>> Christian principles infuse our society and they are a force for good. They make this a more humane society than most others now and before.

i see. and these "christian principles" infused society for the last two thousand years of the church's charming history? wouldn't these "christian principles" be strongest when the church was most powerful? is burning people still a "christian principle"? anybody got a true scotsman handy?

>> What I don't understand about this thread is the hatred that many of the posters have towards Christianity specifically.

it's not hatred, it's, at least from me, contempt. and it's not "christianity", it's a certain type of special pleading crap that SOME religious types like to indulge in. as to how this whiny "you don't understand me" form of religion gets to be a pasttime of privileged christians? who knows?

>> After all, these beliefs have led them to minister to the poor, build hospitals, schools, universities and campaign for free speech and equal rights.

yep. and others preach death-promoting nonsense about condoms in africa. good acts and bad acts are judged on their merits.

>> The lack of tolerance that I see from some avowedly atheistic posters

give it a break. it's not "intolerance". intolerance is throwing gays in prison because some charmers a few thousand years ago wrote that god is straight.

>>> you appear to be saying that Christians aren't entitled to allow their own opinions to inform their public arguments.

graham, do you know what the word "argument" means?

>> but I don't deny Pell and Abbott the right to their own opinions.

no one does. they have the right to their opinions. we have the right to hold their opinions in contempt. we have the right to question the basis of their opinions. we have the right to question the worth and wisdom of moral stances stemming from an unprovable god.

honestly, graham. there is no substance to your attacks. there is no enunciation of your own beliefs. all you do is whine.

eAnt wrote: “He cites the dramas social destruction of community cohesion cultures and tribal nations in PNG at the hands of both organised religion and atheism.

I have witnessed the same amongst Australian indigenous people. I too challenge your religious Darwinism.”

After settlement of Australia there was great loss of life among the Aborigines by disease and at the hands of the European settlers.

Without Christian missionaries the loss of life by the Aborigines would have been much greater.

According to “The Lamb Enters the Dreaming” by Robert Kenny the popular belief among educated secular people before Darwinian theory was accepted was that the Aborigines were a separate species so killing them was not killing humans. Many missionaries believing literally in the Bible saw all people including the Aborigines as descended from Adam and Eve and did what they could to prevent the slaughter.

According to other accounts I have read missionaries saw the indigenous peoples as human but inevitably members of a dying people so their first concern was to get them baptised before they died so they would go to heaven.

It was only after Darwin’s “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex” became generally accepted that people in general saw Aborigines as part of the human species.

GrahamY,

Jesus didn't say that about the law that's his extra commandment.

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

Here’s what he said about the law…

Jesus, (Matthew 5:17-20), empowers the law of Moses & the prophets plus UNEQUIVOCALLY states in verse 18 "As long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."

He’s emphatic with his toolbox!

I’m not saying to burn the OT....I said Christians should let it go! The Bible is a seriously flawed document and you’ve realised it.

You didn’t answer – Why did Jesus celebrate a fib (the Passover)?

Either Jesus (the Son of God) believed God killed all Egyptian firstborn or he didn’t!

And what of these?

HEALINGS (again) - When will the first amputees leg grow back through God’s grace?

Matthew 17:20...NOTHING will be impossible for you!...So no Christian alive has the faith of a mustard seed?

Did Jesus take credit for healing an epileptic fit? Mark 9:14-29 After a fit people go into a deep sleep…OOPS a fib?

PRAYER – John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”- I can’t see much evidence of this, can you? (See healings again).

I can go on but do you see amputed legs growing back? Perhaps amputees don’t pray! Let’s pray for just one!

Can you see God feeding the starving? Perhaps hungry people don’t pray either!

Or is it because Christians lack faith?… Jesus said so! Matthew 17:20 again!

So either Jesus doesn’t do what he states and is a fibber OR the TV showing starving, lame people is telling lies? Which one is it?

Lastly, Jesus on hellfire and damnation Matthew 5:22…Matthew 5:29…Matthew 10:28…Matthew 13:50…Matthew 23:33…Matthew 25:30…Luke 13:28 plus many more! Are churches now selective?

Runner I’ll get to you! I’m sure your God is so impressed by your promoting his lack of intelligence! Cain’s wife was his sister, Runner? That’s pathetic! Your religionusment educationamalisation needs improving!...Ha!

pelican,
>>Some believe in a supernatural entity some don't. ... Some believe that “the Cosmos is all that there is ...<<

Of course, for the man in the street both statements appear to mean the same. However, I thought your original request for a "psychological and philosophical" insight went deeper than that, and was free of the emotional baggage that usually goes with an apology. We all have things we believe to be true, and we might want to understand what the other person believes (usually supported by what he/she calls “evidence“ or lack of it) and I thought this was what you wanted. That, however, can be done only if we all can agree on the meaning of terms used to express this belief (or disbelief). Otherwise we just speak past each other, as happens often when religion is discussed also on this OLO.

That is why I prefer Sagan's description (Dawkins has a similar one) of what he BELIEVES, not of what he does not believe. I do not share his belief but it is clear to me what he means by it, since he cannot be accused of having a 19th century understanding of the material world (Cosmos), and the associated philosophy of science, as some atheist, as well as theist, contributors here seem to have.

This cannot be said about concepts like "supernatural" or "supreme being" created by Western metaphysics, probably to reconcile the Hebrew and Greek roots of our cultural heritage. People have many different understandings of this concept, some of them rather naive, thinking it covers also phantasies like fairies, Spaghetti Monster or the Easter Bunny.

Like one can have a pre-QM understanding of elementary particles but then one cannot enter into serious discussions about contemporary nuclear physics. Such a person can either try to “uncritically” understand what specialists tell him/her - and not all physicists are good popularisers - or get himself/herself “personally involved“ by studying a lot of physics (and mathematics). The same about understanding what e.g. a Christian, informed by contemporary science, believes.

The skeptics and atheists are far more dangerous that we realize. The fundamentals of good government are contained in the New Testament with guidance towards them in the Old Testament and both books are essential to a full and complete understanding of the system of government introduced by Jesus Christ. We have many posters who decry the barbarism of continental Europe. They attribute this to Christianity but it was more a counterrevolution against Christianity, than Christian.

The golden age of European settlement both in Australia and the North America came about because the fundamental principles of the Holy Bible were incorporated into the very fabric of society. They were incorporated into the two great Constitutions the United States and Australian and while places like Argentina and all of South America and most of Africa have descended into barbarism, under the teaching of a church based in Italy, the British based societies have remained relatively stable.

However because we have a small but vocal core of atheists who do not believe in one God, and a lot of poorly educated fellow travelers, we have had self seeking individuals enter our Parliaments and create about one thousand God fellows, some male and some female, and insinuated them into every town in Australia. What are Judges and Magistrates but little local gods. They are a remnant of the English occupation of Ireland, and the colonial occupation of the British Empire, and the continued colonization of Australia by big business interests. They are totally Old Testament. They are part of a widespread and systematic oppression of the bulk of the civilian population, and as members of point two five of one percent of the population, are an absolute menace to all and sundry.

These members of the legal profession practice enslavement, because they exercise without authority lawfully granted all the attributes of ownership over their fellow Australians. Freedom comes from jury trials, and the exercise by twelve people in conclave, of the God given collective mind. The Commonwealth made what Judges and Magistrates do a crime in 1995. The penalty:25 years jail

Unless this "letter" is from God, complete with photos and audio evidence, then it is the same old, same old. Man trying to justify a belief that was valid when man knew little about the world and it's environments.

"In Myers’ world God does not create and nor does he answer prayer.". In this case then Mr Myer's shows good judgement as there are never answers to prayers. How can there be when there is no God?

How silly are those people who spend their lives praying but when questioned say "God moves in mysterious ways" and also that God chooses what he will do. So why pray at all? The mighty he has a mind of his own apparently.

Young makes this statement:

"An anti-Christian crusade has been growing for years". And then tries to decry it. Why? There is no "crusade" at all. Just people seeing through the insanity of believing the 2000 year old fallacies of frightened jewish men from that era. They never intended today's people to swallow their fantasies, they didn't really expect their own people to do so. But Young does. Ands thinks there's a movement, plotting and planning to bring down Christianity.

Christians do that all by themselves Mr Young. They cannot and will not live by their own rules thus demonstrating the fake ideology.

Paranoia MR Young, paranoia. Atheists don't meet nor do they have secret handshakes and all the trappings of a Pope who claims condoms foster AIDS.