First off, welcome back Bill, I hope you'll make a speedy recovery, and sorry to hear that you had to have any surgery at all - that's rough, especially over Xmas when you probably just want to relax and enjoy it all a bit.

re. the Bible. Yes, I know it can seem complicated and contradictory at times. But a lot of time has been studying it by highly tarined theologians and they seem to agree on the main important points. The Bible is chiefly important for what it reveals to us about what our potential relationship with God can be and His intentions for us.

I find of the two, the Old Testament difficult at times. Even in the New International Version it can be difficult to read, plus it's very long. It's hard to find anyone these days who'll actually sit down and read over 1,000 pages of anything (I'm stuck 2/3 of the way through Robert Fisk's "Great War for Civilisation'). But that's the only way to do it. Everytime I read it, I see anotehr layer, another piece of the puzzle. As you start to remember parts, it becomes easier to cross-reference and put things in the context that dispels much of the seeming-contradiction.

The New testament is much shorter and ofen, clearer (to me anyway). But it is easy to misquote either, or quote out of context. For example Jesus often speaks of peace, love your brother etc., then someone says 'but what about when he says "I come not to bring peace, but a sword...families will be divided, brother against brother..." etc., Doesn't sound very peaceful?

But if you read around it, and have read the rest of the Bible, you come to realise what Jesus was saying (think "my kingdom's not of this world', telling Peter to put away his sword, turn the other cheek...) that His message was not going to be an easy one. It would create upheavals. It would divide families: some of the family might become believers, while the rest might remain non-believers, or pagans, or whatever. They would fall out over Jesus' message, Christians would be persecuted for it. Jesus ws not saying (if I am not mistaken) that He was going to bring world war, or that He desired this state of affairs, or even that He was going to set families at each other's throats. He could just forsee what would happen if not everyone would follow His message. Not that there weren't wars and violence and disagreement already, but now people would be shunned, ridiculed and persecuted for believing in Him.

What He says Himself in much of the Gospels is quite clear enough. We only need to think of the example He gave when asked "who is my neighbour?" (the good Samaratin story) - what He was trying to say there couldn't have been clearer. He often seemed kindly exasperated with the apostles when they were slow to catch on. Sometimes He explained things again for them, especially after some of those famous parables. The Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of same only serve to clarify further, as the apsotles (some of whom, like Peter, were eyewitnesses and participants in the events they spoke of) began to gain better insight into what had happened. If it all seems a clear account to us today, we've had the benefit of some 2,000 years of the sharpest theological minds (St.Augustine etc) pondering over these problems, and the councils I mentioned previously. There may be further insights yet, but the Apostles Creed (from the time of the earliest councils, like Nicea, in response to heresies that had already arisen) summed up the main points of what Christianity stood for, and what Christian's believed. It has stood practically unaltered for the last 1650 years.

Jesus Himself was also a trained Rabbi. He regularly quoted from the Old Testament and Holy writings of Judaism, so clearly He Himself accepted their authority and correctness. As I metioned ina previous thread, when tempted by the devil, His response was to quote the Old Testament in rebuff.

As for the schisms that have occured in the church since, they are unfortunate, but arose for sound reasons. There is little doubt that the Middle Ages saw the church as an institution become heavily politicised and wrapped up in temporal affairs. This would have been ok if the temporal affairs in question had been simply moral questions rather than political ones (supporting this or that monarch cos they guaranteed church property etc.,). Afterall John the Baptist readily criticised Herod for his immoral lifestyle, for which he famously lost his head.

Then there were the selling of pardons, indulgences etc., (against which Luther rightly railed) but what was happening is what frequently happens in any institution, as much of its daily actions depend on the goodness of the people who represent it. Just think of how today the police have been caught on camera beating the s... out of Rodney King etc., We rightly condemn such actions, but we do not abandon the idea of a civil legal code or the concept of justice because of it.

I am not an expert on the reformation so I won't comment more on the history. But all Christian (inc Orthodox), the Judaic and Isamic faiths worship the same God. They also have a lot of common cause these days in face of the secularistaion of the world. But unfortunately they often prefer to focus on their undeniable differences. I would say they all hold in the truth to the extent they worship the same God. Obviously I choose Christianity over Islam because I believe Jesus was the son of God and the route to salvation, while Muslims regard this as blasphemy, as do Jews. So we'll have to find room for all of us in this crowded house, because I am sure God does not want us killing one another. In all three faiths (as well as amongst non-believers) there exist 'throat-shovers' but many of us simply want to practise our faith (or not), worship our God and tell others about it in a non-throat shoving way. I think friendly dialogue is possible for those interested in such matters. When it comes to religion & politics, I think seperation is not possible at one level. And that is when people exercise their vote according to their beliefs and conscience. And as I have pointed out in a previous thread, one cannot expect anyone, athiest or believer, to do otherwise without denying their own selves. having said that I would never vote 'yes' to any proposal to force people to go to mass or pray, for example. It would quiet go against the grain of anything I believed in and take away free will in religious matters. However I would vote 'yes' to ban abortion, just as I would vote against the death penalty (I DID vote against the death penalty in the referendum to scrap it). I would vote against war if referendum were held on such matters.

[footnote: why do we not have referenda to go to war? Afterall, who does most of the dying in wars? Senators? The president? Or Joe Soaps? But I would still vote against it even if most Joe Soaps wanted to go to war!]

I vote this way because of my religious belief that God has ordained that all human life is sacred and something special, and has told us 'thou shgalt not kill'. Other people may vote other ways according to their beliefs, whether in some other god or in secularism. That's democracy, for all it's shortcomings, and it gives the majority of people what they want for better or worse.

OK, time to sign off, I've got to head out and meet some friends for a beer!