Excellent sentiments “W”, in theory very commendable. Reality however is some what different.

Monotheism is a self-centred mental aberration lacking true compassion. When you consider the charitable empathy, love and compassion shown in the animal world, it far surpasses any monotheistic delusion they are helping the problems they created. The infantile god belief, thinks it's esoterically superior, when its twice as stupid.

Charitable compassion is in not causing the problems in the first place, by inflicting evangelistic missionary dictatorships and suppressive destructive life styles, upon those happy to keep the environmental laws of the supposed creator. If the monotheists were truly compassionate, they would abandon their obsession for converting at all costs, those happy with their universal understanding of planetary existance.

w you indicated that:"Last week a bunch of christian parliamentarians got together and claimed that christianity is under attack...." Perhaps those Parliamentarians feel particularly vulnerable as there is perhaps a degree of cognative dissonance between what their beliefs might be and the legislation they are expected to vote for. Treatment of refugees has been very ordinary; imprisoning children does not sit particularly comfortably as their development is highly likely to be hindered. Political thuggery has been perpetrated against the least able in the community; the young disabled fellow from WA being an example.

At present I tend to be an agnostic; however, I believe that some of the moral values taught in Christianity are a good guide for anybody. I don't pretend to be a Christian but do get pretty cranky when those expressing a Christian viewpoint are being quite hypercritical. To me "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that; some Christians debating the Middle East do not seem to understand this commandment. The end justifies the means in relation to bombing innocent people in Lebanon it would appear. Just today we heard about how people were escaping from Southern Lebanon, were given the all clear to do so by the Israelis, and were then fired upon. Not the only example of this occuring.

Thank you, K£vin and Scout. I agree with Buddha on this one!
Boxgum, “What is the source of this OUGHT” you ask.
The ‘ought’ is meant to come from the heart, a sincere and natural compulsion-like feeling that one should help the person who needs it. The heart is the source. I am not at all denying that religious people can do good and charitable work- what they do is sometimes wonderful; but I think that the delight one finds in helping someone is a feeling that most people naturally possess and has nothing to do with religion- religion does not ‘install’ this 'need to give' in people, it is already there, from birth.

Some people, unfortunately, through circumstances or upbringing, may lose this need to give; they focus on their own life too much and lose contact and interaction with their environment.
That’s why elderly people are sometimes not missed when they die and are found weeks after they died, alone in their unit or house. That’s why some people don’t look out for someone else’s kid- the kid that is still so young, still in primary school, but out in the dark till late at night. That’s why people criticise others without compassion.

Perhaps we shouldn’t even judge the selfish- one never knows what another person has gone through during his/her life and perhaps this person needs some time to heal, to get back in touch with the world. If there are enough compassionate and giving people in the world, then perhaps it doesn’t really matter that a small percentage of people do not give; I doubt that selfish people have anything sincere TO give.

2B continued

W:
True, it would be irrational to ask someone to change their beliefs; but I also think that it is human nature to search for the truth.
I don’t think that there is any harm in questioning each other’s beliefs and statements, it’s more like offering a different view- not asking to change their beliefs but to investigate them more.

If belief is fundamental to the human condition, and if searching for the truth is also human nature, then having beliefs that are based on the truth are the best of two worlds.
Instead of reason being the antithesis of faith that it is now, wouldn’t people prefer a faith that came from the truth? Why base a belief on a lie or misconception or outdated information?

If someone makes a statement, no matter where the source is that this statement came from, isn't one free to disagree and ask for a backup or evidence of that statement?
If that person is not able to provide that explanation, can't one question the truth of that statement? One can attack it and one can dismiss it.

Why should anyone blindly have to accept statements just because the religious would otherwise feel attacked?

Communication is all about sharing ideas, explaining ideas, and accepting or dismissing each others ideas after consideration. Questioning statements is just about wanting to expand one’s mind, it’s not disrespectfully attacking.

Perhaps the fact that the Christian religion is feeling attacked is not such a bad thing. Perhaps it’s time for them to dive deeper, to come up with stronger answers, not only to satisfy their questioners but also to even strengthen their own beliefs, if they find the right answers or change that belief if they find the wrong answer. Perhaps they will find that their beliefs need some updating, or a view from a fresh angle.
Does the truth just lie in our ability to believe in it?

Ant, agreed re hypocrisy. In itself, “Thou should not kill” is a beautiful statement/commandment.

You are of course right W, the answer isn't in attacking any group if we all wish to arrive at peaceful, loving outcomes. We are all human and all deserve our say. The only problem I have with many Christian postings, and the religious right in particular, is in being dogmatic to the very extreme, they seem to fuel violent outcomes - as pointed out by yourself and others regarding gay pogroms in Poland:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#49565

In most of my postings (also can be seen on the above link), I have tried to focus on our common humanity and a vision of what a world could look like if everyone, like Christ (and Buddha., Ghandi, et al of course), took the peaceful path. Unfortunately many right wing Christians use psychological and physical brute force to impose their misconceived beliefs on others. Quoting other ‘significant’ Christians such as Augustine (who were struggling to discover the true meaning of Christianity themselves), is no substitute for referring to the lived example of the man himself – which they conveniently never do.. As I’ve said before “it is not the collar that maketh the priest”.
I really cannot believe for a second that Christ himself (by looking at the life he lived) would ever sign up to a doctrine of ‘just wars’.

Similarly, Christ had greater admiration for the old woman who gave her last 2 pennies to the poor (everything she owned) than generous offerings from very wealthy people who kept most of it for themselves.

Is the over representation of religous people in charitable endevours an explanation for the low efficiency of many charities in addressing the problem the charities claim to be addressing/