Regarding The Rose-Tree Dryad's question on King David's census, I've heard two explanations, both Jewish. Both versions reference I Samuel 8, the chapter in which the prophet Samuel protests against a human king.

Meir Shalev (author of Beginnings: reflections on the Bible's intriguing firsts) argues that I-II Samuel, I-II Kings told the warts-and-all version of kingship in fulfillment of the prophet's warnings about the failings and dangers of mortal kings. Shalev then argues that I-II Chronicles was written to the exiles after the destruction of the Temple. The writers of that version were religious officials trying to recall a Golden Age.* Notice how Chronicles deletes not only most references to the Northern Kingdom -- which the chroniclers regarded as illegitimate** -- but also deletes almost all of David and Solomon's sins.

(*This doesn't necessarily conflict with Inerrancy, no more than the varying accounts of Christ's Resurrection would conflict. People wrote down the details that they knew, which aren't always the same as the details that other people know.)

(**In spite of the fact that any Messiah would have to be descended from both Judah and the Northern Kingdom. Athaliah -- grandmother of Joash the king of Judah -- was the daughter of Ahab and thus the granddaughter of Omri. It is uncertain whether Athaliah was the daughter of Jezebel; Ahab had many wives. Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary, is descended from northerners Athaliah-Ahab-Omni and the line of southerners through and including Joash.)

The other interpretation of the census, by Robert Pinsky (The life of David), is that the prophet Samuel warned the people that human kings count things. When things (and people) are counted, it is easier to tax them, draft them into your wars, and collect their maidens for never-you-mind.

Before there were kings in the land, families and tribes governed their own affairs. Kingship rocked the tribes by welding them into a society. The chroniclers seemed to believe that those changes weren't too bad, for the most part. (After all, as religious officials, they benefitted from those changes.) But, said Pinsky, when David began to count things i.e. people, as Samuel had warned, it was something even the adoring chroniclers of Chronicles noticed.

Put it into contemporary terms. [Note: this is not Pinsky's terminology, just an extension of it.] Let's say that the United States had begun with no legislative body to write the laws: the Bible (or Torah, Talmud, etc. in Israel's case) already contained all the laws anyone needed. Let's say also that the USA originally had no executive, no president: God is in charge and speaks through the prophets. There is still a court system in the form of the Judges. Samson, Deborah, and the rest handle anything from small-claims court to the Supreme Court functions.

Then a presidency is created, and a legislative body to pass laws that aren't specifically covered in the Bible. (For example, no-drinking-and-driving.) Suddenly you have a federal income tax (Woodrow Wilson), a draft registration for young men (Abraham Lincoln, revived by Lyndon Baines Johnson), and mandatory health insurance for all citizens (Barack Obama). Big change from living in the woods "shootin' at some food," as the song says. And none of those changes would have been possible to enforce without the census.

Saul, David, and Solomon's impact on the Israelites was bigger ... than ... that. That's not easy. That was why even the chroniclers had a problem with it, and probably why they phrased it the way they did. Certainly they believed it was bad because it split the nation. The census made it possible for Solomon to tax the nation, which resulted in Rehoboam's threat to tax them more, which resulted in the rebellion against Rehoboam. A large strong country became two small, weak countries, both of which were destroyed. So the chroniclers may have blamed the census for the chain of events which followed.

Thank you very much for your thoughts, TOM! They help to put the time and situation into perspective. I'll have to look into that book by Pinsky.

Your mention of Biblical inerrancy raised another question I've been thinking about for a good while. Being someone who was raised in a household where that was never really talked about, I don't have much of a grasp on the concept. When people talk about the Bible being the "inerrant Word of God", I can't say I know exactly what that means.

It's easy for me to see that the Bible contains the Word of God, that it is "the moon in our darkness," reflecting the light of God and allowing us to learn about Jesus Christ and study his teachings. However, when I try to wrap my head around the idea that the entire collection of books is 100% the inerrant Word of God, and more or less authored vicariously by God... that's where I start getting a little lost. (Especially when you have Paul saying things like, "This is my opinion, not a command from God" in his epistles.)

Another thing I don't quite understand is how a person goes from not having an opinion on Biblical inerrancy to fully believing in Biblical inerrancy. It makes me a little nervous, because it feels like too great—too serious—a claim to accept on solely on faith, especially when I'm not sure that it's even demanded of those who follow Christ. I'm having a hard time finding where the Bible says that holding this view is part and parcel of being a good Christian.

Do you guys have any thoughts of this, and would those of you who do believe in Biblical inerrancy be interested in describing what Biblical inerrancy means to you? Does anyone know of a comprehensive case for the Bible being the inerrant Word of God? Thanks.

I'll warn you ahead of time that my views do not represent that of most Evangelicals.

For the most complete and widely-accepted statement on the meaning of inerrancy, try the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

This statement offers numerous caveats and distinctions which allow inerrantists in agreement to avoid common pitfalls, by stating, for instance, that only the original manuscripts are inerrant, accepting the use of hyperbole and metaphor, and denying that the Holy Spirit dictated to or overrode the human authors.

Personally, inerrancy bothers me. It literally means "without error," but it is usually taken as a degree stronger than belief in infallibility, or the belief that the Bible simply teaches no untruth. Assertions of inerrancy often seem, historically, to be tied to great confusions about the Bible; the term came into fashion in the late 19th century and was strongly associated with the fundamentalist reaction to liberal Bible criticism. In a highly rational era, liberals took the approach that the Bible was factually incoherent, and fundamentalists took the approach that the Bible was absolutely, literally, factually correct. Inerrantism since has often had connotations of the dictation understanding of inspiration, and of strict Biblical literalism. You see in the CSBI the authors' assertion that the Bible is completely accurate on historical and scientific claims. Article XVIII is also very Biblicist.

In my opinion, this breaks down at a certain point, and we must embrace an understanding of the origins and proper interpretation of Scripture that is both Christocentric and catholic/orthodox (whole Church in time and space). The question of inerrancy, to whatever extent it is true, tends to distract from these matters. But at this point I do not have time to write out a full argument.

No theologian here, and maybe not even answering your question properly, Rosie, but the verses that popped into my mind immediately were these:

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (emphasis mine)

This is something I feel rather strongly about, I guess, partly because I have an uncle who thinks the Bible was just written by men who wanted to have their own religion. He acknowledges some sort of God, but refuses the divinity of Christ.

In very laic terms, if God said it, I believe it. Do I always understand what He meant or how it works out? Certainly not. But I think there are a lot of things that line up with the real world (science, in other words) that are only just now beginning to be found out.

Take "Jonah and the Whale," a common one for people to attack and claim that it is a parable, or the like. Leaving aside the quibble about "the whale" (which it doesn't actually say--it says "great fish") there was an episode in the 1800s of a man being swallowed by a large fish, a tuna or halibut, and being found four days later, much the worse for wear, but still alive when the fish was cut open. The happening was documented in the papers. That's just one example of what critics say couldn't possibly happen and therefore must be a myth.

Then there's the archeological record... But I could go on, and on, and on. I won't. I'll stop. And you probably know all this, and I've got the wrong end of the stick

I've always believed the Bible was absolutely 100% inerrant... But then I actually researched it. Although, it depends on your definition of the word "inerrant".

There's no denying the Bible contains some factual errors and contradictions. So if that's what you mean by inerrant, then inerrant the Bible most certainly is not. However, you'd have quite some time proving scripturally that the Bible even claims to be inerrant in that way. You'll find verses like the one aileth quoted, that say the stories of Christ's ministry, death, and resurrection are stories of something that actually occurred in real life rather than works of fiction. You'll find verses that state all of the Bible is useful for teaching. And you'll find verses that state that scripture is something that the Holy Spirit led men to write, rather than something men decided to write all on their own. But a scripture that says there isn't even the tiniest of factual errors in the Bible? I really doubt you'll find that. In fact, the Bible doesn't need to be 100% factually accurate for the message to be 100% accurate.

To illustrate what I mean, here's a hypothetical story. Let's say that the Holy Spirit came to a young man and gave him a perfect message from God. The young man was told to deliver the message to a family in a remote part of the woods. God said that the Holy Spirit would guide his paths, so that he could safely deliver this perfect message to the family. Now, since the Holy Spirit is guiding his paths, does this mean that the young man will never once get lost in the woods during his process of searching for the family? Does it mean that he will never once trip over a rock and mildly scratch his knee? Because the Holy Spirit gave him a perfect message, does that mean he will never once stutter while repeating the message to the family? Does it mean he will never once pronounce something wrong, or jumble up his words when he speaks, because the original message given to him by the Holy Spirit was perfect? It seems to me that Biblical inerrantists would say yes, but I would say no. Just because the Holy Spirit gave him a perfect message and promised to guide his paths, I don't believe his journey or his delivery would necessarily be perfect. If the Holy Spirit is guiding his paths, I don't believe that means he would never trip or lose his way. I believe it means that no matter how many times he gets lost, he will eventually find his way; and no matter how many times he stumbles, he will never hurt himself badly enough to prevent him from accomplishing his task. Just because the Holy Spirit gave him a perfect message, I don't believe that means he'll deliver that message perfectly, and never jumble up his words or mess up in his speech. I believe it means that the meaning of the message will be understood by the people who were meant to hear it, no matter how imperfectly it is delivered. God is infallible, the Holy Spirit is infallible, and the messages He gives are infallible. But we are very fallible, and we were the vessels used to write down and spread those infallible messages.

The Bible was not meant, in any shape or form, to be used as a science text book. So if scientists discover something that seems to go against a part of scripture, it's okay. The Bible is a mostly accurate historical text. So if a few minor details of history don't match the Bible, that's okay. However, the message of the Bible is 100% true. So if people start saying things like, "Yeah, I know the Bible says X is a sin... but the Bible was written long ago and is filled with errors anyway... so I'm gonna do X, since it's probably totally okay..." then, no, that's not okay. That is the part of the Bible that scripture itself states should not be doubted, and that is the part of the Bible we should view as inerrant.

~Izzy

For the most complete and widely-accepted statement on the meaning of inerrancy, try the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

This statement offers numerous caveats and distinctions which allow inerrantists in agreement to avoid common pitfalls, by stating, for instance, that only the original manuscripts are inerrant, accepting the use of hyperbole and metaphor, and denying that the Holy Spirit dictated to or overrode the human authors.

Thank you very much for the link! Reading that statement was tremendously helpful. I feel like I have a much better grasp on what inerrantists generally believe now.

A few comments on the statement itself...

WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong (which is probable, considering that I'm writing this at two o'clock in the morning ), but how can something be a revelation if there isn't someone to perceive it? It kind of reminds me of the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" debate.

WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

This is one of the things that's bothered me about inerrancy over the years. It's one thing to say, "I have studied the Bible and I believe that Christ believed in Biblical inerrancy, so I do as well" and another to say "If you don't believe this, then there will be grave consequences to the soundness of your faith."

I think it puts a lot of strain and pressure on young and/or new Christians who are reading the Bible for the first time. Instead of just reading with an open mind and an open heart, and letting the Spirit come to you, you're focused on "making sense" of everything and being able to defend it to the skeptics. You can end up feeling guilty if you find anything in the Bible difficult to believe, as though your faith in Jesus is lesser because you have doubts about the interpretation of something in the Old Testament.

While I think it's completely okay to believe in Biblical inerrancy (maybe someday I'll surprise myself and adopt the doctrine; who knows), it seems to me that it's better not to scare new Christians with the you're-not-going-to-have-the-right-relationship-with-God-unless-you-believe-this thing. Just keeping encouraging them to read and study the Bible, explore all the different viewpoints, and learn a lot and pray a lot. They'll turn out all right.

Thank you for pointing out 2 Peter 1:16-21, aileth! I'll have to take a closer look at that one. I've been trying to gather verses that relate to this discussion.

Take "Jonah and the Whale," a common one for people to attack and claim that it is a parable, or the like. Leaving aside the quibble about "the whale" (which it doesn't actually say--it says "great fish") there was an episode in the 1800s of a man being swallowed by a large fish, a tuna or halibut, and being found four days later, much the worse for wear, but still alive when the fish was cut open. The happening was documented in the papers. That's just one example of what critics say couldn't possibly happen and therefore must be a myth.

Ooh, that's interesting! If you find a link that talks about that particular example, I'd be really interested to read it. I was able to find, via Google, a mention about a man who had allegedly been swallowed by a whale, but the details don't match up with what you described. Regardless, though, stories like Jonah aren't really something I have a huge problem with, because miracles are usually supposed to seem pretty impossible anyway.

Even so, though, I did run across an interesting theory a couple of weeks ago that suggested Jonah had actually died when he was in the belly of the fish, and then resurrected when the fish threw him onto the beach. The reason they suggested this was because Jonah actually says he's in Sheol—the realm of the dead—in Jonah 2:2. In some ways, this makes even more sense when you consider that Jesus compared the three days he lay dead to the three days Jonah was in the belly of the fish. Anyway, I don't know for sure what's the correct interpretation of exactly what happened to Jonah, but it's interesting to think about it.

To illustrate what I mean, here's a hypothetical story. Let's say that the Holy Spirit came to a young man and gave him a perfect message from God. The young man was told to deliver the message to a family in a remote part of the woods. God said that the Holy Spirit would guide his paths, so that he could safely deliver this perfect message to the family. Now, since the Holy Spirit is guiding his paths, does this mean that the young man will never once get lost in the woods during his process of searching for the family? Does it mean that he will never once trip over a rock and mildly scratch his knee? Because the Holy Spirit gave him a perfect message, does that mean he will never once stutter while repeating the message to the family? Does it mean he will never once pronounce something wrong, or jumble up his words when he speaks, because the original message given to him by the Holy Spirit was perfect?

That's a very good analogy. Sometimes I feel like even the original message isn't perfect, though. As in, it's not what God would say in completely ideal circumstances.

Imagine that you're an omnipotent being and someone comes up to you and asks what the quickest route is for going from one mountain to another. Since you're omnipotent, you know that the person who needs directions is deathly afraid of heights and will never use the bridge. So, you tell them the quickest route via the valley, and they go on their way. Someone who overhears this exchange accuses you of not actually knowing the best route, or of deliberately misleading the person asking for directions, but in reality, you're just trying to do the best you can for them while taking into account their current limitations.

I feel like this is somewhat analogous to the law for divorce in Deuteronomy and Jesus's explanation for it, and possibly other aspects of the Old Testament that seem to contradict Jesus's teachings as well. While something may be a Word from God, it may not be the exact word He would choose if He had His druthers and His children were in a state where they were ready to receive it and use it properly.

I was able to find, via Google, a mention about a man who had allegedly been swallowed by a whale, but the details don't match up with what you described.

No, you may be right: that may be the one, and if it has been disproved, well, it is better to know that, than to continue quoting something inaccurate. The wonders of the Internet, which we didn't have back then

why does religion and non-religion for that matter cause so many problems?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australi ... 0ji7y.html

Though it is just the extremists, and atheist-extremists have also bulldozed churches in china.

The trouble is the love of power to dominate other people, whether it is religion, non-religion, or any "ism" you care to mention, especially racism and nationalism. All too often, it seems, that some men, in particular, like to think that their way is the only way, and for the rest it is the highway. As George Orwell once said: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

The 19th century was a time of devout and even enlightened religion in some quarters. Social reform went apace in UK, in particular, and from there the anti-slavery campaigning reached USA as well. Queen Victoria's husband found something useful to do in helping such reforms along a bit, especially due to his untimely death with typhus. And many people like Florence Nightingale, Lord Lister, Edward Jenner, Ignace Semmelweisz and Louis Pasteur also made a big difference to the world at that time. Charles Darwin caused controversy as did his predecessors and contemporaries, Hugh Miller and Alfred Russel Wallace, who found the Wallace Line.

Unfortunately there were proud and corrupt scientists, even in the medical profession who wanted to prove that some people were better than others, using this belief to justify the oppression they were inflicting on others, and also in denying their common humanity with their victims. Nietzsche was not the only prominent late 19th century figure to think that God was dead. But the tempest of the 1800's broke finally with the Great War of 1914-1918, the War to end all Wars. I'm still trying to come to grips with this four year war, as in many respects this war is still being fought to this day, a hundred years later. I hope to attend the ANZAC centenary moored off Gallipoli next April.

WW1 led to the horrors of WW2, the evils of Stalinism and the Cold War, then, finally the resurgence of nationalism as Eastern Europe broke free from the USSR. World War II also led to the present day troubles with IS, including the collaboration of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler during WW2, the ultimate reason for the recent Gaza conflict.

IlF, if you can possibly get a hold of Saturday's (today's) Weekend Australian, you might get an explanation for IS, the latest fanatical "ism" which espouses a belief in Salafism and Wahhabism, two extremely narrow and violent forms of Islam, started in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt at the end of the 19th century, which gained impetus after T.S. Lawrence, a British officer, gained Saudi support to overthrow the Ottoman Empire, and thanks to the Muslim Brotherhood gained ground at the end of the last century.

Do remember though, that not all journalists know much more about Sunni Islam, Shia Islam or any of the splinter groups than do the people currently thinking that IS's murderous rampage against Shia, Sunni, Yazidi, Christian or anyone else they regard as Kaffir (their word for Infidel), are at all holy or religious. Maybe we should all agree with Gerard Henderson's article today, Commentators need terror guides, who suggests journalists should also read Islam for dummies, to get an idea of what Islam really is, and what this group of mainly disaffected, big-noting, and self-righteous murderers really do believe.

Edit. IlF, try your University library or your local library. Internet is useful, but the online version of The Australian likes people to pay up after 20 hours, and I'd already bought the newspaper because of Thursday's Scottish referendum.

I have missed the paper by the time I read your post (It is around 9:30pm). I was out most of the day, (actually being some what harassed by a group of people who believed they had been "blessed" from there anxiety by god, or lung disease one of them said).

I can never keep up with all the different branches of different religions to be honest, if I try I would never be able to remember what goes with what.

@Ilf, I have been somewhat remiss in answering your post, but really I think you do have a point. There are so many variations of Christianity, though many adherents do not routinely go cold canvassing or doorknocking, unlike the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is the Australian name for the Mormon Church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. These particular churches are sometimes considered somewhat syncretic, often because they have been started in the USA during the 19th century, and their founders have been associated with religious texts which are only loosely based on the Bible, rather than the Bible, itself. Also, there are other, more discrete ways, of "spreading the word", such as letter box drops.

I think it is important to be able to identify which group is which, and to understand what distinguishes one group from another. You need to understand what they believe, and why you agree or disagree with them. Sometimes this is a matter of public record, such as the aversion to blood transfusions and some medical procedures famously held by Jehovah's Witness practitioners. However, the Christian Scientists, who have a much lower profile, and who, as far as I know, are considered more mainstream, also have a reputation for believing in what has been referred to as faith healing.

Whilst this may sound alarming, there is no doubt that meeting Jehovah's Witness objections has led to appropriate and less intrusive medical technology. And there is also no doubt that during WW2, the Jehovah's Witnesses were respected for their moral leadership in the German concentration camps to where they were sent. But if you feel you are being harassed by any group on religious grounds, whatever it is, the best solution is to tell them, politely and firmly, that you aren't interested today. There was a memorable incident I remember from years ago when a couple of Mormons on such a doorknock were intercepted at our front door by my anti-religious and irate Scottish-born husband, who ordered them to leave, telling them to go and get a proper job.

Last Friday (20th Sept 2014), we went to Joadja, now a ghost town and tourist attraction in our Southern Highlands, which once had a larger population in 1911 than the combined Southern Highlands townships of Mittagong, Bowral and Berrima at the time. Joadja was a company town, a rarity in Australia, where a group of Scottish immigrants ran a very profitable oil-shale mining venture, the largest of its kind in the world, at the time. They produced kerosene, or paraffin, before the discovery and processing of petroleum in USA made the process of getting kerosene so much more economical. The Joadja valley had everything they needed for their processes, including adjacent coal seams and lovely fresh water streams, orchards and plenty of trees. As well, they invented some marvellously constructed equipment to mine and process the keragen they used instead of petroleum. You'd think it was a heavenly spot, but the miners called it hell.

These hard-working and devout Presbyterians attended church in their all- purpose community hall, every day, and twice on Sunday. They did not believe in music and dancing, much like Oliver Cromwell's Puritans, though they weren't averse to attempts to distil whisky. And then we wondered how Scottish could they have still been without the associated bagpipes, highland dancing, caber-tossing and a related ethos of hospitality? The tour guide on the site said that over the years the police made several "raids" on this group, often departing with a flagon apiece of sly grog (moonshine). He also said that these Presbyterians' very strict devoutness might also explain their eventual atheism, something they shared with many among miners and the labour movement.

However, the day afterwards, we were in Liverpool (NSW), where the local Presbyterian church had a little stand outside its church hall, where they advertised free coffee, tea and a place to sit down. They called this little venture the God's Breath Cafe, a gentle dig at our Hog's Breath Cafes. By that time, being weary and footsore, we certainly appreciated this refreshing pause far more than any front-door proselytising.

Last night we watched a TV program in which a Muslim couple hosted a man in their house in an attempt to explain their culture and religion. The couple considered themselves moderate and peaceloving followers of Islam. The wife, Lydia, who had been reared as a Catholic before converting to Islam, wanted to explain her own journey to Islam. But she did not get any chance to do so, she complained. The young man did not ask questions about her beliefs, only about the customs he found so confronting.

But what wasn't made absolutely clear was what religion, if any, the young man (didn't find out his name but I'll call him Fred) had adopted. Fred said he had been antagonised by the behaviour of obviously Muslim people in his home suburb. He pointed to a particular bookstore, selling all things Islamic, which had a prayer hall in its backyard. He felt hostile to the prayer hall's Internet activities, to the wearing of burqas, the emphasis on Halal food, which he thought was unnecessary, and other facets of Islam, such as the tax they place on Christians and Jews, not to mention Hindus, Buddhists and atheists. The result ended up as a stalemate.

I wonder what would have happened if a similar program featured a couple with a Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian or other faith rather than that of Islam.

Though it is just the extremists, and atheist-extremists have also bulldozed churches in china.

China is a more open society than it used to be, but it is basically an atheistic State where religious practitioners can be seen as socially disruptive. It is against Chinese law to do doorknocking to drum up religious adherents, or distribute religious material, including bibles, and mosques and churches alike can be regarded with equal disfavour.

On Sundays we are urged in services to pray for those persecuted Christians in other countries. These include famous people like Pastor Saeed Abedini or Asia Bibi. Even when less famous Christians are prayed for, we aren't told where they are. In many predominately Islamic countries like Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia it would be difficult to downright impossible to even build churches, even in quarters assigned to Europeans, and again, it is illegal to even own, let alone distribute bibles. In Iran, the state religion is Islam (Shiite) and the Pastor I mentioned has been imprisoned for forsaking Islam for Christianity, even though he avers he was never Muslim in the first place. In prison he is beaten and is facing execution for apostasy.

I've heard that Saudi Arabia devotes funds to enable the building of mosques and madrassas elsewhere in the world, including Australia. But they do not welcome people of other faiths who want to practice their own religion.

Here's an article on what being poor is ... and how little it matches the perceptions of others, such as "Being poor is people who have never been poor wondering why you choose to be so."

Jesus and His earthly family probably were poor or almost-poor, yet I've heard Prosperity-Gospel proponents insist that if Jesus boarded a boat to give a sermon, or stayed in a house, He must have owned that that house or boat. Seriously.

Good article, TOM. I did look at it. But sometimes poverty is the condition of your country, not just your personal circumstances. Even in relatively richer countries there are downtimes and recessions, caused by events beyond anyone's control. Could Chile, Japan or New Zealand stop their countries from enduring very strong earthquakes? What about the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami's effect on South Asia and even Africa? We regularly hear of disasters in USA and we aren't immune from them here, either. I don't know about this prosperity gospel, and I think it is high time that the people who would think being poor is really a choice need to take another look at themselves, whatever their system of belief. That bit about people judging the poor in that list made me feel angry.

What you say about Jesus' family is probably correct. The Romans kept the Jews poor through their taxation system where the tax collectors got rich at ordinary people's expense. But Jesus' earthly father had a good trade, and the Jews made a point of educating their children, especially the boys. And whilst he was homeless, Jesus as an itinerant preacher did live simply, valuing whatever kindnesses he received.

My comments about some of the points on your list:

Being poor is having to keep buying $800 cars because they’re what you can afford, and then having the cars break down on you, because there’s not an $800 car in America that’s worth "an iota" (Aussie translation).

This one grabbed me. To my way of thinking, poverty is not being able to repair one's old car, even if it is only worth $800 on the current market, to get it to registration standard. Or maybe the car is the one you paid off long ago, but now find you need a loan to pay for the cost of petrol. Or you can't afford comprehensive insurance on your jalopy and therefore find yourself up the creek without a paddle, when you collide with someone else who expects you to pay for their repairs, whilst your own is unroadworthy.

But that is still not really defining poverty. Even a $800 heap of junk that actually works, that is still in good repair, and can be driven legally on the smell of an oily rag is still an asset. Being able to repair one's car oneself is a whole heap of knowledge which transforms someone from being destitute to someone who still has the means to get from point A to point B when necessary. And being able to drive a car, read street signs, or owning a clock and a free bus or train timetable are also assets worth considering.

Do you know TOM? We never had TV at all until after 1956. Nobody in Australia, because before you have TV you have to have big companies or government departments who are in a position to transmit TV information over long distances. In 1956 when we first got TV down here, it was one of those memorable national events, almost as notable as Neil Armstrong on the Moon. As it was to a lesser extent in 1974, when coloured TV was first made available.

There was a time when if you wanted to watch TV you went to the window of an electrical store, and jostled for a place among everyone else admiring those black and white flickering images on the flash new gadgets, sitting in the shop window. When finally parents acquired them, they were the only ones who watched TV, whilst children were expected to get on with their homework, help Mum with housework, or if the children could get away with it (the boys ), nick off with their mates.

Poverty is telling the kids no, they not only can't have TV, they can't use any electrical gadget in the house at all, because the electricity has been cut off. But hey! One can still go to bed early, cuddle up with the cat for warmth, live on sandwiches, use torches & candles, cook on a backyard barbecue and read a book in daylight hours. And even get one's homework done as far as possible.

Yes, teachers do tend to think that way. Books that you do have may be well out of date, however. And the teacher may have a point if your measly job putting out leaflets means you can't afford to pay the fee at school for a few weeks for the teaching resources he/she insists your child have on hand. But surely help is at hand regardless of how poor or rich children may be. It is called joining a free lending library, which ought to be run by your local council. Some areas have mobile libraries that can visit a nearby location. And most libraries, including the ones at your college or school, have computers and Internet in the library for patrons' use.

There is a lot of misery in that list, I'll agree. But at least some of it says more about the community's attitudes to poor people than it does about the poor people themselves. This point below I'd query.

Character building, really. Real poverty is not being able to go to school at all, let alone finish high school, because one's parents say they can only send your far more important big brother. Happens, even in reasonably well-off countries, and it marks people all their lives. I can't think of anyone more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Malala Yousafzai, the young Pakistani girl who was shot by the Taliban for going to school.

I know I sound unsympathetic. There is a verse from the Bible which sums it all up beautifully. Isaiah 48:10 which suggests that people in adversity are being tempered like silver rather than as steel. It is how you handle the poverty that matters more than the poverty, itself. And maybe poverty, itself, is relative.

Being poor is being unemployed, without a roof over one's head, and without access to help of any sort. Being poor is when there is no food to buy, when the Salvation Army hostels can't find a bed for you, when you need charity yourself, rather than giving to charity even the $1 coin you found on the pavement outside the shopping centre. Poverty is most telling, when the soup kitchens are unlocatable, when the supermarket shelves are empty and when people have to queue up for rationed petrol and bread. When shelter is a UNHCR tent in the middle of a war, and when, thanks to that war, there isn't a hospital emergency room to wait for six hours in, however sick one's child is.

Topic: An Australian family is repurposing Bratz™ dolls by removing their factory paint and re-decorating them.

These dolls have been rescued and rehabilitated from op-shops and tip shops around Tasmania. These lil fashion dolls have opted for a “tree change”, swapping high-maintenance glitz ‘n’ glamour for down-to-earth style. I hand repaint the dolls faces, mold new shoes, and my Mum sews and knits their clothing,” Sonia.

I prefer the rehabilitated versions, which makes sense as I'm not a fan of beauty contests either.

Thoughts?

I have good memories of my sister and I just using dolls(Barbie however since I was around 8 when bratz became popular and had little intrest in dolls/fashion at that age) to make up strange stories(lets just say one involved a baby getting locked in the bathroom of a doll house, the father runs around to the bathroom window and gets his foot stuck in the window frame, the mother than leaves him hanging out of this window and chainsaws the door to the bathroom- I was clearly a sane child).

Though I do agree the new versions do look better. I find the original bratz to be strange looking rather than "pretty".

@Wagga I know this is a late reply, but I honestly can't stand it when I hear someone at uni say "My life is so hard my parents are only paying rent this semester, they are making me get a job" or something along those lines. Life could be much worse. Though my family would be considered working class(though on the upper end) we were never in poverty. Yes, mum couldn't buy us everything we wanted but we got everything we needed.