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)?