The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Every person is precious > Comments

Every person is precious : Comments

By Elenie Poulos, published 11/8/2008

We have a deep and abiding responsibility to ensure that our society is based on principles of social justice and equity.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Unfortunately, the Uniting Church has engineered these political port folio's. They have also given license to people such as Elaine - to speak in words and ways, which do not express the gospel. The gospel is the church's charter.

A human rights charter, based upon the best of current day human wisdom, may help society in some aspects. But it will also be used to shut down conversation and opinion, which does not fit the charter. That will include attempts to silence conservative opinions and valid criticisms, regarding cultures, religions, and expressions of sexuality, to name a few current hot spots and semi-no go zones.

Ultimately, the charter may only serve to camouflage the gospel. People may even think that is what the gospel is - a push for human rights. Not so, Elaine. Not so.

"Every person is precious" What does that mean, Elaine? Do you mean, created in the image and likeness of God? That is a high nobility. Do you mean God loves the world, so in that sense we are precious? Do you also say that the heart of fallen humanity is desperately corrupt, thinking 'only evil continually? Some people very clearly become a danger to society and, humanly speaking, less 'precious' to those about them, bearing the pain and terror, that is for certain. Your article is, in short... clear as mud.

The only authentic bleeding heart theology, is that of Christ, who had to do something far more drastic than sign a legal charter, to rectify the evil of society.

I am a UCA member. And I disagree, with you, Elaine. I say 'No' to the Charter. But then, the 'human wisdom' approach has the numbers in the UCA. So that is why you get to write such unhelpful material, and we who seek to preach the cross, as the power to transform society - have to bear with your unhelpful confusion. And yet again, we bemoan our being tied, ecclesially, to 'another gospel'.

Thanks to others who, for various reasons, have also criticised Elaine's opinion!
Posted by tennyson's_1_far-off_divine_event, Tuesday, 12 August 2008 11:33:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elinie,
Why does a responsibility to life (others) have to mean Religion? Logically it doesn’t.
The one thing that always frustrates me on this site and I guess with your piece too is that the unproven(able) absolutism with which a matter of Choice (belief) is proselytized rather than discussed.

I respect your choice but by laying claim to all that is noble as being the sole province of religion smacks of elitism. Likewise claims that it belongs to A SPECIFIC religion are large parts of the reason why there is so much Conflict to day.
What other explanation of diversity makes sense?

“Good will”, “responsibility to life” as ideals are universal and independent of religion. Therefore one is entitled to ask was your purpose to advocate for responsibility or simply to promote your version of Christianity.

Neither is it as the Colonel put it a matter of life’s diversity therefore justifying Survival of the fittest. (A concept quoined by an Astronomer and devout Christian who deliberately misinterpreted Darwin as an insult). Darwin actually advocated Survival of the most able to ADAPT to the environment. One could argue that BECAUSE of that diversity we all live.

My view is that Life is its own destination and its purpose is to maintain existence. Which in turn’s purpose is to maintain life? Nothing more nothing less. All else are man created and therefore equally valid.

Likewise good ideals (responsibility to others) are their own purpose and need no religious affectation they are simply variations on our survival instinct, the reason we live in communities. It makes no sense for thinking people to create communities, only to advance the individual at the expense of those they indirectly rely on for their own survival. Of course we have a responsibility to others ( our communities are simply more complex versions of bee’s) we simply have a more complex (reasoning) processes.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 12 August 2008 2:32:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The dark history of practised Christdom [along side some good], would seem to be an aside to the core values of the NT, who borrowed its values. There has been good and bad in the twentiety-first century, before the twentiety-first century, before the Enlightenment, before Christ, before Alexander the Great, way, way back to genetic Adam. Even Chimps display these characteristics. Being primates, so do we.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 12 August 2008 6:28:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the Rev Sellick. I fail to see how working for social justice is a failure of the Uniting Church’s mandate. The Uniting Church of 1977 that you so fondly recall had this to say in their Statement to the Nation at the Inaugural Assembly:

‘We affirm our eagerness to uphold basic Christian values and principles, such as the importance of every human being, the need for integrity in public life, the proclamation of truth and justice, the rights for each citizen to participate in decision-making in the community, religious liberty and personal dignity, and a concern for the welfare of the whole human race.

'We pledge ourselves to seek the correction of injustices wherever they occur. We will work for the eradication of poverty and racism within our society and beyond. We affirm the rights of all people to equal educational opportunities, adequate health care, freedom of speech, employment or dignity in unemployment if work is not available. We will oppose all forms of discrimination which infringe basic rights and freedoms.’

And to Col Rouge. You write that ‘Our dependence on diversity argues against every person being precious…’ With respect, you appear to have misunderstood the claim. We are all precious to God and this is what unites us in our diversity. That we don’t have the Creator’s capacity for infinite love, to value each person as inherently precious, is why, presumably, we live in a broken world. And surely it is why in the liturgy of the Church we make our confession by saying, ‘I have not loved You with my whole heart. I have not loved my neighbour as myself.’

To tennyson's_1_far-off_divine_event. Frankly, I find it concerning that a self-professed Church member would find the assertion that ‘every person is precious’ a contentious one. You may recall hearing somewhere that God’s grace surpasses all human understanding.

I for one am glad that the Church has weighed into this debate. Issues important to our democracy benefit from being informed by as many considered views as possible.
Posted by Tok, Saturday, 16 August 2008 12:04:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a pity that the 'social welfare' wings of the organised churches are caught up with issues and approaches that the good congregations that pay for them would find abhorrent.

While most congregations would support integrating aboriginals and giving them equal opportunities, many social-rights-welfare advocates support the out-dated apartheit system we have had in Australia for the last 30 years.

While good people put protecting families and protecting children from divorce as a top priority, many social-rights-welfare policies encourage 'winner-takes-all divorce.
Posted by partTimeParent, Monday, 18 August 2008 11:21:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy