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