Thankyou all for your wonderful inputs.

Oliver: Jesus' reaction to shock could have killed him early, yes the beating could have released toxins. OMG no cross lol

His early death and the possible intervention of his followers achieved his legs not being broken. Did man intervene in prophecy?

Philo: Are you calling the truth negative and destructive? Please explain Jesus' alleged "Parable of "the Gold Coins" (Luke 19: 11-27). Are you judging others "spiritually dead"? You as a Christian aren't entitled to make judgements(Matthew 7:1-5).

Know your bible Philo, you are not entiltled to misrepresent God!

Sympneology: TY for the information - the plot gets thicker. If true ,it indicates that the Churches are glossing over things and not representing the facts. Can Christ's alleged churches tell lies?

PtB-Have the churches paid their fair share covering up the sins of the priests/members?

Do churches run to lawyers first and the victims last when it comes to these crimes?

Why don't churches put crime immediately in the hands of the police?

Accessories after the fact if they don't?

If what this alleges is true http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html perhaps you should ask who paid for all the lawyers?

The constitution rightfully keeps religion out under 116 - why do we say prayers at the beginning of parliament? Have you seen the way those idiots behave?

OMG please don't argue blasphemy as a criminal offence... Did God invent humour and is it great to have the occasional God gag? "Newsflash : Jesus Second Coming Delayed - contemplating a plan that might actually work"..lol

Sympneology: I think on the whole you could see Jesus as a pragmatist but then there are those bits that davidf has pointed out. Did Jesus realise what the churches might do with God's alleged word? I refer you back to Luke 19: 11-27 - I doubt that was pragmatic!

Where are all the preachers when one needs them to help us with our bible studies - preaching to the converted?

Sympneology

<The basic conflict in this discussion is between those who treat the words of their scripture as final and unchangeable, to be obeyed without question or demur, the Fundamentalists, and those who regard it as an interesting insight into the times in which it was written with some useful guides to ones behaviour in society, the Pragmatists.>

That may be the 'conflict' in this discussion but in most of out earthly problems with religion (Palestine, Iraq et al) the problem is more the interpreters of their scripture.
Do churchgoers read the bible or do they gain their knowledge from what the priest tells them? Is it the Koran that rules in Islamic countries or what the religious leaders tell their followers?

In this and other debates there might be a bit of name calling now and again but none of it is likely to lead to murder. We are mostly talking academically about the status of the bible. But if we (individually) had the power to influence large groups of people it could lead to all out warfare. There would be coalitions formed and we would degenerate into what is generally known as civilization.

Does it matter if the Bible is seen by some as the word of God but not by others? What matters is what happens when leaders of religions start issuing instructions to followers according to their philosophies, not their holy text. In history we have seen the results over time and place with the major cults such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam and the minor cults such as at Jonestown.

I don't know the answer to this debate. Basically none of us do. But one thing that has become apparent to me is that no matter what State and religion must be kept separate. Up till George Bush Christianity had been kept mostly separate from the State. Judaism and Islam have still to make that change. With church and State separate we can have the luxury of debate about the Bible. Without it many of us would have been burnt at the stake long ago.

There are some great Biblical Scholars post here, but the most important people who should study it, either don’t believe its message, or don’t understand what it says. It is a Rule book, but like all rules, they must be tested in a crucible to see if they are right rules or wrong rules. Likewise all Statutes are Rules, but when we give a bunch of atheists power, ( S 123 Supreme Court Act 1970 Seven Judges a barrister and solicitor) as happened in NSW in 1970, to overrule any prior inconsistent Act, we have a recipe for the disasters that are this State and Queensland.

A nine man panel of Judges and lawyers, has ruled this State since 1970. I saw one even call the High Court a cabal of academics, at a public forum, and this same man refused to follow their clear precedent. Without a fear of Almighty God these atheists have no moral rudder at all. Until KR came along the government of Australia was in the hands of lawyers for nearly sixty years. Jesus Christ did not like them, ( Luke 11 Verses 46 and 52) and they deserve universal scorn and damnation for their violence and lack of impartiality.

Like all monopolies, the Judging monopoly has been bad for the society it serves. The New Testament does not allow a Judging monopoly. Parliament is not supposed to allow a judging monopoly, but because the Parliament dishes out the King’s shilling, it can buy and protect its Atheist servants.

While a Judge refuses to empanel juries, he is a State slave. From first judgment to last, he is vulnerable. He can at any time be Murphied, or Einfelded, if he does not serve his slavemaster. Under the Common law, a Judge was immune not because the parliament made him so, but because he could plead, Non est factum. It was not my Deed. I did not do it. The jury did, and in fact from 1670, juries but not a Judge were immune from prosecution. They were immune because they were doing God’s work.

The English model of democracy was tolerated by the Irish and million Roman Catholic Scots, because it was essentially New Testament Christian. The Roman Catholic Church became the hotbed of Irish nationalism, and like Australia, the English eventually gave them self government. As soon as the nationalistic usefulness fell away, I am told most Irish now regard the Church as nice but irrelevant. Instead of the English as ruler they now have a State. The Roman Catholic church is as excluded as ever from government.

However there was a post said S 116 Constitution excluded religion from Australian Politics. This is not the case. It simply says the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance. What they have done is make atheism compulsory, excluded Christianity and its good government safeguards from the system of government, and despite saying the Lord’s prayer, from Matthew 6 Verses 9-13, every day, created godlets, in the form of Judges, to do the bidding of not Almighty God but whatever misguided legislation passes the Parliament.

Some of these Judges and Magistrates have a bit of decency in them, but while they refuse to abide the Coronation Oath 1688 and deny the Gospels as the law against which all legislation must be tested, they are a menace instead of a blessing. The Gospels are a condition precedent on all legislation, as the above cited passage from the gospels indicates. The Cambridge Bible has the Royal Seal on its Flyleaf, but American published versions do not. The Australia Act 1986 established atheism as the state religion. It is completely atheist. It does not allow Her Majesty, by section 8, to any longer take advice from a CH III Constitution court, that a law passed by a State is illegal. Consequently the States have turned into thieves, and the Judges of their Courts, accessories after the fact.

No Judge has ever put the Australia Act 1986 on trial. It is unconstitutional, repeals and continues the Constitution, and Judges and Magistrates are atheist, in reliance on its fraudulent provisions

Peter the Believer wrote: However there was a post said S 116 Constitution excluded religion from Australian Politics. This is not the case. It simply says the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance.

Dear Peter,

What you have done here is set up a straw man. That is to argue against something that was not said. My post referred to S116 and stated that under it your suggestion that Rudd should appoint Christian magistrates was a violation of the Constitution. Rather than responding to that point you chose to make the post say something it never said. Australian politics is full of religion, and I did not object to that.

I object to your suggestion that Rudd violate the Australian Constitution by appointing magistrates of a particular religion.

Please stop your distortions

I would like to correct my last post. There is nothing wrong in putting Christians in office. It is a violation of S 116 to make their religion a qualification for that office. Appointing only Christians would be evidence that S 116 had been violated.