Quote Xena " I don't know why people who disagree always demand magic solutions to their questions. No one said its easy. Talk/compromise does work. War should always be the last resort and it hasn't been the case in Iraq. Also, Phil, if you have "in your posession" documents proving the existence of WMD's (either now or in the past) how come no one else has? How come this is the first we've heard about it?"

Hi! I am not expecting magic solutions just practical solutions. To object is easy, talking is cheap, action is costly and someone will be hurt - that is the sacrifice of protecting our values and creating social revolution.

Xena,I suggest you write a script for the negotiators seeking the release of David Wood. These are the minds we must change, they will shoot before they hear what you have to say. For them if you are a woman you are a lesser being and have no say, unless you are appropiately attired you are influenced by western values, unless you bow in submission you will not be accepted in their presence.

With regard to the United Nations Report on Iraq; I have friends and relatives involved in the Elite Australian Armed Forces who were involved in Iraq and with the war equipment preperations. It is not the first time these UN reports are available. The UN constantly monitored Iraq before the Coalition invasion.

I am a Christian and hate physical combat but sometimes it is the only course of action to protect the people we value. Jesus never outlawed soldiers, in fact he ministered to Roman soldiers Matt 8: 9. Paul uses soldiers equipment as an example of spiritual warfare. The final revelation of Jesus is a dramatic war of the world. Jesus never spoke against war, or slavery; but it has been Christians who have led the way in outlawing slavery.

Philo, I said war is the last resort - something the USA has forgotten.

Now please return to topic if U have something to say. You claim to be a christian so where are your 'christian values' of compassion, equality and justice for all.

John is talking about applying the values of christianity to world problems not the hijacked right wing version which only serves the wealthy.

Read the article again. Please.

A very interesting article. As others have said, it is refreshing and some good idea's. I really like the Campolo approach of a clear seperation between the civil and religious aspects of marriage.

I do suspect that christians on the "left" make the same mistake that christians on the "right" make by ignoring the parts of the message that don't suit. The author appeared to make this point but then included statements which looked to me as though he was ignoring some significant parts of the bible.

- The biblical accounts of God ordered wars do not look like a strong anti war position.

- Support for the poor is not as many on the left would have us believe. The bible is much more pragmatic on the issue, try 1 Timothy 5:9-16 and see how well it fits with the left's views on welfare. Sorry about the King Jim language, plenty of King James on line and not much else.

1Ti 5:9-16 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn [to be] idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.

Robert, have you listened to any of Tony Campolo's messages ? I'm rather glad to hear his name mentioned favorably by those who are not quite on the same side of the spiritual fence as me, and ironically, it was Grace Pettigrew who suggested that my 'right wing fundamentalist bigot' friends like Campolo, are not worth listening to.
Rob, Campolo is not exactly my cuppa on every issue, but he is an inspiring and committed Christian with a very radical message, and hilariously funny on some things. Pls do a search and have a listen to "It was friday, but sundays comin". There are many other good talks, addressing issues of poverty and 3rd world involvement.

Ringtail, (and fiona)
I fail to see why disagreeing with you, and taking a stand on particular moral issues immediately classifies us as "without compassion". We may not be expression an image of God which suits you, but it sure is the Biblical God. Fiona, I dont see where I represented God as 'vengeful' ? but I will proclaim Him as 'JUST'.

Fiona, the issue between your assessment of scripture as 'interesting but self serving documents' and mine as 'the light of life' should be able to stand the test of scrutiny. I don't see any 'self serving' in scripture, if u can find some, please let me know. Without doubt it will ultimately come down to a 'faith' issue, but along the path to that conclusion, there is much of value that can be discussed.

Paul preached a message which he knew would (and did) result in great personal suffering, I find little 'self serving' in that. He talked the talk and walked the walk and we are blessed because of him.

I would like to focus on one of the other issues not yet commented upon, in an offering that is refreshing for the frankness contained, given that it is from a religiously motivated source.
Quote,"Wallis briefly touches on the underlying greed and individualism that form the foundation for our capitalist society. He exposes the myth of modern advertising which claims that more goods will make us happy. While Wallis merely scratches the surface on this issue, it is certainly a fertile area for Christians to contribute positively yet radically to the social policy debate." Unquote.
From this quote it would appear that Wallis is against greed, which is to be applauded. It is a universal human foible that creates problems for society regardless of where it is manifested. What I do have a problem with, is the idea that individualism should be viewed in the same light. It is no suprise that Wallis should denigrate individualism, because there are very few religions, Christian or otherwise, that do not make greater or lesser demands of conformity on their members. Herein is the fundamental [pun intended] problem for religious intervention in the political process, i.e. when religious belief is utilised to create political discipline. The techniques of advertising and religious proselityzing are often indistinguishable from each other, and certainly borrow from each other as expediency dictates.
Individualism is a powerful force for the creativity and imagination that is needed for the advancement of humankind, and it is painfully obvious that we still have a long way to go, so why seek to muzzle it?, unless your motivation amounts to the sort of corruption that Wallis apparently, and justifiably, rails against elsewhere.

Even more to the point, if your vote is not an individual decision, then there is evil of one sort or another at work, and the democratic process is threatened.
Majikthise

I think John, in his supportive review of Jim Wallis's book has one of the most ironic titles imaginable. "Reading the Bible with a pair of scissors" properly highlights Jim Wallis's approach.
Both Jim and John seem to support the concept of forcing people to be charitable (i.e. Taxing for social security), a concept found no-where in the bible.
Certainly Jim must cut out many parts of the bible to support the promotion of the homosexual agenda.

As a Christian, I too believe we should not automatically support any party, but instead use our power to vote to support the candidate which is on the correct side of the most important issues. This is obviously the abortion issue. The murder of innocent defenseless humans sanction by the government has more victims than just the unborn child. It adversely affects the mother, the father, future children of the mother, and so indeed, affects all of society.

My biggest problem with the left side of politics is that 'social progressives' seek to remake how society is structured away from a family unit towards some more state centric unit. This is not biblical. The push for more moral freedom, and yet enforcing charitable donations is a hypocrisy that highlights perhaps their motives are not as clear cut as people like John and Jim try to claim. Ultimately, destroying the foundations of society by moving towards a socialistic model has been shown time and again to be fatal to the well-being of everyone is society.

I don't oppose the left because I disagree with the problems they are supposedly addressing, I disagree with the left because their solutions will not solve the problems, but instead cause more problems. And that is something that John and Jim fail to grasp