The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Political agendas squeezing society's middle ground > Comments

Political agendas squeezing society's middle ground : Comments

By Russ Grayson, published 17/2/2005

Russ Grayson argues that the demise of the middle ground has led to society's fringe dictating public discourse.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
David, sorry I've been out of the thread for a few days.
I think you missed my central point.

The church claims to have a head who is all knowing and all powerfull etc. I understand that it is a lot of things other than just an big organisation but by it's own claims it is a body with a head not an anarchist state.

If the christian god exists then he by virtue of claiming the role of head of the church must bear responsibility for the actions of all of the parts of the church. The claim of being a christian carries a corresponding claim of the lordship of christ (take my life, take my all etc). Where is the excuse for the christian god to not clean up the church?

If you wish to consider the church as an anarcy who's head takes no responsibility for it's actions or is unable/unwilling to do anything substantial about it then please have another look at the original article from that viewpoint and ask if non believers might have reason to be concerned about a rise in church influence in domestic politics.
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 28 February 2005 9:51:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert

Your quote below:
"The christian church clearly has a corporate governance issue. The boss knows everything (before it happens even!). He is all powerfull. No workload is to big, no problem to hard. Dispite all that the church has a long history of major systematic screw ups."

Rob, "The" church, is that body of believers "within" the identifiable 'Church' (the organized expression of it) There are many traditions, Anglican, Methodist/Uniting, Catholic etc Jesus did not establish any one tradition, he established the 'rule' of God (Kingdom) in the hearts of people. It is not a cout de tat of our free will, this is where you are stumbling. You are projecting a 'corportate' view of the kingdom of God into the Church, and that is a square peg in a round hole, it just cannot be done.
Have a read of the gospels, Acts, Letters of Paul/Peter/James etc.. and see just 'how' the 'church/kingdom of God is represented.

We cannot hold God responsible for OUR actions of rebellion, which it appears you are trying to do. Pls see my post about the Prophets call in the other thread.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3053
The Old testament is a history of God calling His people back to obedience through the prophets. He warned them, 'such and such' will happen if u don't turn back. Sure enuf, it did. Usually invasion or exile. Perhaps today Isaiah would say "If u continue to abuse people, national humiliation and total ostracization will befall you, along with criminal punishment'. The point is, its always about choice and free will.
If we don't follow the user manual of life, dont blame the author.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 28 February 2005 10:06:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, so we are agreed that the christian god does not have a meaningful role in the christian church (OK I know that you don't believe that).

We may have to agree to disagree about what the behaviour of church's members says about the christian god. I've never liked the idea of giving glory to god for all good things and blaming people for all the bad stuff

We still get back to the point that "christians" as agroup in politics cannot be trusted to constrain themselves to behave in a manner which is consistent with the views you expressed very early in this thread. Their own agenda's will come into it. Church people will vote for christian parties (or those which appear to be christian) just because they are christian (or because their pastor uses the pulpit to advocate doing so), public figures will make a stand against so called godless practices because that draws more attention than rational tolerant stands or for a variety of other reasons.

None of this is to suggest that the christian church is worse than other similar groups, it is however a large group with a long history of leaders misusing their influence and power.
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 28 February 2005 4:15:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob
no we do not agree on that.
We could agree that human nature being what it is, there will always be corruption to a degree in some people no matter what they former life may have been. Are you personally 'sinless' ? I sure has heck know that I am not.
We can agree that mankind has free will, we are not 'robots' which only do as the Almighty dictates.
Grace does transform us, but free will sometimes drags us to places we later regret. U cannot blame the 'manager' if the employees willfully disobey his instructions. Is this sinking in ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 10:49:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, I think I will make this my last post on this topic - I'm not of the view we are adding anything new or meaningful to the thread anymore. My summing up.

First, I can blame the manager if significant numbers of employees wilfully disobey instructions in serious matters over a sustained period of time and the manger knows about it and does little or nothing to stop it. In fact I would lay most of the blame on the manager in that situation.

Second, the bit that is relevant to your comments about the original posting. Think about the comments in one of your early postings

>> The 2 principles are 1/ Love God, 2/ Love your neighbour. There
>> can never be 'public policy' about enforcing the first, but
>> legislation based on the 2nd would always be sound, and would not
>> be based on 'Them/Us' because it would take everyones legitimate
>> interests to heart. Needless to say, in areas of morality, we
>> would not accomodate certain lifestyle choices which are regarded
>> as 'abominable' by God, which would include 'Incest, Bestiality
>> and homosexual behavior'. These are not negotiable as far as we
>> are concerned.

Does that still fit with a view of a church that does not do as directed and taking into account the ability of church leaders to manipulate congregations? Christian political parties look like another great opportunity for the church to discredit itself and it's head.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 2:12:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aslan, Thursday, February 17, 2005: He also says: "Pushing their social agenda onto the public, rather than keeping it within their congregations, pits Christianity against other social sectors as a combatant rather than as a conciliator. This is militant Christianity which, at its most conservative, appears to have little to distinguish it from analogous fundamentalist attitudes held by movements such as the Taliban."

Evangelicals are no different from the Taliban? Yeah, right...

You're an idiot Russ.

RESPONSE: So thinking something that you disagree with makes me an idiot? Well, that's just the self-righteous attitude that brings some of the evalgelical groups the reputation they have.

Like the Taliban? Well, sometimes the intolerant attitudes expressed are akin to those of groups like the Taliban. Trouble is, such statements discredit the non-militant evangelicals.

R0bert, Tuesday, February 22, 2005: The christian church has a legitimate role in public debate (just as any other special interest group has). The concern is that that role in debate should not be allowed to turn into imposing their beliefs on others.

RESPONSE: Exactly my attitude. And that is how I distinguish them from what I variously call 'militant/ evangelical/ neo-conservative" forces.

Reasoned dialogue is probably the best way of running a democracy. Nobody should have the right to quash a Christians role in public debate - they represent a body of opinion. The same appplies to gays and similar subcultures, even though we might not like their culture.

Thanks for the dialogue.

...Russ Grayson
Posted by pacific-edge, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 5:54:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy