I respectfully disagree. I think a Christian act is defined by what Christians do especially when it is done in the name of their religion.

Truthfulness, compassion and flexibility are desirable but not Christian traits. There is no evidence to support the idea that Christians exhibit these traits to a greater degree than non-Christians.

Fundamentalist Christians deny the scientific evidence for evolution and in effect lie for God. They manipulate the truth to promote their literal belief in the biblical creation story. However it would be unfair to deny the fervency of their Christian belief and their Christian identity.

Since the Christian religion assumed a position of power in the western world when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 and somewhat earlier it has on occasion been relentless in persecuting those people who have maintained their faith against Christian pressures or even questioned Christian doctrine. On many occasions it has even murdered.

There have been notable martyrdoms of those who refused the Christian demand to convert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia tells of Hypatia, mathematician, philosopher and scholar, who was murdered by Christian monks in 370. Some think her martyrdom marked the beginning of the Dark Ages.

Doubters of Christian doctrine were also martyrs to Christian persecution. Michael Servetus, theologian, physician, cartographer and humanist, was executed in 1553 in Calvin's Geneva apparently for doubting the Trinity. Giordano Bruno, mathematician, philosopher and scholar, was executed in 1600 in Catholic Rome apparently for pantheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_martyrs tells of some of the many Jewish martyrs who were murdered because they refused to deny their faith. Some were executed by Christians. Some were Christians who became Jews and were executed for apostasy. Such a one was Nicholas Antoine whose fate was described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Antoine.

The above acts were Christian. However the perpetrators were not compassionate and did not exhibit flexibiity.

I think Tony Abbott is a mean-spirited person who ignores human misery. However, to say he is not a Christian is unfair to Torquemada, one of the guiding spirits of the Spanish Inquisition and other sincere Christians who behaved in a similar manner.

...Well, Tony Abbott may not go “all the way with LB”J as a Christian, but Abbott is no fool. And I would hope when the Liberals “walk” into office at the next election, a top priority will be to correct the current debacle at our borders where hordes of foreigners simply walk a one way path into the country, with no intention of leaving. Illegal boat arrivals will be, no doubt, at the top of the list to be dealt with.

...Many Australians are also of the mind (such as myself), an upgrading of the department of immigration should include a focus on an expatriation program, to vet arrivals since the time of the current Labour Government, and expel those involved in criminal activity such as drug running and people smuggling; and clear the decks of all known rorters of our overgenerous current immigration policies

David F got it right.
The vatican for instance is a moral and ethical cess-pool. Always has been.
For a thorough-going description of the nature of applied christian politics as practiced by the benighted denizens that infest the vatican, including the number one honcho, the so called vicar of christ, why not check out the book by David Yallop titled The Power and the Glory: The Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican.
Plus his previous book In God's Name. And similar books listed on the Amazon review webpage.
And yet these benighted ghouls presume to lecture us about ethics and morals.

Yep,

Once religion is mentioned, especially that ill-defined corporatised range of religions claiming to be christian, common sense and decency leave the room.

Tony Abbott is, in my opinion, an excellent example of a Christian - inflexible, opinionated, irrational and more interested in his own desires and well-being than the needs of those around him. So, for what it is worth, are many other failed leaders such as Kevin Rudd or a whole swag of American past Presidents, but let's get back to Tony.

If Tony is a Christian, he is damaging his own brand.

Thankfully, there are many whose lives are built on a more principled and ethical foundation - but not all these make great leaders. For an example, we need look no further than Julia Gillard, but at least she doesn't blame her shortcomings on an invisible friend in the sky.

Any management text will contain a list of the qualities of a good manager. These include being trustworthy, a good listener, predictable, effective, honest and much more. Pity is, that doesn't describe many of our politicians of any stripe.

Michael Landragin is spot on.

Christian values emphasise the virtue of welcoming the stranger. The Old Testament has the same message more than 20 times.

In the New Testament, the parable of the good Samaritan is only one example.

Tony Abbott someohow manages to justify an attitude towards asylum seekers which Christ would certainly have rejected and which cannot be reconciled with the faith he claims to hold.

If he is not true to his word, and not true to his beliefs, why should anyone listen to him?

+1 to Michael and Julian. Andrew Prior

I don't have a problem with Christianity or with Jesus.
It's the members of His Fan Club that cause all the problems.

It's not what they say, it's what they do and the loudest and most self-righteous are the ones to worry about.

Abbott is just playing the game on several levels, including using the "dog-whistle" technique that has served him so well in the past.

Landrigan cites the New Testament. The comparison of a person's acts with those of Jesus will generally act to the person's discredit. Perhaps that is an unrasonable way to judge Tony Abbott or anybody else, but that is a Christian way of judgment. They might ask, "What would Jesus do?" The answer is, "Probably much better than you."

Judaism recognises that a fairer comparison is judging a person on the basis of the capabilities of that person. The Hasidic rabbi, Reb Zosya, said, "When I am called before the Almighty he will not ask me, "Why are you not like Moses?" He will ask, "Why are you not like Zosya?"

Only the Almighty knows what Zosya or Tony Abbott is capable of. Although I have judged Abbott harshly he might have been doing all that he is capable of.

The New Testament speaks to this:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Perhaps Abbott is doing all that Abbott can do. I don't know what is in his mind, what he is capable of or what I would do if I were in his place. To judge his actions is one thing. To judge him as a person is another. I don't like his actions, but he may be a decent person.

>>but he may be a decent person.<<

He's not actually a person at all. As Matthew 25:33-46 makes quite clear the Mad Monk is a goat:

Matthew 25: 33-46 (KJV)

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

So it looks like it's everlasting punishment for poor old Tony. I'd consider eternity in the lake of fire too high a price to pay for winning over a few xenophobic voters if I was hell-fearing Christian politician. I guess Mr. Abbott just values power in this world more highly than the fate of his immortal soul. A bit like Faust but not as cool.

Cheers,

Tony

and yes I suppose Abbotts detractors think it is very compassionate to ignore the thousands waiting for years in refugee camps in order to allow those who have paid people smugglers and then thrown id overboard first bite at the cherry. The left are experts at misrepresentation.It is also compassionate to encourage people to their death as the current PM has done. I suppose Abbotts work among the indigeneous on his leave is somehow uncompassionate. It is sickening to listen to those on the left demonising a man because he disagrees with their dogmas. It just so happens the majority of Australians agree with Abbott. I suppose that also makes them uncompassionate also.

runner,

The majority of Australians are insular and xenophobic - and Mr Abbott knows that.

For Mr Abbott to invoke Christian morality to push his own political barrow is disgraceful - especially when referring to people in desperate straits

Poirot

'The majority of Australians are insular and xenophobic - and Mr Abbott knows that. '

Thats strange. Have you visited India, China, Arab nations or are you just slagging off at the average Aussie? I have found Aussies to far more tolerant of others than the majority from other lands unless of course they want our wealth.

The stupid thing is you cite someone who has not proof of ever existing.

The fact is that Abbott and Gillard are both boat people so presumably they both came in this strange back door.

Tony Lavis was quite brilliant in his new testament citations.

'33 And he shall set ... the goats on the left.'

Wow such clarity.

funny how those who deny the resurrection and inspiration of Scripture now claim to be expert interpreters of that which they deny. Marilyn might be totally wrong at least she's consistent.

Dear runner,

To make the new religion acceptable to the superstitious Romans the inventors of Christianity brought the pagan mumbojumbo including the resurrection to their new belief system.

Mithra was born of a virgin mother on the 25th December. His great festivals were the winter solstice and the Spring equinox (Christmas and Easter). He had twelve companions or disciples (the twelve months). He was buried in a tomb, from which he rose again; and his resurrection was celebrated yearly with great rejoicings. He was called Savior and Mediator, and sometimes figured as a Lamb; and his followers held sacramental feasts in his memory.

Osiris was born on the 361st day of the year. He was betrayed by Typhon, the power of darkness, and slain and dismembered. His body was placed in a box, but afterwards, on the 19th, came again to life, and, as in the cults of Mithra, Dionysus, Adonis and others, so in the cult of Osiris, an image placed in a coffin was brought out before the worshipers and saluted with glad cries of "Osiris is risen." "His sufferings, his death and his resurrection were enacted year by year in a great mystery-play at Abydos."

Adonis or Tammuz was born of a Virgin (Nature), and so beautiful that Venus and Proserpine (goddesses of the Upper and Underworlds) both fell in love with him. It was agreed that he should spend half the year (summer) in the upper world, and the winter half with Proserpine below. A boar killed him. Every year the maidens "wept for Adonis" (Ezekiel 8:14). In the spring a festival of his resurrection was held--the women having found the supposed corpse placed it (a wooden image) in a coffin or hollow tree and rejoiced over his supposed resurrection.

The Jesus myth is a composite of various pagan myths which the Christians recycled. They also incorporated the Jewish Bible in their Scripture. It is easier to recycle myths than to invent new ones. Jesus is a recycled pagan God.

davidf

'The Jesus myth is a composite of various pagan myths which the Christians recycled. '

Yes I am sure those apostles who willingly went to their deaths after speaking to the resurrected Lord accept your distortion of history. Before HIs resurrection they ran away as cowards.

Dear runner,

I didn't distort history. You can look up the Greek and Roman myths yourself. The New Testament merely recycled old myths and added new ones. The resurrection is a common theme in mythology.

Sometimes there is truth in poetry. From Swinburne's 'The Garden of Proserpine':

From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.

When you die you are dead. That's it even if your name is Jeus.

Whatever your belief, this is supposed to be a secular state. So even though the law is based around Judeo-Christian principles the argument is pretty pointless.

We are however a democratic country. Democracy is defined thus: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Sooo - what determines this? Why it is a MAJORITY vote. Because that's how Democracy works. Every adult has the right and in this country, legal obligation to vote and when the counting is done the Political Party or alliance which gets the most support RULES.

Now 80% of Australians could be xenophobic war mongering religious zealots (yes, yes I know - that pretty much describes the Arab world, not us, but I'm coming to my point) and the other 20% fun-loving pacifist athiests but in the DEMOCRACY the 80% RULES.

So if the MAJORITY of Australians for whatever reason - and it doesn't even have to be a good one - DO NOT WANT this invasion of illegal immigrants (worse case) or queue jumpers (best case) then our elected Government should be listening - very intently - and doing the will of the people.

If you don't believe most Australians want a stop to the breach of our security and borders, to the blatant playing of our Naval forces and our so-called International obligations by Indonesia, to the unplanned unwelcome strain on Australia's welfare system and social structure by these invaders, then it's time to get off your cloud and back to planet Earth.

The proverbial drovers dog could win the next election for the LNP and the enormous cock-up by KRUDD in taking a policy that was working and changing it to please some bleeding heart minority groups is going to be part of the reason. PLEASE - bring it on!

Divine if you seriously believe that a few thousand people landing on an island 5,300 km from Sydney breach our security you are a really weird little man.

Marilyn is my shepherd.
I shall not want.
Lead us not into Penn Station.
But deliver us from weevils.

As far being frightened by a few thousand people landing at a distance from Sydney, I am not frightened. I don't know the meaning of the word, fear. I'm afraid to look it up.

Love your posts, Marilyn.

Marilyn - If you believe that not a single person out of those thousands who've landed on that Island 5,300 kms from Sydney, mostly without identification, has proved to be a security risk it's time to ditch your current drug for a big dose of reality.

Fact: Any uncontrolled entry or importation constitutes far higher risk than those which are regulated. Do these 'refugees' stay on that far flung island? No they end up in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane mostly because that's where the best 'asylum' is to be found.

By your omission however, I'm guessing you agree with my other remarks concerning the blatant playing of our Naval forces and our so-called International obligations by Indonesia and the unplanned unwelcome strain on Australia's welfare system and social structure?

Me. Weird? I find people who have little or no sense of obligation first and foremost to the welfare and well being of their own country far harder to understand.

Divine, they are all asylum seekers, people looking for protection under the law.

They might not all be refugees who have a well founded fear of persecution.

Now do grow up. I have noticed though that the people who are a real security risk fly here - like Willie Brigitte and others.

Marilyn I bow to your amazing power of debate. Your naivety is alarming but fortunately not shared by most of us who've been around long enough to have learned something.
I do hope you are one of the people willing to take in a few asylum seekers since Christmas Island is overflowing and housing the hordes is becoming more and more problematic?
A couple of middle eastern males perhaps?

Why am I naive? The law is what it is. I didn't invent it.