Boxgum, I studied the doctrine of just war at university. I am not a pacifist and believe some resistance to aggression may sometimes be a lesser evil, e.g. against Hitler. However I am asking you, as a professed Christian who cares about compassion, apparently, whether you feel that the bombing of innocent civilians (and I'm not talking of the vexed question of accidental collateral damage, but large scale deliberate bombing of civilians, of the kind we are witnessing in Lebanon)- whether you as a Christian are opposing this or is your belief in the teachings of Jesus conveniently selective ? I have been waiting in vain to see whether or not you Christians are going to mount any appropriate opposition to the US, UK, and Australian governments' involvement and approval of wholesale destruction. Because whatever else you might call the conflict in Iraq, Lebanon or Palestine, it sure as hell ain't "just war."

Kevin
I do not want to be cruel, but you do sound so sappy.

I was taught of the Jesus meek and mild as a child, in a Church that was in its final dying counter reformation era pre Vatican II. As an adult in the 1980's, I was introduced to the beauty, wisdom and frightening challenge of the Scriptures - the Word, the Living Word, the Word made flesh, "from whom all things came to be..."

And there are plenty of scenes where, this Word made flesh, Jesus, lashes out and is full of threatening, severe language; even to Peter, he said "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.' when Peter refused to see what Jesus' call was to be. Jesus was also tough on the Pharisees when he encounters them; "you brood of vipers.."; he upturns the tables of the money changers in the Temple.

So let us not to be too timid, and seek comfort in a wishy washy outlook that somehow all things can be loving and peaceful. As I said in a earlier post, there is only one source of peace in this world and that is the Word made flesh as the Risen Lord. But it is not a comfortable existence. It means you HAVE TO love all and do all in love as Jesus did in response to his Father. Such is the way of a follower of Christ.

Kang. If you studied the Just War doctrine, why are you carrying on about the 5th Commandment? If theology is faith seeking understanding, this Doctrine is a reasoned response informed by Scripture and human reason.

My view is that with modern weaponry, there can be no just war involving modern states today. The current war in Lebanon cannot be justified using the Just War Doctrine. It is an indictment of a State that only came into being due to the evil secular religions of fascism and communism that persecuted systematically the Jewish people.

As a self proclaimed member of the secular left, I have disagreed in various forums with BOAZ_David(mostly, I hope, amicably, certainly always from BOAZ_David's end).

It is pretty clear we have starkly different views on several important issues (e.g. abortion, homosexuality), that could be seen as central to our "levels" of compassion, and yet I don't believe BOAZ_David is particularly lacking in compassion, and certainly don't think I am hateful.

And the reason is because I have to agree with BOAZ_David that "I don't think much is to be gained from putting up any compassion scoreboard".

At its core, this is precisely what the article has attempted. And this scoreboard has been marked in two methods-
1)"for example, they <conservatives> are three percentage points more likely to say they have tender, concerned feelings for the less fortunate"
2)Religious people of all political persuasions are 40 per cent more likely to donate to charities each year than secular people

Even the author thought method one was a bit dodgy ("talk is cheap").

Boxgum believes-"It appears to me that the mob seeks to lynch the author Brooks due to their accented animosity to all things Christian. Perhaps they could organise a collective effort to go back to the research findings and debunk the findings published by Brooks."

So has anyone attempted to tackle "pissing contest" [thanks Scout :) ] point number 2?

Well, there appear to be 2 methods of rebuttal-
The first is the "lynch"ing, though here it is more than just attacking Brooks because he is Christian. Because Brooks has set the premise of the article that the religious are more compassionate than the secularist, pointing out the compassion "deficit" in certain Christian actions or history, is attempting to expand on the measures of compassion Brooks wrote about (and I can't find much personal lynching of Brooks himself in these responses).

This method is not intellectually rigorous, and not statistically backed up, but must at least be as logically valid as claims that "There is only one peace, an eternal peace in Jesus as the Risen Lord" (boxgum)

(continued…)

(…from previous)

The second method of rebuttal is to more explicitly question the measurement of compassion from a survey of charitable donation behaviour. I’m sure attempts to "debunk" the findings "published" by Brooks would be attempted if their sources had been included…

Nevertheless, arguments have been made, about the types of charities supported and the proportions of charitable donations to incomes(though also without sources?).

The best attempts at debunking the flawed "compassion scoreboard" premise of this article have been quite obvious examples of how non-religious people may show their compassion. I have to thank Celivia for demonstrating compassion can consist of daily acts of kindness, Scout for reminding us that compassion can be supporting human rights (such as the right to reproductive autonomy (including abortion) and the right to choose a consenting adult sexual partner(s) of choice), and w for bringing to the forum what has become one of my instant favourite quotes “Give money to an impoverished child and you’re a saint. Question why she’s poor and you’re a Communist.”

As a "secular leftie", without wishing to speak for too many others (maybe only those with no voice...), off the top of my head I can think of many compassionate acts that are not "donations" to charity-
1)Giving blood
2)Becoming an organ donor
3)Not consuming meat
4)Buying organic/ fair trade
5)Recycling
6)Using public transport
7)Avoiding unnecessary waste
8)Avoiding unnecessary consumption
9)Using "green" energy
10)Getting a first aid certificate/CPR training
11)Protesting unfair laws/wars/attitudes

You may debate the merits of some of these actions, but surely it is hard to see them being done for anything other than compassionate reasons?

Now, to show my bias..."Charity", to me, has always very much been an excuse for conservatives to justify the exploitive power relations they support, by feeling good about themselves and the world they create for giving away a fraction of their (ill gotten)wealth. Whether this is entirely fair, if this view is even partially held by other "secularist lefties", charitable donations are not a good measure of their "levels of compassion", even if one was wont to measure such things...

(Not so)strangely wibble, a secular leftist, and undoubtedly compassionate in your attidues (loved all of your examples of possible campassionate expression), in your last point, you seem to agree exactly with Jesus' take on this - scroll up again and read the last part of my last post.

wibble, from the perspective of a secular "righty" - well said.

R0bert