna (the Valley of Hinnom). It is used as a metaphor for God’s judgement.

Hollywood movies, medieval art etc. and the apocalyptic zeitgeist of the 21st Century, are responsible for the vision of hellfire which you evoke here.

Again, the idea of God’s judgement sits uncomfortably with (well, most of us!) but especially those who reject the claims of the bible: ie. that God’s sovereignty over his kingdom brings us all under His judgement and authority (whether you believe in Him, or not).

RObert, I really don’t agree with everything brothers Gibo and Runner say. I have confronted Gibo’s eschatological zeal before. I believe some of the conclusions drawn are creatively rather than accurately correlating biblical prophecy and contemporary events. I am open to some of those events having already occurred, historically.

I don’t disagree with the underlying assumption: that God’s judgement will be brought to bear, so I usually don’t feel compelled to hold them accountable.

I can’t promise to trawl through all those previous posts although I’ll scrutinize future posts vigilantly– the only inspired word is the word of God, after all.

Come on,moderator!

What has all this got to do with the saying of the Lord's Prayer in Parliament?

"with all this talk about MARSHMALLOWS et al. No other website would allow such aberrations. Waffle.That is all it is."

Great idea, socratease! waffles would go really well with marshmallows.

Haaa hahahaha.

Waffles as well! This is shaping up to be a real hoot of a party for all us unbelievers!

Hell,A! lol. Well, I think what is hell, is what man puts his mind through thinking about if one exists or not.

Heaven! Is this a place where we dip crackers in philadelphia cream cheese, work for ten minutes, and have the rest of the day off, is paradise? works for me.lol.

And if hell is the case, MAN! it must be packed by now.

I would love know how an entity burns, that would be a very clever trick. No nervous system etc.

People have the right to believe in what ever they like, but what if polycarp is right!

I guess its cream-cheese again!

No heart disease, no rock and roll, being crap scared if you make a mistake, no sex,lol, and its all white!

I,d better bring my sun-glasses.

I,m glad everyone's takes what they say with a pinch of salt, cause if religious people are right, they just might have the last laugh.

Lets not be too quick to judge.

Hindu! I,m coming back as a tree!lol Ploy! Please make sure those dog owners have there pets on a leash.

You people are the greatest! This thread is a winner, if you take it the right way. I still haven't stopped lol.

EVO is going now! all look after yourselves and love everyone and everything, cause we only have one planet, and i,m sure on line opinions quality debates will continue with the greatness you have all made it.
Thank-you, and may your god be with you.

EVO

Excellent stuff, Ludwig and Bronwyn. I'm going camping and fishing this weekend, and marshmallows and waffles would be great if my GP would permit such carbohydratic excess. Apparently red wine's OK though.

We'll have to reserve an OLO corner of Hell - it'll be quite a party!

Socratease - get a life.

No Bronwyn...I've not dissappeared....

On forgiveness.. I take the Lords position.

He did speak about it being important and made our own forgiveness dependant on our willingness to forgive others.

One thin usually missed in all this is that forgiveness is preceeded by REPENTANCE.... I shout it :) because very few people seem to tweak to this.

In our own cases... the Gospel includes "Repent...and believe".

In fact it might be said that the first word of the Gospel is.. 'repent'.

As for the Bali Bombers..I don't forgive them..nor to I condemn them .. they are in Gods' hands... and he will sort them out.
They did not do anything to me personally... but if they had.. my forgiveness would be based on repentance. (theirs)

Would you forgive Hitler if he said he believed..but then went on killing Jews as if nothing had happened?
So..forgiveness outside of repentance is rather meaningless.

JUDGEMENT... it seems some have made the mental slip of thinking WE are judging others? Please re-read my post about it. WE are our own judges.. our words and responses will judge us. I don't need to.
We point out...that when the offer of salvation is given, that to reject it is to judge ones-self.

TOPIC.. yes :) it has indeed run it's course...