Kang

Clever response but like most from your crowd, it is ignorant of life and history; and uses sloppy language - labelling all worshipping Christians as "the religious right".

The height of the 20th century secular age has seen Fascist Corporatism and Marxist Communism rise to their bloody zenith, with history showing it as the nadir of humanity.

The maturing secular age of the late 19th century gave us "the survival of the fittest" as a corruption of Darwin's good work, to feed into militarism underpinned by application of "rational thought". Nations corrupted from the top, through the intellectuals and militaristic elites.

Through the sixties we saw "the long march through the institutions" of the secular academic / elites who set about creating their new world, with a deliberate and vicious campaign to push religion into the realm of the "private", with no presence in the public square.

In the public discourse, there can be observed an absurd mindset in the secular fundamentalist. He/she regard, indeed admire, politicians who are in alignment with their view as acting with "political conviction", whilst any politician, or other advocate, daring to uphold a principle deeply embedded in reasoned Christian moral philosophy is labelled as a "cultural warrior".

What sad irony that language firmly established in Catholic Moral Philosophy and Social Teaching - social justice, the common good, proportionality (Just War), dignity of the person, "celebration of the life of", solidarity of the people, subsidiarity - are now borrowed for free use in every day secular use. Yet the richness of their source and core meaning is disparaged.

There is one word that cannot be appropriated; peace. It is not the absence of war, or a safe comfortable life, There is only one peace, an eternal peace in Jesus as the Risen Lord. and to experience it you have to lose yourself; a tough call. But a good life - founded on a rich, free humanity in touch with the God of love and promises.

And of course, this is the foundation underpinning the generosity of the faithful the author writes about.

There is only one,revered by all as the moral measure of compassion and righteousness, one renowned for generosity and compassion during times of loss and suffering, one whose veracity can never be questioned and to whom all should bow in gratitude - The Tooth Fairy!

Dear Boxgum,

very well articulated !

Ponder... can you please make a post comparing and contrasting the relative evidence for

a) Tooth Fairy -actual existence, origin, mission in life.
b) Jesus Christ -life, teaching, death, resurrection.

You may wish to 'Ponder' the result :)

Kenny, you are a worry, you clearly don't read posts, specially those which may suggest otherwise from your entrenched "Christians Hate all non Christians" mantra that you regularly spit out. (do I hear a 'hisss' there too ? :)

As I mentioned, I met the brother of one of the Terrorist suspects yesterday in the court room and had a cordial compassionate conversation. I hardly think that fits your 'model' for Christians, and you full well know my views on "Islam".

What are you on about, David, boxgum's post was a bunch of codswallop.

He said to Kang, 'Clever response but like most from your crowd, it is ignorant of life and history; and uses sloppy language - labelling all worshipping Christians as "the religious right".'

Which crowd exactly does Kang come from, boxgum? He/she didn't associate themselves with some crowd. You have a crowd though, boxgum. The sloppy language you refer to ('religious right') is only what the author wrote: "So who is more compassionate: the religious right, or the secular left?." So I guess you mean the author uses sloppy language. And so he does. What sort of turkey would divide everyone into two crisp categories - 'religious right' and 'secular left'? Well, to start with a religious turkey might do that, because he or she feels the need to see the world in terms of 'us' and 'them', 'redeemed' and 'damned', 'good' and 'evil', 'left' and 'right', 'black' and 'white'.

Boxgum, to say in your words that 'social justice, the common good, proportionality (Just War), dignity of the person, "celebration of the life of", solidarity of the people, subsidiarity' have been borrowed from Catholicism shows that it is in fact You that is ignorant of life and history. Every human civilisation that has ever existed has displayed the attributes you just listed. How can you dare claim that your religion is the proprietor of such things? How arrogant. Fair dinkum.

R0bert

I think you are quite correct as regards the type of question asked and to whom it was asked.

After all it was about a feeling. Do right wing christians FEEL more compassionate to others? I can't imagine any of them saying 'no'.

The real issue is, how do they act towards others?

From the behaviour of the right wing christians on OLO, they:

1. Wish to control the reproductive lives of women.

2. Deny equality between men and women.

3. Deny equal rights to gays and are disingenuous (love the sinner , hate the sin).

4. Deny equality of faith to all religions other than Christianity – they are constantly vilifying Islam on these threads.

5. Resort to threats when disagreed with ie, 'you will burn in hell' (coach), 'you need re-education' (BD), 'you are like hitler' (Meg1) and so on and on.

6. Are more concerned over foetal life than the lives of children – (topically) where is the compassion for Lebanese children? The UN can’t even provide aid - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5256674.stm

7. Justify war in the name of God.

8. Believe greed is good (wealth of catholics, hillsong etc is astronomical compared to what they actually give in charitable work.)

9. Pride - they believe they are morally superior to everyone else and this article is evidence of that.

I really wanted to stay away from this thread, because it is really most unworthy and insulting to all of us. Are there any Christians here who find this article embarrassing?

Finally, however, as a secular person, who regularly donates to charity, performs volunteer work and cares so deeply about many issues that I spend a lot time at OLO, I was personally insulted.

Again I ask, why did OLO publish this piece of vitriol aimed at all who do not share a very limited belief system?

BOAZ-David,
All claims about Jesus arise from hearsay accounts, recorded in the fictional bible, from writings commencing around forty years after the supposed death.
There are no historical contempory records of the time this particular christos was alleged to have existed.
Facts, credible reports, witnesses, these are needed to prove a person's existence, not mere faith.