What a load of seditious codswallop. Withdraw all public funding from universities. Universities used to be about education and learning to think; now they are just places for the creation of like-minded tribes. T

Christophobes hijacked uni's a long time ago. That is why perversion, sexual immorality and the evolution fantasy became dogmas. Feminist/Marxist dominate and turn out journalist with little to no credibility. To progress in careers one must deny truth, nod your head to the gw fantasy, criticise white males and be apologetic about Islam. Sad state of affairs!

What is it with people who constantly throw that spanner that is religion into the works ?
How many more centuries will go by before these idiots concede that religion has no place in public life.
Abbott of all people has been the biggest & most disappointing let-down in Australia's political history. He should just fade from view & keep quiet. i have never felt so cheated by anyone before or since. Academia has had a profound impact on civilisation, both positive & lately extremely negative. Academia has become like religion. A self-serving disruptive force !

The article is indeed a steaming pile of bollocks.

The main focus of Peter's attack on the Western Civilisation course is that it is insufficiently "inclusive", and that other civilizations should be included. The premise that courses without diversity are invalid is monumentally inconsistent.

Should Maths courses be forced to include arts? Should women's studies be forced to include men's studies, Philosophy courses include Physics?

I rest my case.

Until recently the, at least do no harm, guided Christian belief, as did the golden rule and the good Samaritan parable. Traditional Christian ethos and conservative values, replete with greed is good individualism, are mutually exclusive philosophies.

And underlined by the story of an outraged Jesus whipping the money changers from his Father's house. Along with myriad examples, where by deed and action, he set his face against all things conservative?

It is not for nothing that co-ops were the only private enterprise, free-market business model survived the Great Depression largely intact.

Or conversely, why D Trump went through 6 bankruptcies, left a trail of broken dreams and economic carnage in his wake as literally hundreds of family firms were driven to the wall and lost their life savings, homes and reputations.

All while an allegedly Christian D Trump amassed of fortune, by reportedly ripping off his contractors, employees and the tax office?

It was no accident that we became the third wealthiest nation on the planet as part of post-war phenomena, and a creditor one at that!

Moreover, most country towns did quite well! With several co-ops at their heart? Butter, Sugar, Cheese, cotton gins and woollen mills etc.

And in a deliberate diabolical reversal by conservatives, given power, which they as is their want, abused to led us again as a debt-laden Nation with massive and growing, record domestic and foreign debt. And now somewhere below no. 30, as a nation with national wealth.

We've come a long way with conservatives given their head and power, And it has, by and large, been all downhill? Away from the light on the hill and the very essence of genuine caring and sharing Christian values!?
Alan B.

All of the texts and "great books" of the Western canon as proposed by the Ramsey project are based upon and reinforce the separative disposition.
They are neurotic psychologies based on the separative principle, or the failure to understand and transcend the presumed separate self, to recognize the World-Process, and the inherent limitations of conventional experience and knowledge - especially the Western forms of presumed knowledge.
Such psychologies are grounded in fear, misunderstanding, recoil from the moral demand for conscious life-positive relationship, alienation, horror and death.

Humankind is now dwelling entirely in this independent, separative, and self-destructive mode.
This is why human life on Earth suffers its present dark and darkening complexion.

Tragically, those on the right-side of the culture wars divide promote this situation as a "there is no other way" cultural, and even "religious" imperative.

Following on from Alan.
Ironically and tragically these same right-wing culture war warriors pretend that the Golden Golem of Greatness is going to make a positive difference to the cultural situation both in the USA and even the entire world.
Never mind that everything that the Golem has ever done, and now does every day, and everything that he says via whatever forum or medium is an in-your-face trashing of whatever limited wisdom can be found in studying the "great books". He also makes an in-your-face mockery of Jordan Peterson's Twelve Rules For Life which are enthusiastically promoted by the same right-wing warriors.

'What is it with people who constantly throw that spanner that is religion into the works ?'

maybe you might realise you need to be pig headed ignorant not to see the positive effect followers of Christ has had on history.

runner,
Are you referring to the positive growth in population due to religion's objection to birth control ? Or the 15,000 children starving to death each day, or the kiddie fiddlers in various religions ?
I don't need to go on & on, it's all well recorded & known.

Indi, steady on, there are a huge amount of miscreants similar to what you describe, outside religion.
I don't condone any of it, but let's keep our heads and talk in relative terms not stereotypical.
I'm glad YOU mentioned Mr Peterson, as he is one person I find very interesting.
Then add Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos to make up the three people worth listening to today.
There is no emotion, they are brilliant, just cold, straight facts.
The kind of things that the left, don't want to hear or they go into 'melt-down'.
Most academics lack the ability to reason, as they get too engrossed in their chosen field, removing them from the real world and therefore reality.
Why is it I ask that the Jews have been 'on the nose' for centuries?
I think a hint was given earlier in this topic.
They have demonstrated that they are much more focused in succeeding economically than most other races, and they have backed some of the most heinous crimes in history.
These top one per-centers have total and complete disregard for human life.
Even more than is considered normal.
Anyway you can figure it out for yourselves, it's easy.

To Individual.

Why should religion not be in public life? Or if anyone else has an answer go for it. Is being religous something people should hide instead of something to share? Why should anti religon opinions be lifted up and anything near a religous idea something to be shunned?

Most religions promote some kind of community to both the believers that meet in that religion, as well as to serve outside of their faith to the community around them as a whole. Should that also be shunned from public life?

As for the ariticle. I think it's a good idea to have western studies in universities. To many college grads come out with reasons to be ashamed by their government or their nation. It's a growing cultural influence regardless of going to college or not. Fight that with a program that teaches the foundations and history of western civilization. Let more people be proud of their western roots and more fully proud of their home.

No country is perfect, but more and more I hear of people saying doom and gloom about their government, their politics, or any other industry from getting jobs to receiving services. It's like no one even tries to be content in what they have or appreaciate what is good in their lives. No wonder we have a problem with drugs, depression, and anxiety. Fight back! Find and cultivate readons to be proud and content with who you are and with your neighbor's around you.

Religion is nothing more than callous exploitation of superstition. I concede that anyone living by the rules of religion would make a good citizen but does anyone know such citizens ?
If only we all lived by the ten commandments the world would be a better place or would it ?
The genetic make-up of humans is such that without the terrible conflicts throughout the millennia, this planet would now be so over populated that it probably would have caused the extinction of humans by now.
On the other hand religion has & still is causing so much division that it would be better if it were kept inside the home.
Isn't it religion that is against birth control ? Isn't it religion that demands we let criminals get away with their heinous deeds & wait for the Almighty to judge them ? There may well be a God but I'm convinced that the first to be in his sights for judgement will be the religious hypocrites.
Religion would be a great thing if it weren't misused & exploited by the control freaks.

'Are you referring to the positive growth in population due to religion's objection to birth control ? Or the 15,000 children starving to death each day, or the kiddie fiddlers in various religions ?'

Individual

You display such ignorance that its a wonder you know that kiidie fiddling is wrong.

runner,
Kindly please explain the "ignorant' part of that sentence.

Runner: Herr Goebbels was a devout Christian as was his wife Frau Goebbels and indeed many of the Nazi death camp commandants and guards. And almost every paedophile priest for the last 17 centuries, who by now number in the thousands.

And let's not forget how many homosexual priests there are now taking holy orders and wearing frocks? And presuming to advise on happily married heterosexual life and the joys of procreation?

There is so much ultra-pious, pulpit-pounding hypocrisy inside religious organisations and still a certain amount of barely veiled antisemitism.

No pious hypocrisy, more self-evident, than when John Howard or Tony Abbott get up there to read the lesson for today.

None of it consistent with the good Samaritan parable or golden rule (do unto others) code for living.

As always with religious fanatics, facts matter not, nor irrefutable evidence or indeed the almighty truth, wherever that conflicts with their rusted on belief system.

I mean, Rome sort to have Gallilao excommunicated for daring to suggest, planet earth was not only not at the centre of the universe, but that we and the other planets revolved around the sun.

A little over fifty years ago some Saudi Imams could order your decapitation for daring to suggest the world was round?

One doesn't need to go back very far in history to understand that the church has truly become a sty in the eye of God and inherently evil.

With sword-wielding Bishops and Popes at the head of blood lusting armies putting the disbelievers to death/committing murder in God's name.

Today the same inherently evil cohort are up front and loud in their condemnation of God created difference and seek to deprive others of rights they, like Nazi, Herr Goebbels, take as a given for themselves!

I rest my case
Alan B.

Individual

The slightest look at the history of God deniers makes even the corrupt Catholic church look mild. Today's feminist Marxist are every bit as evil as Hitler. The teachings of Jesus was the most civilising factor in history on this planet. Remove your Christophobic blindfold and try a little honesty. Then again without God you have no compass except through your sinful corrupt eye

<Why is it I ask that the Jews have been 'on the nose' for centuries?
I think a hint was given earlier in this topic.
They have demonstrated that they are much more focused in succeeding economically than most other races, and they have backed some of the most heinous crimes in history. >

I know that in politics the discussion can get quite heated, but that statement ruffles against my western sensibilities. Are you claiming that Jews as a race are more prone to criminal acts? Although I would disagree with your view, I think it better to live in a society with a western values and a Judeo-Christian heritage, where such views can be expressed and debated in a forum of civility.

I feel that my understanding of the world could be expanded by another university course. Specifically, I am somewhat dumbfounded by the claim that socialism has not yet been tried as a form of government. Apparently all those failed "socialist" regimes with legacies of humanitarian and economic disaster were not socialist at all. Clearly I am in need of an education to explain what true socialism is and why none of these failed states satisfy the definition. I guess that Animal Farm and 1984 weren't socialist either.

'Herr Goebbels was a devout Christian as was his wife Frau Goebbels and indeed many of the Nazi death camp commandants and guards. '

yeah Alan I am sure they were following the teachings of Jesus just like paedophile priest. Are you incapable of thinking? Or is your hatred lead you only to 'history' sources that confirm your bigotry.

Have to laugh. The people who hate Christianity the most go ballistic because people calling themselves Christians don't act like Christians. Does that mean that the Christianophobes really think that everyone should be acting like Christians?

I certainly don't consider myself a God denier but neither am I a God confirmer until I get sufficient proof for one or the other. Going by history & present I find it difficult to believe that there is a God, particularly a benevolent one. Going by the religious hypocrites I encounter every day, I find God it difficult to believe that there is a benevolent God.
One thing is certain that if there is a God the religious crowd have something to worry about.

Individual,

So you are an agnostic like many people. However, I'm not sure that the behaviour of mortals - including the hypocrites you talk about - is any gauge of whether or not God exists.

I encounter Green hypocrites, religous hypocrites, gw hypocrites, god denying hypocrites, atheist hypocrites, agnostic hypocrites everyday. What does that prove? All are sinners maybe? Maybe just maybe Jesus was right. Christophobes only ever draw attention to failed followers of Christ while ignoring their own camp. Maybe a little liking for truth could help.

runner,
Why resort to such insipid terms as Christophobes ? I make it easy for you & describe myself as a Religiophobe because Christianity has nothing to do with my feelings toward a God or non God.
I see Christianity as no different to other religions, they’re all just a mechanism for control freaks. Rather than simply keep the superstitious on the straight & narrow so they can co-exist with whomever they happen to share part of this planet with, these megalomaniacs get their kicks from controlling others by dividing them..Why do so many Christians go to church on sundays when they were ripping people off during week & exploit every loophole to make more profit.
Why do we need hierarchies in Faiths ?
Why do religious leaders always roll in money ?
The reason I am somewhat sceptic about the claims made regarding God are because God is always portrayed as benevolent & the saviour/judge of the nasty & respectless movement calling itself humanity.
I’m having a lot of trouble why this creator has included illness & greed & lust yet despite all the hurdles thrown in front of us he is expecting us to stay on the path of righteousness. How many humans are not given to opportunity to abide because of the nasty people he included in his supposed creation.
If there is a God then I am wondering why he doesn’t end suffering to make it possible for people to have more faith & live accordingly.
the thing that makes me sceptical is that religion is very much like our Law. For me the “Trust me” whilst people are getting screwed, slogan has reached its use-by date.
Most of all though why does he tolerate so much misery & hypocrisy in his name ?

The article "Academic program on Western Civilisation" by Peter Bowden seems to my limited understanding to cross many political boundaries to such an extent that Dr Bowden appeared to be purposely obfuscating.

However there were some distinct messages- the Hippocratic Oath as applied to civilisation, the absolutist views of Kant, the preference for cultural diversity in civilisation, the importance of universal ethics in civilisation.

I question the validity of the authority of many of these assertions- and many appear to be contested by philosophers for tens or hundreds of years.

The mainly liberal view presented here by Dr Bowden appears to show his and the University institutional bias.

Interesting was the comment in the newspaper about financial influence when significant financial influence have supported the liberal movement for hundreds of years

Regarding religion...

I've hear the term Secular Christian used over the last few years- it seems to have relevance to this discussion.

Sadly pedophiles are attracted to roles which have access to children- where ever they are- I'm sure it's going on right under our noses. At the same time our legitimate caution can become paranoia- child abuse is a difficult problem of contradictions.
Males traditionally are more sexually aggressive (and more aggressive) than females- so this carries over to pedophilia against male and female children. But you don't want to deny children access to male role models- this seems anecdotally to be occurring in schools (and in families). Perhaps the Catholic Church needs to consider this in it's priests marriage policies- but that is the internal decision of the organisation. Often pedophiles seem to target vulnerable children such as those with difficult family circumstances. I don't think anyone has good answers on this.

I think Jordan Petersen brings some new ideas to the discussion on religion and I value his insight- being from an engineering background I found his introspective view initially challenging. ie. Religious "Superstition" may have an introspectively valid basis. Religion seems to have strong links with culture.

My gut feeling is that if there is indeed a God he is nothing like the religious controllers portray him.

Two things runner, You falsely accuse me as usual, when you accuse me and indeed every clear unbiased commentator posting here. And I unlike you do not cherry pick history to make a case against organised religion

. Whereas you without fail do the very opposite and cherry pick from those books that agree with your fundamentally flawed fanatism. You need to understand at least one thing, that the most vociferous condemnation of homosexuals has almost always come from closet homosexuals, unable to come to terms with their true feelings and their inculcated religious belief.

And butch it up at every opportunity, even as they try to micromanage almost everything, just like the control freaks that believe they have divine authority?

One need only go to Munich and their biggest best-stocked museum to find the oldest known Bible to see just how different Today's officially accepted versions are. And almost as if they were two different books that contradict each other?

Moreover, the first council of Nicosia presided over by pagan sun worshipper Constantine, decided which books and which then pagan rituals would be included in Constantine's Chruch. Decided to leave out a number of books esoteric Christian held to be true.

It was Constantine who decided who would be the bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Contanople. And only baptised on his deathbed, beyond which the Christian Chruch ripped itself apart as the two factions fought each other for hearts and minds

. With orthodoxy claiming the lest revised holy books/text/teachings

Runner, you need to take a good long hard look at your hate filled self and stop burying your head and judging other folks by your own abysmally flawed, personal, ignorance personified, standards.
Alan B.

God can have value for culture.

Well, this is deep thinking stuff. A killer could be doing society a huge favour too. Would that make him a hero or a criminal ?

'Most of all though why does he tolerate so much misery & hypocrisy in his name ?'

Individual you raise numerous questions and conclude with. Because you and I would of been dead a long time ago if His mercy did not triump over judgement. You actually sound at least as self righteous as any religious person I have come across. What is your excuse?

I use the word Christophobe because many erroneously in their ignorance label all 'religions' the same. It is a dumb lazy conclusion usually parroted by Christophobes. To compare the Lord Jesus Christ with Mohammed, Buddha or any one of the million gods is ridiculous.

'Runner, you need to take a good long hard look at your hate filled self and stop burying your head and judging other folks by your own abysmally flawed, personal, ignorance personified, standards.
Alan B.'

thanks for the advice Alan

runner,
I think you're deliberately not acknowleging the gist of my argument. What proof do you have that your "Lord" Jesus Christ is actually the son of God ? A Muslim who is just as brainwashed as you does not as I am aware call Mohammed the son of Allah. As far as I am aware he is a prophet i.e. a normal human who claimed to simply be chosen to spread his God's word.
That a thousand years later those who believe all that can't get along with each other let alone the rest of the world couldn't possibly a God's will.
Look at your lot over the years, they've actually blessed guns ! What a cracked-up circus.
What exactly is self-righteous about trying to make people more aware for a more cohesive existence. It certainly isn't as hypocritical as exploiting peoples' superstition !

'I think you're deliberately not acknowleging the gist of my argument'

No Individual you have a pathetically flawed argument. The proof I have that Jesus is the Son of God is the fact He said He was and that He rose from the dead. Plenty of evidence for those who have a genuine interest in truth.

You refer to 'your lot'. Who might they be Individual. Those who believe the words and teachings of Jesus. What about the god deniers that you belong to Individual? Mao, Stalin, Hitler? No doubt you will complain that I generalise exactly like you do with believers.

By all means reject Christ as Son of God and Saviour (to your peril) but don't be dishonest and deceitful enough to lump HIs followers in with followers of Mohammed or Buddha for that matter. Yes the Catholic church and others have been totally corrupt over the years but no more than the god deniers. Just proves Christ's teaching right.

Individual,

You will never find your 'proof' because you don't believe. All the answers to your questions are in the Bible, but you are unlikely to accept what you read. You do not have to believe anything. Christianity is not compulsory. There is no point in asking others to convince you. Acceptance or change can only from within yourself. Nobody else can change you. Arguments are futile. Believers know why they believe; hopefully you know why you don't believe.

To Individual.

I'd like to respond to your reply on Saturday Jan 19th, 7am.

<<Religion is nothing more than callous exploitation of superstition. I concede that anyone living by the rules of religion would make a good citizen but does anyone know such citizens ?>>

These two statements don't really fit together. Religion from what I've seen is not exploitive. Which I suppose I should be thankful that I haven't been exposed to something that is exploitive. Of the religions that I have been exposed to (mostly Christian and Baha'i) the closest I have to seeing something exploitive was after talking to a Jehovah witness they invited me to their church and some of their home meetings/bible studies. What I saw wasn't enough to conclude the stories of abuse in that sect are true or not, but it didn't seem like something I felt right with.

Most other churches I've seen try to encourage people in their faith. Occasionally I'd see a sermon about tithing, but that's as close to being exploited as it gets from those churches. Baha'i likewise shows no exploiting going on, but instead the community I met and grew up with were some of the kindest people I knew while growing up. From what I've seen of Buddhism, it's not about being exploited but seems to be about removing the bondages of being human. Released from pain, suffering, and loss, by not trying to seek happiness, and by accepting the pain along with the good things. Not much other exposure to see your conclusions, but from what I've seen many religions differ in their beliefs, but don't show an exploitive element to them.

<<If only we all lived by the ten commandments the world would be a better place or would it ?>>

For living by the rules of religion, the most I can tell about is Christianity, but I can tell a bit about Baha'i also. One thing I like about both is that they aren't just about making moral people, but to engage in the communities and make them better places.

(Continued)

(Continued)

...With Christianity it's about saving and redeeming, and rules like the 10 commandments that make a better people living together, not just better individuals that are "enlightened" but on their own. The commandments cover to respect God, your parents, your neighbor (whoever that is), even to the last one in the 10 commandments to not covet (not want) what someone else has and therefore would reduce a lot of pain mankind puts ourselves through if it was also listened to.

Who can do it though? I've wager it gets easier with practice and the dedication to try again when you fail. (It also gets easier with God's help and prayer, but I understand if that is hard to relate to. Many people here seem to think anything spiritual, including God, is superstitious. He's helped me enough to recognize my efforts without His help, versus the easier efforts with His help).

<<The genetic make-up of humans is such that without the terrible conflicts throughout the millennia, this planet would now be so over populated that it probably would have caused the extinction of humans by now.
On the other hand religion has & still is causing so much division that it would be better if it were kept inside the home.>>

We live in a broken world. The terrible conflicts are an unfortunate part of our influence in the world that makes it so broken. However, if we weren't so horrible to each other and to the world we farm and are charged to take care of, who knows, perhaps what we think of over populated now, might not even scratch the surface of what the world could produce to feed a much larger population.

(Continued)

(Continued)

<<Isn't it religion that is against birth control? Isn't it religion that demands we let criminals get away with their heinous deeds & wait for the Almighty to judge them?>>

Christianity, as I read it, is against abortion. Can't say about any other religion regarding birth control. In the bible, a constant them is to repent of your sins and turn to God. If they do, God will deal with them, but they will survive. If they don't turn from their sins, there were several rules for Israel to govern itself by and give justice. In the New Testament, justice still exists. The warning is to obey the rulers who rule over you, because even in their corruption and abuse, they still dish out justice to those who are unjust.

<<There may well be a God but I'm convinced that the first to be in his sights for judgement will be the religious hypocrites.
Religion would be a great thing if it weren't misused & exploited by the control freaks.>>

Again, can't speak of other religions. But Christianity does two things that make it great. It gives direction and teachings that can make people better then they were previously (if they strive to follow them). And it honestly makes God accessible to anyone anywhere. You don't need to travel to a certain temple in a certain country, nor be in the presence of a certain King, priest, Holy man, or other person. All you need is prayer and a willing heart to come to God. You can thank Jesus for that. I can tell you based on my own prayers that God listens and responds, but why bother going into that. It would be better to tell you to find out on your own, and see if I can help you find Him.

Whatever you might think of religions, they embodied many secular concepts that found our civilisation today. And weren't there Islamic empires that lasted many centuries that were very effective by the standards of their time? Even current states with an Islamic influence have a stability that likens then to Nirvana compared with what the Marxists have come up with. So much for learning from history, let alone your mistakes. Maybe the idea of a supreme being stopped rulers from believing themselves gods, the downfall of many a Marxist experiment?

Not_Now.Soon,
Can't people believe in a power/force such as God without bringing religion into it?
I'd dearly like to believe but from the evidence around me I tend to think that this God is not what all religions tell us.
For me it is a bunch of nice people or a beautiful scenery that makes my day.

'Can't people believe in a power/force such as God without bringing religion into it?'

depends on your definition of 'religion'. What is clear since the demise of 'Christianity' in the West, the god deniers have managed to promote and embrace dogmas which promote promiscurity, sexualise kids, promote homosexuality as a lifestyle, destroy the natural family. Take away God given foundations and you end up with the dumbed down drug and porn addicted society we have. No wonder people take on the gw religion and then virtue signal their morality to others simply because they lack any decent morals.

runner, well done.
People are too easily drawn into the 'good life', to give a crap about being mature, responsible, sensible human beings.
They will, if not kept in check, always take the easy, dishonest way out of a situation, or generally in every day life.
A woman gets 'T' boned exiting/driving out of a property.
Instead of accepting the fact that she is a dumb, dizzy dame, she immediately conjures up a story in an attempt to remove any blame on her and pass it onto another.
In so doing she blamed it on the cars parked on the verge, 'blocking' her view of oncoming traffic.
This is the kind of crappy people we are having to contend with here today.
A good and righteous person would have simply accepted THEY stuffed up and admitted not seeing the car through their own fault.
This is just one example why I denigrate this country and all those within.
At least there are a few good souls left out there, and they know who they are, they do not include bleeding hearts and those with tunnel vision, and very short sighted at that.

Let's not forget that the academic opposition to this was not the course content but the method of delivery, Tony Abbott said that :

"A management committee including the Ramsay CEO and also its academic director will make staffing and curriculum decisions."

That alone is clearly unacceptable to any place of learning contemplating this course.

runner,
why resort to such drastic terms as "God Deniers" ? How about sit back & think why some thinking people don't just accept the "Trust me'" slogan at face value ?
If you have such faith then ok but don't jam young peoples' minds with the oldest known brainwashing technique known to man.
Let them grow up first & then let them make their own choice to have or not have faith in God.
Give us evidence that evil people get punished & decent people get rewarded. For the past 2000 years it's been the other way round. Don't you think it's time to assess the situation a little more sober ? We'd all like to believe that there is this just God at the end of the road but with so much misery many find it hard to believe. If God has supposedly given us free will then why demand we don't exercise it ? Why give us free will when we're told at every turn what we can't do yet others do & live the life of Reiley to a ripe old age.
Believe me I'm trying to understand but the everday evidence is too overwhelming.

'Believe me I'm trying to understand but the everday evidence is too overwhelming.'

yes Individual the evidence is overwhelming that the more secular we have become in the West the greater the decay. Feminist/Marxist/Secularist have managed to create a putried mess in a short period of time.

You say the evidence is overwhelming. What evidence? That people are corrupt? That Jesus Christ was sinless? Science backs a Creator, a Designer, a Lawgiver.

Biblical Christianity has always given people the choice as to whether they believe or not. Yep certainly if you live by sight you will become cynical. I mean what could be more wicked than murder the baby in your womb and yet people go on to live long lives after doing so. The same culprits then criticise paedophile priests. Both acts are wicked as can be. Secular society encourages such putried actions. Admittingly that is where faith comes in. We will all receive mercy or judgement at the end of our lives. Mercy for those who have repented and received the Saviour (the only Righteous One) or judgement for those self righteous enough to think they can stand before God in their own righteousness. Most people don't have a belief problem they have a sin problem.

If it is all worked out in a book, isn't that what Isis tried to do? Same with the Taliban, certainly a blueprint for socialism, even applicable to Jim Jones and the Branch Davidians perhaps.

Hasn't civilisation developed by refining systems of control over many centuries with input from many people? I would suggest attempts to throw it away and base a new model on a religious text or Marxist theory are likely to fail with good reason.

Interesting, thanks

To Individual.

On January 20th you said:

<<Can't people believe in a power/force such as God without bringing religion into it?>>

My issue is that if a religion (or at least the teachings) is from God, and it helps people find God, then why should that be avoided when searching for God.

When I was growing up, I was raised with my dad being from one religion, and my mom being from another. You can't really say I found God without religion, because I had two religions I grew up around. However I can say that I found God was real before I looked into which religion was from God. It might be possible to believe in God while removing one's self from religion or orginized religion. But there are two concerns from that approach.

1) If God is real, wants to be close to us, answers prayers, and shows He loves us; then it's really hard for me to believe that He would have those attributes without also actively communicating with people as well, and having His teachings, lessons, or the history of Him in our lives be recorded for others to find and be more able to find Him through those teachings. This was my approach when I was a teen before I accepted one religion or another. He responded to my prayers in a time of depression that made me know without any doubt that He is real. So if He did that then there's a good chance that at least one of the religions is from God too, and I could search them out to know how to follow God, and to know Him more.

(Continued)

(Continued)

2). If a person looks for God, without God's say in the matter, (acknowledging what God's already said in the past from religious texts that you trust are also from Him), then one issue is if they really found God or not. It might be possible, maybe that's how God has reached some people, to start their journey to search for God. However I've seen many false beliefs about God, then I think "if only they knew a foundation to go from so their imaginations wouldn't lead them astray."

The two examples I have of false beliefs are that:

a) God is a force, but doesn't care about us, isn't involved in our lives, the world anymore.

b) That God is within us; unfortunately from there leads to worshiping ourselves as God or deludes them to thinking that everything they think and do is from God and/or an act of God. (Knowing our own errors and sins at least humbles us enough to realize that if God exists, then He isn't us).

With these in mind, my opinion of finding God should contain the acknowledgement that God exists so that the person can look for Him. But also to discern what is from God and what isn't. Even to say which religions are from Him and which aren't. Prayer helps, and asking for God's help in finding Him.

<<I tend to think that this God is not what all religions tell us.>>

I would say first try to find God, and then once you do you can compare your notes to any religion. Here's my advise though. Don't get lost in the philosophies or the theologies to compare to. They can help, but start by reading the text from the prophets and inspired writings like the bible is for Christians. The other thing. Before you read, pray for God to help you read it and understand it. You'll get a better understanding of the texts that are from God, and hopefully come to terms easier to reject the texts (and religions that stem from them) that aren't from God.

To Fester. You said:

<<Hasn't civilisation developed by refining systems of control over many centuries with input from many people? I would suggest attempts to throw it away and base a new model on a religious text or Marxist theory are likely to fail with good reason.>>

You have a lot of trust in the system we have in place now it sounds like. To be fair our current western systems of governing have learned some hard lessons from kings and being oppressed at their whims. Then countries tried different approaches with a democracy and republic mix, in order to keep too much power out of one person's hands.

However I would say that any core teaching from the bible is trustworthy to implement into our lives. That includes into policy and government. However there is a lesson. Israel was handed down a blueprint for governing their nation, and even with that they turned away from God and grew more sinful. After a growing set of warnings from prophets, and more disasters on them, finally God let them fall completely, let them be conquered, and taken as prisoners. The lesson is that even with the best approach to governing, if we turn away from God, the government will fall, and be fuller of the corruption and sins that we are trying to protect ourselves from.

The trick is being able to find ways of applying the principles in the bible. Especially the ones Jesus taught. It's not about replacing the current system, just to not let it fall apart because we've taken God out of any sector of it.

Not_Now_Soon

The Bible has had and continues to have an influence in society today, but did Christianity stop nations from having despotic rulers? Saying that they didn't follow the teachings properly sounds like the excuses for failed socialist states from diehard socialists.

I think the idea of the Ramsay bequeath was to promote the idea that civilisation is an evolutionary process rather than an act of creation.

As an analogy, I have had moderate to severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthropathy over the past thirty years. How should I manage it? Should I take the advice of people who have dabbled in junk science and come up with a theory of how the disease can be cured with all manner of extreme diets and supplements? Maybe I should follow a fellow who claims to have been told how to cure the disease with the advice of a deceased psychic (actually true- the guy is a best selling author)? Perhaps I should dabble in Eastern medicine based treatments, which, despite the claims of their superiority over "Western Medicine" , are often illegally spiked with potent steroids? What I chose and have had success with is modern medical treatment. Why? Because it does not concern itself with a bunch of crackpot theories or hokus pokus nonsense. It is simply a collection of scientifically valid treatments. If improvements are found they are adopted. Imagine if the basis of medicine were a sacred text and any new ideas were seen as heresy? Would we better for it?

Why would God want to make it so difficult for us to live according to his rules ? Why would he make it so utterly impossible for the decent to gain the upper hand ?
That's what I am grappling with.

'Why would God want to make it so difficult for us to live according to his rules ?'

Only 2 Individual. Love God and love your neighbour. Granted a lot harder than rattling off these 2 commandments. Reality is that life is much much harder when you don't live by these 2 commandments. Fences are put their for protection in order to live a fulfilled life.

To Fester.

In the past we had Kings and queens, or some other means of acquiring leadership without the people's say in the matter. The leaders could be alright or despotic in their rule. But it was not up to the people's decision, who gets to rule over them. Somehow that changed, and it can be up to us who rules over us, makes decisions on our behalf, and steers the direction of the country.

With that in mind, who's fault is it if we have a despotic leader? Our fault for choosing him. There's no real alternative to this responsibility. Therefore how to choose a leader should be something of value. And believe it or not, this is covered in the bible! In two letters that Paul wrote, he gave qualifications for how to choose an elder who leads the church, as well as some qualifications for choosing deacons who will serve the needs of the community. If we apply these same qualifications to who will be the leader of the country (qualifications of an elder); and the qualifications for making laws and serving the country in the legislative elements (deacons); then I would think we would have a very different picture of the world and the leaders of the nations. In today's world leaders are an extension of the choices we make, and are an extension of the values and the faults of the people who chose them. It's not the other way around, where the leaders are the evil rulers and the people are the oppressed if the people actually chose them.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Here are the verses I mean for qualifications for church leadership. Look at them yourself if it interests you, and let me know if you see a fault in applying these elements to the voting of our leaders.

Titus 1:5-9, 1 Tim. 3:1-13, 1 Peter 5:1-4

The only fault I can see in these is that none of our leaders seem to pass the test of not getting into fights and to be gentle. In fact in order to gain votes they do just the opposite and go into the arena of mud slinging at each other, and get the people riled up to not vote for the other guy. Again who's fault is that though? It's ours the voter, because we allow it and vote for them. They do it because it works at gaining more votes.

On the other hand if there are no good candidates to vote from, then don't vote. Don't pick from the lesser of two evils, either be willing to stand by the choice you vote for, or back away from the election as a whole. That's the only way I can think of for changing how the election processes are run is if the voters withhold their votes on the candidates and the issues they disagree with.

To Individual.

We live in an unhealthy world. I would go further and say by the results in it that it is more like a broken world then just an unhealthy one. But how to get better from being crippled is a different approach then how to get better if your unhealthy. One is more severe for the actions you take to get better, and it might be that it's not about getting over being crippled, but to live with it as best you can instead of regaining use of your legs.

For the lets just say the world is unhealthy. An obese person who has trouble exercising, staying on a diet (or just healthy eating habits) and in general preserve through the trials of getting better without giving up. The world is like this unhealthy person. The ailments of their weight are a burden that can cause other health issues like diabetes, heart attacks, or even damage to organs.

The world that we live in likewise doesn't exercise good habits of living a decent life. Those who fall back to get a quick gain by ruthless or dishonest means, might succeed momentary. But the after math is what they and those around them (that are influenced by his decisions) have to deal with the bad health of that decision.

On the other hand, those who do good and are decent, (or at least sometimes make good decisions) act like an obese body will react when it's starting to exercise. It will hurt at first, get tired, and not feel good. If the person keeps it up, then even if they don't get the benefit of making healthy decisions, the world around them can gain the benefits of their actions.

I wish it was easier to live by God's rules. That we can all meet those expectations more often. But it's not the rules fault for us failing to meet them. It's the reality we are responsible for our faults as well as that we are in an environment that makes it difficult to always live up to the rules.

//On the other hand if there are no good candidates to vote from, then don't vote. Don't pick from the lesser of two evils, either be willing to stand by the choice you vote for, or back away from the election as a whole. That's the only way I can think of for changing how the election processes are run is if the voters withhold their votes on the candidates and the issues they disagree with.//

Yeah, that's not how it works. Electoral processes don't get changed because a few disgruntled voters protest by spoiling their ballot. Some of our electoral processes a laid out in the Constitution, and therefore can't be changed without a referendum. And some are laid out in Acts of Parliament, so they can only be changed by the parliament. In the real world, the only effective way to change electoral processes is to vote in a party that will enact electoral reform.... and spoiling your ballot won't achieve that.

Not that any of this has any bearing on you, since you're not eligible to vote in Australia.

Toni, snipes and digs aside, I thought the same many years ago, then realised that because of preferences, we got screwed.
So I thought that voting for 'someone' who was not associated with the main parties, might go someway towards achieving my chosen goals.
Those goals were to weaken the power and the chances of the main players from getting in.
So it is that I promote the truly independents.
I pretty much don't care who they are, as long as it weakens the main parties base or power.
I guess my preferred objective is a 'hung' parliament.
If you can't actually change the players, then removing their power is as good as removing them, so I guess that's the closest we're going to come to getting anything like a reformed govt.
I for one, and I know I'm not alone, am sick and tired of being the brunt of these scum-bags laws.
Every time they make a law, we 'the people', cop the blunt end of the stick.
Enough, about time they were actually stopped, not that that's possible, by aiming for a hung parliament, at least gives us some breathing space.
Because this system does NOT work.

Not_Now.Soon,

How is what you are proposing different from a theocracy? It has been tried over many centuries, but was surpassed by a better system in the case of western civilisation. The principle of an instruction manual also got applied to medicine and science. How well did that system work? As much as it would be nice to an operating manual for civilisation, I have yet to see one that could not be improved. My concern with your proposal is that it does not appear to allow for the possibility of editing.

To Fester.

The basis of my suggestion is on two ideas. That a person's faith should affect all parts of their lives, not just their private lives. This would include service in office, voting, and business. (Three areas that it seems to be neglected, or given the idea that these areas of life are ruled by "different rules." The second idea is that the lessons in the bible are practical and good to put to use, regardless of your faith. (Which not surprising only adds to my belief that the bible is reliable).

Here's the take away from it all. But instead of just choosing an elder this can be applied for choosing a candidate to vote.

Blameless, faithful to their wife (or husband if voting in a women) and who's children are not wild and disobedient. Manage their own family well. Choose these attributes because these responsibilities in the household show they can be responsible to serve the people they are responsible for.

Not over bearing, easily angered, alcoholic, violent, quarrelsome, or pursues dishonest gain. Nor should they be a recent convert. (Apply the last one perhaps to someone who is not a native or who hasn't lived in Australia for at least X # of years).

Instead choose a leader who is hospitable, loves what is good, self-controlled, gentle, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Now I ask. Which of these things are attributes do you find a fault in. So to not apply it to choosing who you will vote for. They seem like practical measure to grant a good and balanced parliament seat or PM. I'd recommend looking up the bible verses I referenced to compare them to, and make sure I am telling the truth.

but was surpassed by a better system in the case of western civilisation
Fester,
Yes & it's about 80 years past its use-by date now. Time for something better again.

Not_Now.Soon

You come across as good and well-meaning, but the well worn cliche about paving can apply to systems that set parameters for the ideal citizen, more so when the authority considers itself the embodiment of goodness. You need to think long and hard before making a choice without an historic precedent preferable to the system we have. It reminds me of the Iranian morals police arresting and raping a young orphaned girl for alleged promiscuity before she was hanged in the town square.

Individual,

What is the answer? What changes do you think are needed to the system we have?

To Fester.

I don't think your reading my points as much as adding to them things I haven't said, and then assuming that version instead of what I actually said. I don't think you're doing this on purpose, but I want to tell you this so that you realize it and then are able to better read what I write.

I'm not presenting a case for a different system then western civilization. Instead I'm saying apply the principles from the teachings in the bible to our civilization. It's not a theocracy, it's still a democracy republic mix. But if the actual principles suggested are bad, harmful, or just not as good, then please point out how they are bad, harmful, or not as good as what we have going on now.

What specifically have I said that reminds you of Iranian morals police arresting and raping a young orphaned girl for alleged promiscuity before she was hanged. These things are about looking for a good responsible leader, not about arresting anyone who doesn't fit the bill.

(Many Christian perspectives point out that we all sin, and try to move in a direction of helping each other out of our sins or letting them go their own way and not associate with them anymore. The worst that that approach would do is add an element of isolating people like a form of ex-communication kind of thing by a community as a whole. That factor can be balanced by acknowledging a principle of the importance of redemption and reconciling each other. There is nothing that I know of from biblical principles that would lead to raping girls and then hanging them).

(Continued)

(Continued)

Let me ask you a counter question, because it seems that many people here fear Christianity from being expressed or practiced openly. What is there to fear about Christians living up to the principles in their faith? Usually the only criticism I hear is how Christians don't live up to the principles, not any criticism for those who actually do live up to the principle, or critism of those principles. Which leads me to believe that there is no fault about those principles. Even your replies don't point out a fault. But instead misunderstand my points as if I am trying to replace western civilization with something else.

This is a sincere question. What is the fear of Christians living up to the principles in the bible? Because it seems like the rationale is to not let Christians act on their faith in politics, as if Christians are a threat to you and your country. I believe a term thrown around recently was something like christianphobia. But if you don't find fault in the actual principles then what is there to fear? I'm not say you must be Christian, but instead that these teachings are practical if we apply them. They are good because they help with the ongoing corruption and evil that is in us all. That makes them good for applying to western civilization, or really any other model of civilization.

To ALTRAV.

What you suggest to vote for "the other guy" instead of someone in the main parties sounds like a good idea to get the goal you've described. But personally I don't want to be part of the mess unless I actually approve of who I'm voting for. After the last election in the US, I've began to distrust the whole culture in the voting process. Better to get involved more outside of voting like writing letters to your representatives in parliament or congress or actively volunteering in some cause, then to waste a small vote that only really matters as a number. A vote that is only noticeable if it's a demographic that a politician wants to tap into. My only statement in it can be that if they want my vote they have to do better. If that idea grows into a demographic then it's possible that they will change to try and gather those lost votes. Even if it doesn't grow I can rest easier knowing I didn't contribute to something I don't agree with. (However that also means I can't complain because I didn't do any vote to change it).

Either way, I like your approach. I just don't think I can do it.

To individual.

Like Fester, I'd like to hear what you have to suggest as an alternative.

//What is the fear of Christians living up to the principles in the bible?//

Persecution of heretics, witches, soothsayers, Jews, etc. - i.e. peaceful law-abiding folk who do no harm, but who the Bible preaches are wicked and deserving of persecution. That is what we have to fear, NNS, and I believe based on the historical evidence that it is an entirely reasonable fear. Frankly, I believe that no amount of your waffling about how Christian's are really lovely people and no true Scotsman etc. will manage to convince me otherwise.

NNS, I understand your concern and can only agree.
My position is one of extreme frustration and anger at the thought that we, the people, are being had.
The scum-bags put on the biggest con when campaigning, then proceed to do whatever they like once elected.
I know that electing the independents is weakening the majors bases, but it's the only way I can see to stop the rot.
In my version of govt, I would expect a direct line of interaction with my particular polly.
Meaning when a bill is put up for debate he would contact ALL his constituents, by whatever means, email, text, whatever, and they would respond with THEIR/MY wish/wishes, which would be added to the response list on that particular bill and he would then vote according to the final tally, Yes or NO.
This is the only truly democratic method of seeing that the peoples 'actual' wishes were conveyed and adopted.
And not this pathetic attempt we use now, which is merely the use of smoke and mirrors to accommodate their lies and deception.

Not_now.soon,
sorry for the delay, I missed the question put to me by Fester,
As a straight-out answer as to what I believe would be the best scenario is a benevolent Dictator.
But, as the Leftists would never accept one, I believe it would be best to at least start on a solution to our present problems in society. The best star in my view would be to establish a non-militasry national service. Young unemployed people say from 18-21 should be required to work/participate in various sectors to experience work & hopefully acquire a sense of responsibility & respect that is linked to being employed. It could be made a small step up from Newstart for those who apply to participate without having to be asked. Over a period of say two years, they could work alongside Council workers, Hopital workers, aged care, soup kitchens, park clean-up gangs on so forth. As an incentive their unemployment benefit could be raised by $100/week against those who choose not to participate. It'd become evident very soon that people actually want to pursue employment IF an incentive is offered. The cost could be offset by minor levies from their communities. After all, they'd be the eventual benficiaries.
It'd give young people to opportunity to get out & see & learn from others. If Centrelink were to be kept out of this it can work. By the time of the completion of their service they'd be more than ready to enter the workforce with a better attitude/mentality. Those who actually approve of their service could be given priority to get apprenticeships in the Defence Force or Local Govt.etc.
They'd also make more informed voters & this would in turn bring our ill political system back on the road to recovery.

Individual, gotta say, some good ideas there. With more people actually making serious and productive comments and suggestions about improving our lot, it usually goes that good things come from comments such as these. I am heartened by the positivity and conviction demonstrated here-in.
Good work keep it up I'm finally seeing something worth reading.
C'mon guys you all must have ideas you've been nurturing for some time, well now's the time to air them and put them to the test.

ALTRAV,
cheers for that, all we need now is for GY to encourage his politician mates to take notice.
I handed a list to the PM & hinted that he consider the issues when next at the parliamentary smoko table. He said he would.

//Young unemployed people say from 18-21 should be required to work/participate in various sectors to experience work & hopefully acquire a sense of responsibility & respect that is linked to being employed.//

They already are.

//Over a period of say two years, they could work alongside Council workers, Hopital workers, aged care, soup kitchens, park clean-up gangs on so forth.//

They already do, indy. It's called work for the dole (WFTD).

//As an incentive their unemployment benefit could be raised by $100/week against those who choose not to participate.//

Yeah, that's never going to happen. The Government don't need an expensive carrot to incentivise WFTD participants, because they wield the stick of withdrawn payments for WFTD participants who don't do as they're told.

//It'd become evident very soon that people actually want to pursue employment IF an incentive is offered.//

Yeah, most of them do. For the most part the unemployed aren't unemployed because they want to be; they're unemployed because there are insufficient paying jobs to adequately cater for the number of job seekers. Some of them will necessarily have to miss out.

//The cost could be offset by minor levies from their communities.//

So raise taxes to increase benefits for the unemployed? Yeah, I can't see that going down too well with tories. They're usually firmly against that sort of thing; they prefer a model with lower taxation and the unemployed being pissed upon from a great height, hence the name 'trickle down economics'.

//If Centrelink were to be kept out of this it can work.//

But if your scheme were to go ahead it would definitely be Centrelink administering it.

//I handed a list to the PM & hinted that he consider the issues when next at the parliamentary smoko table. He said he would.//

Hah! And you actually believed him?

Look, it's not actually that bad of a scheme, although I can't see how it differs that much from WFTD and I don't think you've considered the all the practicalities. But doubt the Labor party would go for it, let alone the Libs. Imposing levies to raise unemployment benefits? Do you ever listen to anything the Liberal Party say? It ain't gonna happen, individual.

Toni Lavis,
WFTD is a massive failure in every way because it doesn't address the human factor of a sense of belonging. It merely makes some insipid, disinterested bureaucrats feel they're not guilty of not performing & their hands are washed. In my idea of a non-military National service young people would be away from home for weeks at a time which is actually the key point so as to expose them & give them the much needed experience of interaction with others. I can envisage groups for example camped out, working on the Bradfield scheme & experiencing comradeship & oudoor adventure as an alternative to loitering in the suburbs. They could experience everything from working with pick & shovel, assisting surveyors, clearing scrub. The list for experiences can be as long as the need for young people to learn & acquire a sense of responsibility, respect & belonging. Imagine how much more employable scores of young people would be simply from exposure to be part & belong. The most critical aspect in my view
is to keep out that highly devisive australian factor of competition.
There are waterways to be cleared, fences to be maintained, weeds & pests to be eradicated & on the list goes. I am certain that the majority of young people would embrace a National Service as they experience the reward of being out there, away from competition & for some time, free of insidious bureaucratic restriction. Remember, things only went wobbly after National Service was done away with.
It will never satisfy everyone but society will gain, that is certain !

To ALTRAV.

I see your point, and can only wish you good luck.

To Individual.

Those sound like good ideas. I like the idea of helping the unemployment. The problem with a benevolent dictator though is finding one. One reason people went away from kings and Roman Catholic authority was because of abuses that occurred by those in power. It's a great risk. But on the other hand, if we found one, he or she would be able to make a lot of changes without having to sort through the deal making politics that corrupts many politics and legislations; nor would he/she have to listen to corrupt politicians and let them have their way. The dream sounds good, but the risk is still terrifying if we're wrong about the person.

To Fester.

I never got your answer. I would like to know if the fear is the same as Toni's or if there is a different reason, or possibly no fear and a different explanation entirely. Personally I'm for a study of western civilization. I think it would educate people of the merits and probably some detriments that have been from western civilizations, and lead people to be proud of their heritage. Worts and all, because of what good it's done.