ROBERT...back 2 u

I've already done some research on Hillsong, cannot find much of a concrete nature, but.. it appears there were some accusations made against them by some Aboriginals from the Riverstone area.

here is a quote from a letter sent by the board of the Riverstone Aboriginal Community Association.

"As the elected Board stated at our recent meeting with you our members do not support those allegations and we believe them to be completely without foundation"

Here is a link to the web site (at Hillsong)
http://www2.hillsong.com/media/default.asp?pid=1483

Here is the article in the SMH on which it is based.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hillsong-denies-bribe-allegation/2005/12/22/1135032135696.html

I don't know about you, but I see 'politics' at work here..'

-Who made the allegation ?
-How could such an allegation benefit him (and his party) Politically?

Before you go too far down the track with this, you would need MUCH more than 'innuendo' and politicized claims for me to start ripping into Hillsong on this issue.

Its quite different from the School land issue which is clear cut and documented for all to see.

I have though, emailed them requesting that the salaries of key staff be included in their annual report.

BD,
I never said that I deny that there are some problems with the Koran (as there are with the Bible) that need to be looked at and openly discussed. I have problems with a fundamental Christian criticising someone else’s holy book while his own is not perfect either.

My children are friends with children from different religions/denominations (Buddhist, Christian, Greek Orthodox, Muslim) and their Muslim friends and families are all responsible, hardworking people who are just into helping others. Many Muslims believe that ‘good deeds’ get them into heaven.
Islam’s bad reputation is just because of a minority of fundamentalists, not because of the average, moderate Muslim.

I am not sure what your aim is in talking negatively about Islam all the time: what are you trying to achieve? This is a real question, not just criticism.
I would really love to see both Koran and Bible reviewed, if that’s your aim.

BTW you only talk about the violent parts of the Koran, but there are parts in it that promote non-violence as well, e.g. Koran 2:190 “God does not love aggressors”.
Not that I have much knowledge of the holy books but I asked the Muslim girl at the checkout of our local supermarket and wrote it down especially for you. She tells me little bits and pieces about Islam when I ask and says she doesn’t mind answering questions. She and her family are being taught only peaceful things about Islam- nothing about violence and hate.

“If Muslims are teaching children to yell 'F&^k Jews in the streets of Sydney, do you 'really' think the schools will be teaching otherwise?”
Islamic schools teach children proper values. There is no evidence that children are being taught to hate at Islamic schools that exist in Australia. It's all in your head.
Look at this link that shows that the St Ignatius College and the Stratified Islamic College are having conversations and working together.
http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/respect/media/st_ignatius_noor_al_houda.html
This is an excellent idea. Perhaps you should visit one of the Muslim schools around your area and talk to someone to ease your mind.

No Pericles... you need to trademark that 'F I N G E R' also..because I'm using it now...

I have NOT said "The unsavory aspects of the history of Christendom do not exist or did not happen"..I have OPENLY agreed that they did.

What I HAVE said.. (now follow this... others are 'getting' it..you can too if you try a teensy bit harder :) "Those actions cannot be connected to or based on either the teaching or example to the Lord Jesus"

CELIVIA...

You mentioned 'The Bible too has violence' in it, or words to that effect. I offered to engage with you to sort this out once before, but you said "I don't have time" or something.. until I, or another helps you on this -you will keep on coming out with this same material.

You need to learn the difference between "Historical Reports" of specific incidents, and "Doctrinal Statements"

Probably the simplest way of illustrating this, is where Paul refers to a problem in the Corinthian church. THEN..he provides the doctrinal solution.

1 Corinthians 7 opens with:

1 Now for the matters you wrote about....

Chapter 5 of the same letter opens with

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife-And you are proud! (Historical report of immorality and pride)

Pauls goes on with:

Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? (Doctrinal Command)

"Immorality"= Put out of fellowship.

Its called... "CONTEXT"

Who in their right mind would say "Oh..the Bible mentions a man having sex with his fathers wife(stepmother)...we can too" on the basis of the above.

Now are you following me here ? If not.. newlifeinhim777@yahoo.com.au for follow up.

Boazy: "If Muslims are teaching children to yell 'F&^k Jews in the streets of Sydney, do you 'really' think the schools will be teaching otherwise ?"

More woolly thinking from our favourite Christian firebrand. That's like saying that if (some) Christians are teaching their children that homosexuality is an unnatural aberration, then this will be taught in Christian schools.

Yes, I do understand the context thing- but really, nothing in the Bible is crystal clear or there wouldn’t be so many denominations and disagreement.

However, the Bible as well as the Koran both can be used to justify violence; for example both condemn homosexuality and are both eagerly used by Christians and Muslims to justify violence and discrimination against the homosexual community (it’s just a coincident we’re discussing gay love on a different thread).

Correct me if I’m wrong but Jesus said nothing about homosexuality; while in the OT it says that homosexuals should be put to death, or something similar.
One would have thought that Jesus would have straightened out this important issue if there had been a misunderstanding in the OT.
So by saying nothing, he left it, knowing very well that it would create violence and discrimination against this minority group.

He did tell people to mutilate themselves for other reasons (stealing, sexual temptation) but nothing on homosexuality.
People are not so eager to follow his advice on selfmutilation, but are all too quick to use his advice when it suits them.

Nothing on homosexuality. Why not?

Now, hand back that finger for a moment Boaz, 'cos here we go again.

>>I have NOT said "The unsavory aspects of the history of Christendom do not exist or did not happen"..I have OPENLY agreed that they did. What I HAVE said.. (now follow this... others are 'getting' it..you can too if you try a teensy bit harder :) "Those actions cannot be connected to or based on either the teaching or example to the Lord Jesus"

But whether you like it or not - and it is crystal clear that you do not - these actions were performed in the name of Christianity.

This is the part that you have not accepted. Your position is, as you have once again re-stated above, "it's not what Jesus told them to do".

But Boaz, they went ahead and did it in his name anyway, didn't they?

How did they justify this? Probably, by using all the "smite thine enemies hip and thigh" justifications that they found in the Bible.

Samson whacked the Philistines, didn't he? First he "smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter", then "he found a new jawbone of an ass... and slew a thousand men therewith."

And did he get punished for this? Oh no. God rewarded him with a nice drink of water.

So you can blather on as long as you like about how "it's not Jesus' fault". But you are nevertheless guilty of selecting the most egregious "smite thine enemies hip and thigh" motifs from the Qur'an, at the drop of a hat, and painting Islam in those colours.

But perhaps... just perhaps.

Perhaps your position is that the God of the Old Testament and that of the New are two different beings? Is that it?

That would be at least a credible position to adopt. But it still doesn't absolve you of the charge of rabble-rousing, in the selective use of texts to support your position that your opponents are evil.