Scout, I'm very happy to accept that Christianity has contributed both positively and negatively to the kind of society we have become. My point is that we should be honest enough to admit that the contribution happened and that some of it was positive. I think it's curious that there are those who want to deny the role Christianity played or to suggest that its role was entirely negative.

Hey Arnie

Appreciate the response.

I find the philosophy of JC most enlightening and am concerned that many who claim to be christians do not follow his teachings at all and these tend to be the most vocal and controlling of the christian religion at present.

On an earlier post I presented Tony Abbott (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4812#52823) as an example of this behaviour and I will present George W. Bush as another who uses christianity for his own gain.

No point in christians resting on their laurels and expecting gratitude while their religion is being hijacked by a bunch of greedy control freaks. So excuse me, if I don't praise christianity right now.

Agree whole heartedly Scout, BUT, now apply the same knowledge and philosophy against other religions, both Post Modern and Marxoid orientated Idealism also, and dare I say it; Apply it to Islam, I’m sure the shock and ORR of home truths will probably paralyze you temporarily. Let’s see the critical analysis across the board without anti establishment orientation , or run the risk of being dismissed as an Inept trendy.
I am sure that is not what you are. So be fair about it.

"The Christian Right is simply a healthy counter weight for a permissive self regulatory society who's morals standards change over time"

Is this to say the morals of the Christian Right don't change over time? That its adherents never divorce or even use contraception?; That they don't resort to lies (a la Tony Abbott) to influence others?; Or, taken to the logical extreme, belive in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and the stoning of adulterers?

Who determines what is and isn't permissive?
The Christian Right is just the collective name for those who wish to impose their narrow world view onto others.

A parting thought - "Be not righteous overmuch".

Thanks Boaz, have just read Romans 1 re homosexuality, but I was actually asking people exactly what Jesus said about it, I don't think he mentions it in any of the gospels. I never warmed to Paul, knowing he never even met Jesus, and was sexist, very unlike JC. As is so typical in our ghastly human history, someone starts a really good and inspiring movement but then the bastards, seeing an opportunity to get power, horn in and take over and become the experts. In Paul's case, pronouncing on morality and sex as if he were JC himself, not some jumped up ex-clerk big-noting himself. All this chapter proves is that homosexuality has been part and parcel of society forever, so surely better for us to learn to accept it as I'm certain JC would have. I just wish he'd made it clear then we wouldn't have to have silly arguments like this.

Yeah, Kang, it would have been nice if JC could have been clearer on some of the core morality issues...

Problem is, people are always going to interpret it how they want. That is the nature of religion.

I went to a number of schools, and one of them was a fairly affluent, Christian private school. I remember one incident in a religious instruction class.

I brought up the "harder for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven" saying, and said, most of the families at this school are rich? what gives? (or something along those lines.)

The pastor informed me that riches were 'this' particular mans problem.

Well I don't buy that. The saying wasn't "than -this- rich man to enter heaven"

But hey. These people wanna stay rich.

Interpretation.