God is good, but just be sure not to take Him too literally JOE HOCKEY

Ralph,

Thanks, interesting article

By encouraging literalist analysis of the Bible, many churches have inadvertently invited people to question the validity of a faith that seems to be based on questionable facts or outdated prescriptions.

Exactly. Gone are the days when you can just pesent a person who has a working mind with a little package marked anything and not expect them to inspect the contents thoroughly before they just accept it with blind faith.

Those of you who are political junkies will be avid watchers of The West Wing. You may recall an episode in which President Jed Bartlet confronts a right-wing radio host who has led a crusade against homosexuality based on biblical doctrine. Bartlet wonders that if he were to form his views on homosexuality based on the prescriptions of Leviticus whether he should also be following the guidance of the Old Testament in relation to the sale of his daughter into slavery; whether he should be putting to death his chief of staff for working on the Sabbath, or what he should be doing about footballers playing with a ball made of pigskin, or his wife for wearing cloth made from different threads.

Sounds fair. If you want to live by one law, you have to live by them all. No picking and choosing.

Those who seek to proclaim the prescriptions of the Bible selectively or literally provide an armoury of ammunition to those like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Laymen like myself struggle with the logic of such an approach. While debate rages about such matters, the true message of the scriptures - of compassion, justice, equality, dignity, forgiveness, charity and respect for other people - inevitably takes a back seat.

Yep, yep, yep. Sad really.

I don't accept that any of the great religions envisage a God or a divine force that sanctions the worst failings of humanity. Religion asks of us to become better people - to choose a life of giving and compassion. This "Golden Rule" is a thread that runs from Confucius to Christianity, from Buddhism to Islam.

For me this is the essential message of all faiths - that we should love our neighbour as we love ourselves. As Muhammad spoke in his final sermon, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Or as the great Jewish Rabbi Hillel put it: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow."

What a wonderful world it would be if those who claim to belong to a religion actually lived it.

The God of my faith is not full of revenge, as the Old Testament would suggest with a literal interpretation. The God of my faith does not cause earthquakes or tsunamis as acts of retribution.

As the Pope identified in his recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth): "Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope."

Hmmm. When commitment to God becomes a pile of obligations and requirements, it is a practice that is about fear and legalism. God is love.

Australia must continue, without fear, to embrace diversity of faith provided that those gods are loving, compassionate and just.

Wouldn't it be great if just one faith could get that golden rule thing right, all the time, instead of wasting energy pointing out the flaws in  other faiths, and how wrong they are.

Literalists limit god to what is written between the covers of the bible. Why?

Hmmmmm I wonder who put that together for him.

Epi

Epi,

I'm sure it's not Ian.

Ian,
 
Joe claims to be a Layman. I do not know his religious status, but I am sure he has to hold a lot back because of his political agenda. 

By encouraging literalist analysis of the Bible, many churches have inadvertently invited people to question the validity of a faith that seems to be based on questionable facts or outdated prescriptions.

Exactly. Gone are the days when you can just pesent a person who has a working mind with a little package marked anything and not expect them to inspect the contents thoroughly before they just accept it with blind faith.

 

I don’t see this as a bad thing. One needs to analyze such to make sure it’s content is according to scripture

Those of you who are political junkies will be avid watchers of The West Wing. You may recall an episode in which President Jed Bartlet confronts a right-wing radio host who has led a crusade against homosexuality based on biblical doctrine. Bartlet wonders that if he were to form his views on homosexuality based on the prescriptions of Leviticus whether he should also be following the guidance of the Old Testament in relation to the sale of his daughter into slavery; whether he should be putting to death his chief of staff for working on the Sabbath, or what he should be doing about footballers playing with a ball made of pigskin, or his wife for wearing cloth made from different threads.

Sounds fair. If you want to live by one law, you have to live by them all. No picking and choosing.   

It is by the Law of the Spirit we now live.

I don't accept that any of the great religions envisage a God or a divine force that sanctions the worst failings of humanity. Religion asks of us to become better people - to choose a life of giving and compassion. This "Golden Rule" is a thread that runs from Confucius to Christianity, from Buddhism to Islam.

For me this is the essential message of all faiths - that we should love our neighbour as we love ourselves. As Muhammad spoke in his final sermon, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Or as the great Jewish Rabbi Hillel put it: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow."

What a wonderful world it would be if those who claim to belong to a religion actually lived it.

Every Christian needs to consider their approach to what God requires of them, what His will is; how it is acceptable in our worship of Him and to handle the Word with care and understanding.

The God of my faith is not full of revenge, as the Old Testament would suggest with a literal interpretation. The God of my faith does not cause earthquakes or tsunamis as acts of retribution.

As the Pope identified in his recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth): "Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope."

Hmmm. When commitment to God becomes a pile of obligations and requirements, it is a practice that is about fear and legalism. God is love.

I can’t agree with you there. If we commit to God with the obligations and requirements according to knowledge of truth and in spirit, the love of God is then “shed abroad in our hearts….”

Australia must continue, without fear, to embrace diversity of faith provided that those gods are loving, compassionate and just.

Wouldn't it be great if just one faith could get that golden rule thing right, all the time, instead of wasting energy pointing out the flaws in  other faiths, and how wrong they are.

Only Christianity can achieve that.

Literalists limit god to what is written between the covers of the bible. Why?

Why not?

Good post Ralph.
Did you put it in because you liked it?
At least Joe put together a few words from the heart about a subject that the majority of politicians wouldn't touch with a barge pole.
As he is a well educated man, I would presume that he put it together himself.
It may not convince biblically or appeal theologically, I doubt that was his intention, but at least he was willing to make an effort to try to explain his views on religion and God from a personal perspective.
I have followed his career with interest for many years now.
Glad

Ralph

I don't accept that any of the great religions envisage a God or a divine force that sanctions the worst failings of humanity. Religion asks of us to become better people - to choose a life of giving and compassion. This "Golden Rule" is a thread that runs from Confucius to Christianity, from Buddhism to Islam.

For me this is the essential message of all faiths - that we should love our neighbour as we love ourselves. As Muhammad spoke in his final sermon, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Or as the great Jewish Rabbi Hillel put it: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow."

What a wonderful world it would be if those who claim to belong to a religion actually lived it.

Every Christian needs to consider their approach to what God requires of them, what His will is; how it is acceptable in our worship of Him and to handle the Word with care and understanding.

Geez Ralph, you make it sound hard. I don't think it was ever meant to be that way. I also think christians need to consider how they are viewed both individually and collectively by the culture they live in. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is not a difficult concept, is it?

The God of my faith is not full of revenge, as the Old Testament would suggest with a literal interpretation. The God of my faith does not cause earthquakes or tsunamis as acts of retribution.

As the Pope identified in his recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth): "Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope."

Hmmm. When commitment to God becomes a pile of obligations and requirements, it is a practice that is about fear and legalism. God is love.

I can’t agree with you there. If we commit to God with the obligations and requirements according to knowledge of truth and in spirit, the love of God is then “shed abroad in our hearts….”

But why are we committing to him in the first place? I think the reasons behind the commitment go a long way to deciding what kind of christian a person will be.

Australia must continue, without fear, to embrace diversity of faith provided that those gods are loving, compassionate and just.

Wouldn't it be great if just one faith could get that golden rule thing right, all the time, instead of wasting energy pointing out the flaws in  other faiths, and how wrong they are.

Only Christianity can achieve that.

Hasn't yet.


Literalists limit god to what is written between the covers of the bible. Why?

Why not?

Because then people are pretty well saying god cannot do anything new.

I concur

blessings

Eric

 Have we become 'precious or what?' on the Forum.

I doubt he (Joe) was trying to convince or appeal or convert --- it was just a talk!

Blimey - still, at least it has prompted replies of gorgeous hues that are hard to follow and others.

I think I will just 'grump' off and organise dinner or something else that doesn't require any effort.

Glad

Glad, yes,

I did put it in because I think he is a genuine bloke and would make a more honest Prime Minister. Just my opinion.

All, I think if it was left to our few learned teachers there are around we wouldn't perhaps have heard there be a Gospel. Does scripture say even in pretence or truth the Gospel is preached? Phil 1:18. Can't we apply same today?

Ian,

 

Having neither position nor opportunity to meet up with any politician, one only passes comment on what we see and hear in the media, howbeit true or false. One doesn’t have to be a university expert to see that election promises have not been met; one can be as a simple Pensioner.

As for their religious integrity, one has had an audience with the pope regarding Saint Hood of Mary Mackillop whilst the other directed concerns of national importance (don’t take me wrong, I’m not bigoted against Catholic teaching) it is a matter of priorities that effect me directly.

 

Now, Phil 1:18, I know the context it is written in but I was simply pointing out as an illustration that it doesn’t matter how it comes up, the subject of God is brought to light.

Both parties preach Christ but is one more dominant in there own importance, as their motive, than the other?

 

Ralph

The one size fits all, or the notion that we all worship the same god (deliberate lower case "g") ultimately, whether it be Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Buddha, The Great Architect, Confucius, Paganism, using New Age Crystals or whatever, flies in the face of what Jesus taught. No one, least of all Christians can have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. We either believe that Jesus, was and is, the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father, except through Him (John 14:6) or we don't.

Jesus lived a life, showed an example, taught the right way to be one with the Father, suffered and died for the sins of the whole world, and was raised from the dead and taken up to glory. His ministry and strict directions did not leave options to be taken up and discarded at our whim and fancy.

Someone once said that there is an easy way to tell if a politician is not telling the truth......his or her lips are moving.

The careless way too many politicians of all kinds and genders put their stamp of approval upon easy and careless abortion is one measure of how far politics has descended. There is a lot of rhetoric in our Parliaments against violence and war and yet killing of our own kin in the womb is sanctioned and in some cases toasted with Champagne as did Lynne Alison, Leader of the Democrats 17.20.2006.

Once again I see the usual suspect is venting disapproval of God's will and timing. How can anyone say they worship God and don't trust His Word or His perfect righteousness?

John

 That date was 17th February, 2006. Please excuse the typo.

Ian, good morning.

I don't pretend to know much about politics or in fact religion (save spiritual abuse of course) I really just go along with the flow and I am content to receive such for a living and trying to do my bit to put back into the community by working for the school. We's doing ok.
My intention wasn't to judge our pollies faith but pointing out what may have been their motives, but doesn't matter, the thread produced a bit of convo'. anyway.

Have a good day. Ralph