Maximillion

Good to hear we can agree on some things. You ask

'Always wondered about one thing, Christians believe all their deceased relatives (of good repute), are in Heaven, and they pray/talk, whatever, to them, asking them to intercede with the Angels, Heavenly authorities etc, on their behalf, right?
Sounds a lot like all the various other forms of what's derisively called "Ancestor worship", to me. I realise Christians aren't "worshipping" their dead, but neither are most of the others.'

'Good' is relative in most people's eyes. I think John Howard is a 'good man' while many on OLO think he is a demon. The thief on the cross wasn't what I suspect you would call good. It is repentant sinners (ie) believers who will be heaven because of Christ's goodness not our own. It is faith in God's goodness rather than man's perceived goodness that matters.

As far as praying to the dead besides some in the Catholic church, Spiritualist and psychics I know of no one who prays to the dead. I think you are right in saying it sounds like ancestor worship. Christ actually came to set us free from such pagan practices. The bible reveals we should only pray to and worship God Himself. No Christian I know (and I know many across many denominations) would pray to the dead.

Houellebecq

"I'm a bit disappointed all I've generated is boring nodding 'yes it was better in the good 'ol days, I'm a good parent etc ...

Hmm how can I liven things up. Perhaps society has been too feminised."

If you really wanted the discussion to become a gender bashing exercise, which as CJ has already pointed out of course you did, you should have made that clear in your opening post. It's poor form to turn around now and tell everyone how boring they've made your thread when your intentions were never clear enough to begin with.

In fact, I think you need to take your own advice and accept responsibility for the failure of your thread, instead of blaming the rest of us for boring you!

"Maybe I'll go more Fractelle-like and claim that my motivation for the topic was ... "

Well, I'll say one thing, Fractelle's threads are certainly never boring.

Yes, Houellebecq, you could learn a lot from studying the way Fractelle initiates and facilitates a thread. It's highly improbable you'll ever match her skill, but keep practising. :)

That is enough of the Bible for one day. It is the basis of all contract law, and a misreading of it, and a lack of real understanding that women and men are equal in the eyes of Almighty God, has led us to interpose our own thinking for that of the Almighty. Within that short passage posted earlier, is a two hour lesson, and if the largest and oldest Church was not dominated by celibate men, they would accept that divorce as is marriage is given as a gift by Jesus Christ when both the man and the woman agree it is in the interests of both parties.( 18)

The Father is executive director of the universe. Like the Queen he cannot be everywhere so he invented delegation. In the successful societies, this delegate was a Christian, and knew through feeling in his heart, that he was such a delegate, but as the servant could not put himself above his master. His Master, gave us the law. The Law he gave us was the law of feeling, not the law of logic. That is why we pray. We pray and to this day a request to a court is called a prayer, to a higher power, with feeling. We pray because we believe our request is just. This is the basis of all good government.

Jury trial is the application of the ultimate feeling authority. Lawyers will tell you Statute law is paramount, but they are intrinsically con men anyway. From 1670 when William Penn was able to convince a jury, under immense pressure from a lawyer, to acquit him, the jury has been the implement of God’s will. They abolished the abomination that was called the Federal Magistrates Court this week. Every time it sat in Bankruptcy, because it could not offer a jury, it has had to remit the matter to the Federal Court, which can offer a jury trial, but never sits with one. A lawyer without a Bible is like a three legged dog. He may get around but will never go fast enough

Pet' the Bel'...You grind that axe in every thread on every subject, it makes your posts irrelevant, and boring, sorry to say.
Not worth reading, to put it bluntly.
Why not take it as a given that we all know your views on courts, lawyers et. al., and just stick to the theme of the thread?
I'm sure you have a lot to contribute, if you could just get off your old hobby-horse for a while.

I think the ladies are ineffect close to the mark as I see it.
I look at it like this we are all imperfect and could improve the way we relate to other particularly to strangers....(that community thing...Golden rule etc.)

The base who we are is pretty much immutable. But *most* of our attitudes are learned and therefore can be unlearned or modified.

The question posed is in essence how much of our attitudes are *us* I would suggest none, only the immutable part is the true us. i.e. Are you lesser you because you change your attitude toward “in your face” as you learn there are better ways? How about that hideous lamp your late mother in law gave your wife that now she loves? Are you any less you because you compromise?
If we are good grief! we all are doomed to become lesser us as we age and learn.
Life is about change.

As a species/culture/community/individuals we are dominated by the broad principle of evolution.(regardless of if it was god initiated or not) No one who understands evolution would suggest that every change is always linear betterment. In is that which is most appropriate for our circumstances(adaptability...i.e. Change). It seems to me that the key purpose of our struggle on all levels is to ensure that the for the betterment of all levels.
Hence change is a conflict between progression or regression. So if change helps others and therefore indirectly us (more harmonious community) Where's the problem?

It seems to me that there are two reasons we don't change.
Either we are so perfect that change would be a retrograde step.(now that would be superiority on steroids)
Or we're so brittle/afraid to change we're..... well you finish it.

The problem with victim-hood is that it takes away people's power. A dramatic example is what has happened to far too many Aborigines since 1967. Unfortunately they have been convinced by often well meaning people that their problems is someone elses. While the is a strong element of truth in this statement the second part of the message is that someone else has to do something to fix the problem.

Yet the reality in many cases is that it is the individual/community, and only the individual/community that has the power to fix the problem. These are the people who decide what they are going to eat, when they are going to take their sick child to the medical centre and whether their children are going to go to school. Yes there are things that governments etc. can do to help and yes there are features of traditional culture that may complicate some of these issues. However, Aborigines are the only ones with the power to make cultural adaptions, and, in the areas I am familiar with, inadequate government help was not the key problem.

Sometimes victims really do need outside help. However, in most cases the best thing outsiders can do to help is to point out who really does have the power to make a difference and to resist the temptation to help with a quick fix.