Tony Abbott looks a bit like Yoda. It's the ears.

The only thing the Ads might achieve is bringing more people back to Church but I can't see them persuading the atheists and agnostics to Christianity.

It is all getting a bit Americanised, the commercialization of spirituality. Pity.

This is why the Atheists Ads are a waste of time as well, they only speak to the unconverted.

Essentially the same campaign was run in South Australia a few years ago, and in Tasmania a year or two ago (possibly in Victoria as well). Presumably they must have seen some positive results from it, otherwise the New South Welsh wouldn't be going with it as well.

The problem with the analysis in the article is that it expects the same aims as any advertising campaign for MacDonalds or Kentuky Fried etc.

But that is not the point.

What the churches want to do is spread the message, as that is their duty. If people accept it then that is great, if they don't, well, the targets of the advertising cannot argue on the day of judgement that someone didn't tell them.

Even if there is not a single extra bum on a seat in a church the campaign will have achieved its results, that is of spreading of the word. If people don't accept it, then that is up to them, the important thing is that they are given the chance to hear it.

And anyway - it is the 'the churches' money to spend on the campaign, so why criticise them for spending the money of their willing congregations on this advertising?

Dougthebear < ".. it is the 'the churches' money to spend on the campaign, so why criticise them for spending the money of their willing congregations on this advertising?"

I imagine many people would rather see any spare money used to assist the poorer members of the congregation than for advertising?

Surely there is already way too much info out there on the internet, in the religious books and indeed talked about at our own doors some days, for there to be a need for advertising.

How many times has the world been told that the judgement day is to happen on such and such a day, only to find it passes without incident?

I'll take my chances of there ever being such a thing as judgement day, and just try to be a good person without religious advertising to sway my views.

Dougthebear

Further to Suzeonline's point about the money being better spent on the poor, remember that religions receive tax-breaks that add greatly to their coffers.

I can live without the advertising, but would rather my taxes be spent on addressing real issues than propping up the faith industry.

It sounds like we have at least two dyed in the wool socialists here, who want to tell the churches what to do with the money contributed by the congregations of those churches. Of course the churches already do an enormous amount of work with the poor, the infirm and the marginalised of society, probably a lot more than many more organisations.

I can just imagine what would happen if fractelle and suzionline started telling football and other sporting organisations that they should spend money on the poor rather than on paying their players and maintaining infrastructure. I mean, how many homeless people could be provided shelter with the amount of money paid to just one so-called sporting super-star?

The churches, whilst working to ease poverty and suffering also remember John 12:8 "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

The churches' duty statement is the spreading of the gospel. Charitable works are an offshoot of that, the idea of loving others. Meanwhile Christianity takes the point of view that peoples' salvation is just as important as feeding them.

No-one is making you give money for this work, but how many organisations that you belong to have charitable arms such as Anglicare, St Vincent De Paul, Sydney City Mission etc