Martin Ibn Warriq: "... perhaps you could give a 350 word precis of it [Matheson's article] with reference to the article I linked to."

Matheson's prose is perfectly plain. Why don't you just go and re-read it - this time with an open mind?

Ross Douthat's article - the one you referred us to; the one you said was a devastating put-down of Matheson - was merely a review of some American books about religion and politics in the USA. It said nothing about the possible impact of the transfer of hard-line religion into Australian politics.

What do you think, for example, of his claim that the agenda of the American 'Religious Right' will become predominant in Australian politics?

What do you make of Matheson's conclusion that politicians in Australia can continue to depend on the complicity and silence of the churches when it comes to educational disadvantage because of self-interest?

What's your reaction to Matheson's fear that 'Intelligent Design', that 'anti intellectual threat of the first order', will increasingly take its place in science classes in Australia?

What do YOU think?

Don’t be so bad tempered, bushbasher, you were damn well involved in the damn discussion. The topic was <Morality and the 'new atheism'> by Benjamin O’Donnell (1 February 2008); I started posting at page 3. You might recall how surprised I was when the evolutionists failed to deliver on the special status of human beings – something I think is needed to get humanism underway. For example, Yabby said “Nothing significant about us, just a bit larger brain than other species and superior vocal chords”. Celivia said, “So, I’d say that human beings ‘should be’ considered by human beings because of the need to survive ... for self-preservation. There is no reason from an evolutionary [point-of-view] why humans have more value than any other species or more right to survive.” Yabby and Celivia are here being honest and consistent as evolutionists.

Remember, I was surprised: I never thought evolutionists would have much reason to believe humans are special, but I thought they’d believe it anyway.

btw, by “evolutionist”, I don’t mean someone who simply believes that evolution happened (happens) – as that would include me – but someone who believes that’s all there is to us. Besides, I’m not saying evolutionists are inhumane: I’m sure a lot of them are in fact very humane.

However, let’s not lose the plot. My suggestion in the post above is that we all make a decision that human beings are of high and equal value, and act accordingly. Or, that we act “as if” they are of high and equal value. This is something I think we should agree on – to get out of the mire of disagreeing about our reasons – and we don’t have to get sidetracked. Do you think the starting-point I suggest is a good idea?

Pax,

csteele

'Now runner and Boaz have gone to great lengths in other posts to question the Christianity of those who are open to the notion of evolution. If they are to be true to that position I feel they should be prepared to state that Billy Graham is not a Christian.'

Billy Graham and every other person on earth will bow their knee and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. If it is not while you are alive it certainly will be when you die. As far as I know Billy agrees with this. Jesus will not only be declared as Lord but also as our Creator. Hopefully He will be your Lord before that day. God's love has made it possible for a wretch like you and me and Boaz to be pardoned.

goodthief, i very much agree with your starting point. in fact the ability to agree upon this is the very reason i was so astonished and angered by your post. it seemed to suggest otherwise.

what really disgusts me is when religious people claim not just a moral superiority, but a moral monopoly. and, there is no shortage of such who post here. boaz and runner and martin are openly and explicitly in this camp. i distinctly had *not* regarded you as in this camp, and your post made me wonder.

i'm too tired to do the analysis now. i'm willing to accept that i misinterpreted your post. however, i think your use of the term "evolutionist" (and possibly "humanist", too) is not at all standard, and encourages such confusion. and, even using the terms in your manner, i have some difficulty with your post.

i'll write more tomorrow if it seems there's a point. as you say, pax.

bushbasher and others,

I realise many of you know each other better than I know you, so you may regard what follows as either trite or pointless, but I wish to propose something –

That we decide together on a common idea as a starting point. That human beings are, equally, of such high value that we insist that they all always be treated with respect. Or similar.

I know that this idea might need clarification. I know our reasons for subscribing to it are different, and often incompatible. And I know what I’m suggesting probably seems a little saccharine and not at all novel. I’m just a little weary of debating the deeper matters about which we know we disagree, and I’d prefer to generate a message that is potentially constructive.

Can atheists and theists, and different manner of theists, stomach being together on common human ground? Doubtless we will continue to proselytise, but this will have to be done with civility, in keeping with the principle subscribed to, and (I suggest) it will not be our primary interest.

What do you say?

i) Is this worth trying?
ii) Is the suggested principle, or something like it, worth a try?

Pax,

BUSHBASHER....its time to give you a bit of a bash :)

You_said:

"what really disgusts me is when religious people claim not just a moral superiority, but a moral monopoly"

1/ MORAL SUPERIORITY. why yes, of course.. we 'Christians' are far better than you.. we are holier, nicer, more loving, and so it goes on....

NOT!

IF... were regarded ourselves as morally superior, the above is how it would be expressed! Can you honestly find any post by me, GoodThief, Runner or others where we say such ludicrous things about ourselves?

I've said on many occasion, that we are simply sinners who are saved by undeserved grace! When we speak of holiness, we point to the Lord Jesus, to God the Father.. to the Holy Spirit.. NOT...to ourselves.

Its not about 'we' being morally superior.. the only thing I see in our writings is that CHRIST is holier.. than all of us.

2. MORAL MONOPOLY. Hmm.. on this one you are closer to the mark.
But not quite there. What we claim is this:
a) Secularists, atheists.. do not have a foundation for morality, other than simply making it up. No God=No moral foundation .. its only 'existence' and our varied responses to it. We DON'T say 'atheists are immoral' 'secularists are degenerate' we just say "they don't have a foundation" for morality which is universally applicable or unchanging. The most an honest atheist can say about behavior is 'it is legal/illegal' but they cannot say it is 'moral/immoral'.

b) Christians (and those of religious faith) do have.. a foundation.
We might not agree with each one, but we do at least have a reason to believe that such and such is 'wrong' in the moral sense.

OUR FOUNDATION. is not 'rules' but a 'Ruler'.. Christ Himself. We have the commandments as a guide, but in order to live them out, we need "The" Guide.. the Good Shepherd.. the one who gives us 'life indeed'....The Light of the world, the Bread of life, the Way, the True Vine, The Resurrection and the Life, The Door.