Inner Sydney Transexual, you make an interesting comment here:

"They also claim there religion is a fount of much goodness, and that by living by it, they are better persons."

I have to disagree here. The central message of Christ was that we're ALL bad by nature and need Christ to connect us with God. So the Christian view puts ALL people as inherently with a bad nature, whereas I'd argue that it's actually modern day secular humanism which puts humans first and has a more positive view of humans and their behaviour.

Despite this, it would seem that Christians are showing themselves to in fact be more compassionate citizens, if the research is anything to go by. Studies in both the states and Australia has consistently shown that Christians give twice as much to charity as the non-religious, that they're more likely to volunteer their time, and that they're more likely to be teachers, nurses and doctors (ie: The professions that are involved with helping others and generally poorly paid given the education and effort involved).

On the topic of the Sellick article, someone made an accurate comment earlier on. It was something like "This article shouldn't been named the compatibility of Christianity and atheism". I agree. I actually find it difficult to understand exactly what, if anything, Sellick actually does believe in.

Correction. That was meant to read as follows:

"This article should've been named the compatibility of Christianity and atheism".

The word I hate most to describe anyone is judgmental. Yet everyone of us makes judgments every day. The centerpiece of Christianity, is to be non judgmental. An atheist does not have that scriptural prohibition. Consequently, when the State sets out to be a Judge, by setting up a set of circumstances that if fulfilled, lead to a certain result, and raise an army to enforce that result, you have atheist government.

That was what the Communists did in Russia, Hitler did in Germany, and Rob Askin did in New South Wales, in return for $5,000 a week for himself and Norman Allen. Abe Saffron in 1970 bought the State. In 1976 he or someone just like him bought the Commonwealth. The system he bought is not Christian. A mirror has a bright and dark side, this is the dark side.

We have abandoned our Christian system of government, for a judgmental atheist one. In Christianity, ( not the Roman variety) everyone is equal before Almighty God. In Atheist society, Judges rule and no one is equal. In Christian society juries rule. If a person is equal before Almighty God then he or she should be able to avoid the Judge. Jesus hated them too, and refused to become one. He could have judged the woman caught in adultery but declined.

To this day, an application to the Supreme Court is called a prayer. Even when Almighty God told Jesus to be a Judge, he declined. Instead he offered the Christian alternative. The Trinity. Me and my Father, won’t judge you, but the Holy Spirit knows what is in your heart. I am gone but the Holy Spirit remains. The only way you will get a fair go, is if you pray to the Holy Ghost. Every other way is called blasphemy.

The judgmental sonsabitches Atheist wannabe gods, who were created by Rob Askin and Malcolm Fraser , have denied this fundamental Christian right to pray where Almighty God actually meets his people which is in a court. All Judges are atheists, because the tree is known by its fruit

Spikey,
Anyone familiar with the Bible, in particular Ephesians chapter 6, would know that it speaks of spiritual authorities in the heavenly realms dominating certain events to the detriment of those on earth. This passage advocates prayer and nothing more.

The “pulling down of Satan’s strongholds” is a well known exhortation to prayer in this manner. Many Christians would be happy to pray against the harmful effects of brothels and gambling places. They would also pray for all, of each and every faith, to have spiritual enlightenment to allow proper understanding of the Gospel.

Lateline’s Tony Jones might well understand all of this. Yet he must portray evangelical Christians in the worst possible light. It is part of his job description as an ABC employee.

I said that Nalliah and Scott ‘were dragged through Victoria’s courts after offering their opinion on another religion.’ If you want to disagree, could you clarify which part of this you disagree with? Even by what you say, they were indeed dragged through the courts. And they were giving their opinion on Islam. If you have any evidence that they incited hatred, then let’s hear it!

After several court appearances, I understand that finally no convictions were sustained. If Scott and Nalliah had gone to jail it would have really put egg on the face of the government. With Australia’s international agreements, how could we put citizens in jail for speaking their conscience?

Victoria’s vilification laws might have been a nice idea, but in practice these laws have failed us. We should have remained with the laws that have served us well for generations.

Adam,
Since you’ve iterated your statement, I’ll try and elaborate on why I don’t like it. ‘What is the point of believing in something that we could never comprehend?’

I’m suspecting that at the root of your question is that you think belief in God is a mere intellectual exercise divorced from hard reality. But I’ll assure you that for any devout believer, God is an everyday practicality. That he makes his presence felt is enough, even if we can’t understand the depths of all mysteries.

I like chess. If I ever had the opportunity to sit at a chess table with Gary Kasparov and have him explain his moves, I would take it. Yet after many months of listening, I would still only comprehend a small fraction of his chess knowledge. Yet it would still be worth it to me. Similarly, I’ll take whatever is on offer from God’s table.

As for you saying that the Bible is a rather ordinary book, I think that on the measure of book sales (every year since Gutenberg) and the number of available language translations alone, these mark the Bible as a rather extraordinary book.

Oliver,
If I was born in Ancient Greece, would I be a worshiper of Zeus? To such a hypothetical question, since I wasn’t born there, the only answer is, who knows? Yet I can say that, having sometimes lived in French speaking countries, I have been a worshiper of ‘Dieu’. I understand that linguistically, Dieu is somewhat a derivative of the word Zeus.

You claim that Christianity shares patterns found in other religions. Many times I’ve heard posters say this type of thing, often those who are arguing against theistic faith, but I don’t understand their point. If God is over all mankind and has revealed himself, at least in part, through his creation, is it not expected that all cultures and religions reflect this commonality?

Good People,

I have only just seen this rather flamboyant article by Peter Sellick. Peter is not prepared to read the criticisms of religion by recent authors because they are not speaking of the god he describes and believes in. If I am reading him correctly, his god is a mystery even to most of those who believe in it, so he says, and by extension, Atheists are merely in opposition to the god of populism and not the real god that only Peter and a few elites follow.

There is no evidence for Peter’s god anymore than there are evidences for the many populist gods that have and do exist. There is not even a pause for serious reflection on that point.

This article is one interpretation of what a god should be, not dissimilar to many other versions, which all, too varying degrees, leave out the bad parts from the source of belief. (Holy books)

Let me assure Peter that it is pure bunkum to say Atheists are not Atheists unless they reject a certain idealised description of a god. Atheists do not care if the alleged Jesus character, in combination with an alleged holy spirit and an alleged Yahweh, can be read about in ancient writing as being good, bad or indifferent. This is of mild alleged historical and philosophical interest only.

It is the consequences of that belief, which concern Atheists. It is the impost on young minds, by the known method of indoctrination, which concerns Atheists. It is the affect on politics of that child’s decisions as an adult, which is of concern. The argument that it is ethically sound to impose beliefs onto immature minds because it is the ‘truth’ rings the same for all religions. It is therefore, ethically unsound.

Religion would have some credibility if the determiner for supernatural beliefs systems were not geographical location, were consistent in interpretation, not propaganda dependent, had evidence universally accepted and such a belief caused no harm.

The article is an attempt to create an invisible target for Atheism. It failed dismally on all counts.

David