I have been struck with how often so-called Fundamentalist Christian Preachers quote from Books of the Old Testament and almost never from the mouth of Jesus.

But more of a worry for people who are looking for the teaching of Jesus is that in these versions of 'Christianity' there has been an ignoring of things that Jesus said in favour of things Old Testament texts advocate. For example, there are people who think they are followers of the teaching of Jesus justifying, ‘an eye for an eye’ because it is in the bible – this is just absurd. I didnt really want to get into 'contradictory bible quotes' territory but tell me if I need to give some quotes to put this in context.

Dare we say it without incuring the wrath of Zionists?
What gives these (or any other group) the right to butcher innocents, after experiencing the 'Holocaust'?

Why is it allowed to go unquestioned, with precious little or no debate.

For if you do so, the instant labelling of "Anti Semite" is hung firmly about your neck.

Hi Rob (and Albie)

to answer the question... 'no' but in some cases 'maybe'.

There is a group in the USA (where else) which is called "Christian Reconstructionist". They are in part linked to a strongly Calvanistic and reformed theology, and they DO wish to re-implement the Mosaic law including stoning of adulterers etc.

Fortunately, they are not very influential now from what I observe.

I actually don't see the Old Testament used as you suggest among 'fundamentalist' churches. The O.T. is very useful and provides a backdrop to the coming of Christ. The most central theological point in the the Old Testament is actually found in Isaiah 53 "He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities" referring to the Mesaiah, our Lord Jesus and his substitutionary sacrifice for our sin.

I think fundamenalist churches, where this just means they accept the Scriptures as divinely inspired, do indeed focus on the teaching of Jesus, and the Apostles. Our church certainly does. We seldom have a sermon based on the Old Testament alone.

Perhaps if you could give some specific examples it may make it easier to engage about the issue, and even provide some background for the particular group you refer to.

Just as examples. There are the Pastor Fred Phelps types. (Turrrrrrn or Burrrrrn) who want to stone homosexuals.
There are independant Baptists and Pentecostalists. Most of the Televangeslists tend to be Pente's. Chuck Swindoll is an excellent teacher, and is not in either of the above traditions.
James Dobson is quite good in my view also. (Focus on the Family)

I have no time for the 'showmen' like Bennie Hinz and company.

The topic/question is a worthwhile one indeed...glad u raised it.

Rob since u raised the topic, which preachers in particular r u talking about or is this just a generalisation? Funny that Jesus quoted from the old testament a number of times. All a matter of interpreting correctly as far as I can see. 99 per cent of Christians I know from a broad range of churches all have the simple understanding that the church is under a different covenant to that of the old testament. If that was not the case we would stone people for breaking the Sabbaoth. Seems to me the Islam and athiest based countries have always been a lot harsher on people than even Judaism.

Absolutely correct observation Rob - you may even have noticed (without really realising) many are also now making reference to "judeo-christianity" as if they are one and the same thing. Unfortunately it isn't even a hybrid - but as you say, Christianity being rebranded as Judaism, period.

This is a typical 'linking' technique in any rebranding exercise - to get people to move from one opinion to another. Say it often enough and eventually the new phrase will become accepted (commonly held) terminology - superseding in many peoples minds what was previously understood. For example we now have "peacekeepers" rather than soldiers (check out NLP - often used in business).

It is also, I'm sorry to say, about some Christians and Jews showing common cause against Muslims/homosexuals etc... and has very little to do with real spirituality.

We sort of discussed something similar a couple of months ago regarding the use of judgemental language by the pope with regards to homosexuals (why is it that whenever this man opens his mouth, violence ensues?) If you have time for a good read - (the article, by an American priest, really is excellent) - the number of postings will reveal that this was quite a hotly debated topic...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#48427

My only experience is the TV Evangelists - but this includes Hillsong which obviously has considerable political clout in this country. The other American brands must also be popular to have the funds they obviously have.

One issue in which I have noticed a large discrepancy is, surprisingly enough, money. In the old testament it is often said that god rewards people for belief in him by bestowing riches upon them. This seems to justify, surprisingly enough, the rich hanging on to their wealth because god has given it to them, whereas:

Jesus said stuff like, [Mark 10:25] 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven' and [Matt:5:45] 'does not the father send his rain to fall on the just as well as the unjust and his sun to shine on the unjust as well as on the just.'

And of course the Apostles and Jesus himself were poor so the idea that God pours wealth on his believers in proportion to their faith is a non-sense in 'christianity' that is actually based on the life of jesus.

Another issue of considerable import is that of violence and punishment. In particular I raise the 'eye for an eye' issue because Jesus apparently took the time to specifically reject that directive [Matt:5:38] and seguay directly into the famous, 'turn the other cheek' injunction and a description of a methodology which I dont see ANY of our so-called 'christian' leaders adopting.

Hence the question: is this modern christianity (such as Bush, Howard, Costello, Abbott etc practice and preach) really in keeping with the teaching of Jesus, or is it actually something quite different which has co-opted the brand loyalty and the 'warm and fuzzy' image of christianity and bent those things to their own purposes? Remember, 'Many will come in my name who are not of me.'

I wonder if it is the success of Hillsong and other like churches that get up peoples noses so much. Jesus certainly did challenge the rich to give to the poor but He also said ' Give, and it shall be given to you, good measure pressed down and shaken together and running over, they shall give into your bosom. For with the same measure that you measure, it shall be measured to you again.' Luke 6:38

TO see thousands of young successful people who are prospering in many aspects of life and living wholesome lives really annoys many envious people.

Selective Scriptures that show that try and show all Christians should be poor are just as out of balanced as those that say all should be rich.

For me I don't care if its labour, liberal or greens but anyone who is prepard to protect the most vulnerable (ie unborn babies) will get my vote.

Foreign policy is a difficult subject but u would have a lot of trouble convincing me that if Mr Beasley was in power he would not of supported the US and British invasion of Iraq.

I have never heard Mr Howard preach anything from the Scriptures. Most Christians I know support him because he still holds somewhat to family values. I suspect thats why many non Christians also support him. MOst I know see him as a good man but have seen no evidence of a relationship with the LOrd Jesus. Mr Costello seems to go somewhat with the wind (desparate to be pm). Mr Abbot is a strong Catholic.

I personally find it sickening when Politicians pretend to have faith in order to win votes. A number from both sides of Politics could be named in this category.

'There are two pivotal moments in the story of Christ's life - his refusal to take-up the sword when offered to him by Barabas (the leader of the insurgents) and the subsequent irony of the Jewish people choosing to free Barabas, rather than Jesus. The Jewish people, unable to realise the power of fogiveness and love continue to fight the rest of the world to this day':
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#48427

It is interesting that you mention this point K&vin, because i recognise that God specifically stated that he would punish Jesus for this indescretion. Amazing eh- in the face of mega-human injustice, the superhuman Jesus chose not to deploy his powers. Instead he chose self-sacrifice, with the belief that his death would save us all.

But when?

And also, Jesus pointed out that he did not come to bring peace, but division. And so it goes. Hence, from the schism, we have Judeo-phobia: what would it have been like if he had fought? Is there still a manifestation of anti-peace fracticide? etc. The modern question becomes: When is Christ due back?, in the OldTestament time-scale, or the NewTestament time-scale? To this very day Islam and Christianity do battle over this (and others) question, as part of the WOT.

But i wanted to bring a question about here at home (Aus). K&vin, you mentioned this 'branding' thing. Now i happen to know this is
rhetoric of a certain political sway. And so, due to the immense pressure of the Left, are we about to see a schism here between the
agnost/aethist fantasy addicts of the Left, and the once homogenous Aussie culture?

Rob
you touched on a VERY important point.

*The old Testament suggests God rewards believer with riches*

Psalm 1

Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither.
Whatever he does prospers

This is referring, in poetic language to the 'Covenant Relationship' between God and man. Deuteronomy is written in the form of a 'Suzereign/Vassal' treaty. In this, the Suzeriegn outlines

1/ Historic preamble. (how we came into this relationship)
2/ Requirements of the covenant
3/ Blessings/Rewards for obedience and punishments/curses for disobedience.

The language used is often colorful. But the central point revolves around the 10 Commandments.

In reality, the simple fact that a man seeks to honor God in all things, will stand him in good stead with other men. He will be principled, trustworthy, reliable. He does not indulge in bad/costly social habits. This in turn leads to economic advancement.

The tragedy of much televangelism is the emphasis on 'reward' for "giving". This is purely a PLOY to extract money out of gullible viewers.

True blessing comes after a wilderness experience. As Jesus said. "If any man will follow me let him deNY himself" etc.. only through death to self will that blessing come...and it does come. I've had 6 yrs of 'wilderness and humility' and just now some people came along who are seeking to give me a LARGE sum of $$$,$$$ (long story :) I gave up my own inheritance for Christs work... over 25 yrs ago and have just scraped through ever since. God is faithful.

FINAL POINT. To correctly assess Televangelists and Christian trends. 'refer user manual'.
Gospel of Mark is 'Action Movie' Matthew "Drama", John "Romance"
Luke "scholarly dissertation"
Start...here :)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=1&version=31

"In reality, the simple fact that a man seeks to honor God in all things, will stand him in good stead with other men."
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 1:37:34 PM

In reality - Jesus was nailed to a cross by 'other men'. Is that what you call standing in good stead?

[John 15:19] 'If you were of the world the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.'

Remember the fates of the Apostles and the martyrs? I'm sorry but the idea that 'doing well' is a sign of faith is v Old Testament. What about arms dealers, they are not just doing well but doing v well - God must really love arms dealers.

Finally consider the injunction of Jesus 'love thy enemy' - no 'christian' world leader even bothers to give lip service to that - they simply NEVER mention it

I thought it would be obvious Gadget - the "when" is when every individual decides for himself/herself not to kill or persecute others (put others through that which we all witness Christ suffered - violence, torture and crucifixion (predetermined, wilful slaughter).

If every single person becomes able to come to such a decision - not to kill or persecute/torture others - then who is left that is going carry out such acts?

I suppose forgiveness would have to play a major role in coming to such a shared understanding? Presumably education has a major role?

There is a real kindness in every single person. It is everyone's responsibility to make sure this manifests in everyone. When we can All do this... All will be happy.

Bye, bye, "eye for an eye"?

The choice is ours - do we accept Christ's logic (which he was prepared to die for (show by his own example - the ultimate sacrifice - in order to make the point) - or a never ending, vicious circle of hurt, revenge and counter-revenge until what? Mutual destruction or mass oppression?

"Father, FORGIVE them, for they know not, what they do.

This is the revelation of "The Life, The Truth and The Way".

In the world promised by Christ, only peaceful dialogue, negotiation and compromise remain - live and LET LIVE. Having suffered like he did, would you really come back again, knowing the same thing could happen all over again?

Yeah right, not BLOODY likely! Personally, I think once would be enough for anyone, don't you?

To Rob and BOAZ_David, if we look only to our own bounty (taking as much as we can for ourselves) then because we "reap what we sow", eventually, the dischord of the 'cheated' will also have to be sown?

If the fruit is of several men's labour, then surely, the fruit should be equally shared? Would there be fruit at all if not for several men? Who is it that distinguishes the value of one man's labour over another's - and to what degree (if any)?

I forget who it was, but the quote went something like:

"Religion is the last refuge for politicians & scoundrels alike..."

Says it all I think, particularly when righteous text thumpers shout it from the pulpits, claiming souls deliverance for easy votes.

Re-branded ... what ever... it all gets dollars in the rascals bank accounts. No difference when the body bags start coming home from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan - wherever. Jesus, Mohammed, Shiva, what deity is available may be your choice - it is that exactly. But it never ever stops the cannon fodder from turning up at the meat mincer.

If one day some priest, padre, hoja, rabbi etc actually did what their "god" asks, then war might cease,& humankind would get along with itself much, much better.

Religion is nought but a population control mechanism. Very interesting though is the success of Hezbollah through its own 'support networks' and civil assistance initiatives.

Albie Manton in Darwin

I think it goes:

"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

but eh, who can tell the difference these days?

Rob...

From Acts 2
"47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

These 'people' (as opposed to the 'mob' which crucified Jesus) were the ordinary ones.. who had no financial interest being threatened by the spread of the Gospel. Those who did, such as Alexander the coppersmith later in Acts, opposed the Gospel and the Apostles.

We can never avoid the ire of those who's "interests" are threatened by the Gospel of Salvation. (Example: the religious leaders who arranged his crucifixion)

Jesus did spell it out "If any man will follow me.....let him deny himself" There is a cost... and it could be as expensive as our lives. One chap from my own church tradition was burned alive with his children in his car by fanatical Hindu's. (You may have read or heard about that)

There is 'doing well'.....and doing well... clearly, doing financially well without an honest moral foundation is not 'doing well' in God's eyes.

Remember Christs words ? "If you hear my words and do them, you are like a man who built his house on a rock, the wind and storm came against them and they stood. But those who do not do them, are like those who build their homes on sand.. the storm comes, the wind blows and great is their destruction"

Remember Enron,Tyco,Nixon,Hitler,Mussolini ?

There is no conflict between Judaism in the Biblical sense (contrasted with the rather humanistic, ethnocentric Jewish version of 'Judaism' in Rabbinic Tradition) and the New Testament. One is the fulfillment of the other.

I urge all readers to seek an understanding of the coming of Christ, and its connection to the Old Testament. Perhaps do a search "Christ in the Old Testament"... I'm sure some informative and valuable material will emerge. Wherever you have questions and doubts, search more, read the Scriptures themselves, ask me :)

David from your post 26 Sept:
“In reality, the simple fact that a man seeks to honor God in all things, will stand him in good stead with other men. He will be principled, trustworthy, reliable. He does not indulge in bad/costly social habits. [i]This in turn leads to economic advancement.[/i]” My italics.

From your post 27 Sept:
“There is a cost... and it could be as expensive as our lives”.
Isn't it a little difficult to have ‘economic advancement’ when you are dead?

What I was disputing was the practice of using ‘economic advancement’ as a measure and indicator of faith – which is often done in Evangelistic and Old Testament circles. The 2 are not necessarily connected – you can have faith and be poor, as Jesus was – you can be wealthy and unscrupulous, such as the arms dealers are – therefore using a measure of material success as [i]any sort of evidence of faith and lack of it[/i] is erroneous and misleading and it is this practice I am deploring.

Your brethren was doubtless, ‘principled, trustworthy and reliable’ but this did not lead to his ‘economic advancement’. I would not have any trouble with your assertion if you substituted the words ‘may lead’ rather than ‘leads’ as 'leads' implies a necessary relationship. I don’t doubt that such practices may lead to economic advancement but they may also lead to death and any point in between including; poverty, destitution and being ‘hated by the world’.

“One chap from my own church tradition was burned alive with his children in his car by fanatical Hindu's. (You may have read or heard about that)”
I did yeah, almost broke my heart. My condolances. They werent Hindus though - they were fanatics just as Christian fanatics who burn Hindus alive are not Christians but fanatics.

Rob.. you touched on another key point.....

"Using economic advancement as a measure/indicator of faith"

No No no... this is cart before the horse. Economic status is NEVER an indication of anything but itself.
My point is that

a) When we turn from a selfish life, deny ourselves etc..
b) There will be economic results.

One result should be.. that we do not seek riches for their own sake.
And if we happen to be gifted in matters economic, or have inherited significant wealth, we should seek ways of using this in Gods service and we ourselves should live a modest lifestyle.
I don't have a problem with a couple with 3 children having a 4 bedroom house with a study, but I question whether we need a 90 square house to achieve that.

One mans 'modest' is another mans luxury so we must also avoid judgementalism. I confess though that I do have problems not 'judging' a little when a Christians biggest problem on sunday morning is 'which' BMW will he drive to church, if you get my drift.

Read Psalm 73 :)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=73&version=31

Point taken on the "may" lead to..... probably a better way of putting it.

Rob

I think you’re partly right – fundamentalists will cherry pick scriptures both old and new to support their ideological predispositions, especially on small-c conservative issues where they’re out of step with wider cultural trends (attitudes to homosexuals, women, the family, alcohol …).

But in fact what seems to most separate Christian fundamentalists from liberals is interpretation of New Testament scriptures. In particular, some fundamentalists tend to take literally the end-of-the-world imagery of the Revelation and Mark’s “little apocalypse”, believe in a real parousia, an actual day of Judgement and real heaven and hell, believe Jesus’ miracles were supernatural events which prove His divine status, and take the Pauline and Pseudo-Pauline texts as literal instruction in modern church organisation and behaviour.

Liberals tend to emphasise texts supporting universalism and inclusivism, downplay the judgemental in favour of the forgiving, and emphasise the need to interpret texts in context (e.g. the fact that the Pseudo Pauline misogyny seems to contradict Paul’s inclusivism and can be safely disregarded).

Others take a different position again – Sells, where are you?

I would disagree with any assumption that the Hebrew Scriptures were all about judgementalism, vengeance, materialism, and exclusion, while the New Testament disregards all that in favour of forgiveness, poverty and inclusiveness. Admittedly, the Hebrew Scriptures include elements of these negatives. But all of Jesus’ teaching on these subjects was firmly rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures – he was a Jew ministering to Jews and contending with Jewish authorities about the interpretation of Judaism

Rhian said: "especially on small-c conservative issues where they’re out of step with wider cultural trends "
It is where they are IN STEP with wider cultural trends that worries me, you know; justification of war, praying to the Golden Calf, ignoring specific directions, etc...

'Revelations' is of v dubious authenticity and should probably form part of the Apocrypha. Even the selected apostles did not understand Jesus all the time (according to Jesus) and Paul was a 'self-appointed apostle' who never actually met Jesus and so was certainly never authorised by him to preach.

"I would disagree with any assumption that the Hebrew Scriptures were all about judgementalism…"

So would I, I never said that and if you think I did - quote me.

It is an extraordinarily common 'technique' (if it can be called that) and I find it utterly tiresome for people to take some comments in support of an argument - exaggerate them to an absurd extreme, eg "all about judgementalism..." and then reject the original argument on the grounds that it is ‘too extreme’

Hmmmmm good to see both Rob and Rhian are at least grappling with the Scriptures.

So, that in part fits the description of 'read user manual'.....
But in both cases I think you are missing some important things. (like the central point)

Rhian simply 'assesses' the various books in terms of Liberal Documentary Hypothesis terms, and Rob is weary of other things.

Reveltion was included for good reason, in spite of some debate about it. Authenticity ? I don't think there is much doubt about that.
Written to real churches of the day.

Cherry picking verses is an awful way to regard scripture unless it is just to provide a word of encouragement "Let us all now stir one another up to good works" is something that can be taken in total isolation and still be quite valid.

Hal Lindsay (Late Great Planet Earth) and various others of a particular prophetic/eschatological perspective do tend to cherry pick to fit their grand schemes and as we know, a Text without a Context is a Pretext.
Having said that, I hardly think applying Isaiah 53 to Christ is cherry picking. The whole of chapters 40 to 53 are all about the Messiah.

Rather than try to understand 'Christendom' in terms of Liberal/Conservative/Fundamentalist, how nice it would be if we see the simple truth of "Jesus loves me this I know, because the Bible tells me so". A simple Gospel does not mean a simplistic one.

The message of the Gospel was "The Kingdom of God is at hand.. repent and believe in the Gospel" which of course means re reconciled to God, as per Pauls teaching in Ephesians 2 "You who were once far off, have been brought near in the Blood of Christ"

cheers.

The book of Revelations, logically, can only be sincerely regarded as a 'possible' future/outcome. If it hasn't happened, it can’t yet be considered to be an expression of ‘truth’. The title of the book is really a misnomer and probably has only as much value as the prophesies of Nostrodamus. As we sow, so shall we reap.

Logically, it is only possible to be 'decided' about the past, and possibly the present (though sometimes, a limited frame of reference can make even this difficult).

The future, by nature, is always open as it is determined by cause and effect. It is possible to change the future if we change present day causality. For example, a smoker can reduce the possibility of giving themselves cancer in the future by giving up cigarettes today.

Equally, humans can reverse (or at least reduce the effects) of global warming, by changing behaviour today - provided the 'collective will' is sufficient.

If people stop manufacturing and deploying weapons produced by the industrial military complex, then it would be unlikely that mankind will smash and burn itself to smithereens.

If humans continue with the behaviours they display today (such as those just described), it is possible for a person to 'reasonably' envision such a future as depicted in "Revelations" by means of their 'imagination'.

Revelations should be viewed as a warning, not an inevitability.

'Christians'- RC, Baptist, C of E, Lutheran, others/sects etc. 'Islamist'- Sunni, Shiite, Wahabbi, others/sects etc. 'Buddhist'- Shinto, Taoist, others/sects etc. 'Hindi'- others/sects etc.

How do your "gods" give you mandate to use violence against other persons throughout history. Why are there bombs blessed by 'holy' men, only to be detonated on little kids and old ladies in obscure villages and towns?

It wasn't only JC who said in so many words: "suffer the little children who come unto me..." It is as ancient a saying as humanity itself, but why can't we ever listen? Because we are collectively losing our humanity as a species on this crazy green/blue planet.

Why can't we just get "Smart bombs" with an actual intelligence substance that would zero in on, & target politicians? Now that would be a defence policy worth paying taxes for!

Rob, my apologies, I had other posters in mind more than you when I had a dig at those who dismiss the Old Testament. I agree about Revelation (it and Hebrews only just made it into the canon), though if you read it as I believe it was probably intended – as a fantasy/allegory on the political/theological situation in the Roman empire at the time, not a set of predictions about the future – it makes a bit more sense. I still think fundamentalists are distinguished more by their take on the New Testament than the Old, though.

BOAZ_David: yes, I find the documentary hypothesis useful, along with other elements from the liberals’ analytical toolbox useful for understanding the scriptures (form, source, historical, redaction and other types of "higher" criticism - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism). These are not substitutes for faith and are only tools, but are invaluable for in-depth exegesis.

Albie, the quotation you cite is a misinterpretation of an old translation. “Suffer” was meant in the sense of “allow” not pain or distress. The NRSV (Mtt 19.13-14) translates it this way: “Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them; but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs."

I agree Rhian - it is also probably best to consider Revelations

"as a fantasy/allegory on the political/theological situation in the Roman empire at the time, not a set of predictions about the future".

It is probably geo-politically and historically confined and has little bearing on the modern world. Apart from being of tremendous use to those who would lead the vulnerable and the gullible - for a personal donation of course!

I think this thread has probably gone as far as it can go under its current heading - that is not to say that there are not many interesting connections forming to other areas but they should really be probably the subject of new threads, adieu.

Dear kevin and Rhian
there is always the possibility that Revelation is 'both'

It has to have some contemporary relevance, as it is written to real churches about their real conditions.
The internal evidence indicates this but then suggests it is also about 'what is to come' and I don't think the whole thing can be squeezed into a 'contemporary theological/political' mould, especially the final chapters about new heaven and new earth, armagedon etc.

Some good commentaries of various escchatological positions exist.
I don't think any will completely answer all our nagging questions.
But then..sometimes we nag too much :)

Higher criticism is useful to the extent that it shows good scholarly research which includes many references to linguistic, historical and archeological material, but it is also often telling more about the presuppositions of the critics than about the text itself.
Some of the 'mammoth iconic' critics I've seen don't take long to deconstruct. One such is Rudolph Bultmaan, and if I recall correctly, he re-interpreted the resurrection in terms of 'The faith community' rather than history on the basis of "Christ could not have risen from the dead, because people don't rise from the dead today, and science teaches that this is impossible" something along those lines.

Some of my favorites in the Neo Orthodox so called camp are Oscar Cullman, (Christ and Time) Joachim Jeremias (The Eucharistic words of Jesus) and others.

Some of the critics of Genesis are simply 'silly' to me. I'm not a scholar but I do know when I see a hypothesis unsuitably connected to the material is seeks to represent. "The 2 creation accounts" is one such example.

Rhian - Hi and thanks for the correction of my misunderstanding in that 'Messianic' instance.

My concern in the original post was for children who by and large are the unwitting victims of every conflict humankind dished out since time immemorial.

Jesus no doubt existed as a person, and as a lapsed atheist even I acknowledge the facts - historical and other. Most certainly his word, his teachings, his memory, and the New Testament affect those with faith. But have we truly been handed down the 'verbatim word' of "god" or just Chinese whispers along the way?

I often give an example of sorts to illustrate 'religion'. It is a room filled with people - the "nations of the Earth". In this room all people sit around a huge table over which is hung a light. That light is viewed by each and every person in a different perspective from where they sit. We then 'name' the light after our respective "god or god(s)"

Why am I less a person because my beliefs of that 'light' have a different concept whether it be Jehovah's, Budhha's, Mohammed's, Jesus's, Shiva's or whatever?

I become less a person when I start to affect lives in a negative way - which is what we see with the 'othering' being fostered amongst societies world wide today. The questions are to the puppeteers - why do it?

Vive la differences, celebrate but don't dictate.

I am concerned in equal amounts by far right pentecostal and fundy 'christians' - Hillsong/Assembly of God/Potters House, as I am by Wahhabi Islamists. I have endeavoured over my last 20 + years of life, to be tolerant of most religious zealots even to the point of attending their meetings, investigating their beleifs, sharing 'communion' and breaking bread with folk of many religious persuasions.

Some were downright scary, but for the most I feel there is comfort given for those folk too weak to have a strength of conviction within, and of themselves.

For others religion is nothing more than a convenient 'crutch'. That in itself is even more scary.

Dear Albie
I share your concern over some of the 'right wing pente' types as you listed. But for different reasons. I hope you look closely enough at them to realize that Hillsong is not having 'terror training camps, explosives orientation, weapons familiarization'... rather they have Bible study, prayer and fellowship :) in contrast to the Wahabists.

My concern about Hillsong or any Pente group which seems too much on the "Prosperity gospel" is simply that people will gain a wrong impresion of Jesus, and when they find out its wrong, may despair and abandon their faith.

Regarding the 'Word of God' and the Bible. You would be possibly quite suprised at the level of ancient middle east memory. Take the Hadith of Mohamed for example. Its quite a testimony to how a piece of information can be separately transmitted through 2 chains of people and end up still very similiar.

But the Words of Jesus had much better attestation, as the gospels and records of his words were in print within the lifetime of the Apostles. Jesus also spoke in a form easy to remember "Parables".

"The kingdom is like a grain of mustard seed"....etc.. how many times does one need to hear that and be able to remember ?

"The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep, and one became lost..." easssssy :)

I can still remember just about word for word, the report given to me of Islamic persecution in Sabah Malaysia from the deacons at the village who experienced it. That was around 1978 and now its 2006, nearly 30 yrs on.

Boaz D, I am in constant awe of anyone who can remember or recite verbatim, long passages of text. Mostly I have trouble remembering the weekly shopping list.

Oral traditions of many cultures are, quite literally (excusing unintended pun there) their only recorded histories. Our own Aboriginal Nations go back many, many more aeons past even the most ancient scrolls from which we take the common sytems of beleifs (religions) extant. To have a 'Dream Time' story translated is a touching and wonderful thing when the storyteller is at one with the land around them. Truly living history revealed.

I have copies of most popular religious texts by my side. I would beg to differ that Islam is actually any more or less violent than Christianity over the ages. Both have bloody accounts of, and within their histories. Ha'armag-Eddon as you know, was a most brutal scene of carnage. Forensic archaeology has shown that to be.

But again I digress, to state simply that: no one religion should be seen by its followers as 'better' than his neighbour's and leave it at that my friend.

Certainly the Wahhabist's are not predisposed to any friendly dialogue when converting Infidels. Whether dropped by B52's or strapped to a 13 yr old girl, C4 and Semtex are similarly indiscriminate in their 'conversion' of human flesh.

Our technologies in warfare have made us smug and complacent. The might of god and the might of superior firepower will not always win the battle as we saw in Vietnam, and now see revisited in Iraq/Afghanistan. A most poignant picture of recent times is the old soldiers from both sides in the Battle of Long Tan, seen shaking hands and enjoying a friendly beer.

A Holy War, be it 'Crusade' or 'Jihaad' may only change the tide for several generations in the wake of its victory. What then - we repeat the same formulae ad infinitum into the mists of time.

Will we ever learn?

Albie
I largely agree - most faiths have something unique and special to say about God, and none has a monopoly on truth, or a complete and perfect understanding of the divine and the spiritual. I don’t think this means we should sink completely into pomo relativism, though, in which all faiths are seen as equal and none as the right to criticise another. A vigorous but respectful debate would surely be to all our benefit, if we could only manage it.