Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.
They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.
Then the Lord said to Moses. "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."
So as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.
Numbers 15:32,34,35,36.

So if you vote on Saturday do you get stoned on Sunday?

@ Paul,
please give the bible the same courtesy you'd give reading Cinderella. The way you've just read the bible, you're the kind of guy that should be stamping your foot with frustration, and yelling "Cinderella can't marry the Prince! She'd never make it to the ball. She's stuck in the basement washing the ugly stepsister's clothes, it says so in Chapter 1!"

Do yourself a favour and *actually* get acquainted with one of the foundational texts of Western thought. Stop pretending to know the bible, and get to know it. Read the letters of the Apostle Paul, especially Galations and Romans. Read Hebrews. And then get back to us on how Christians actually view the Old Testament law. If we read the bible the way you do we wouldn't *be* Christians. We'd be Jews. Get it?

Separation of church and state is also a Christian idea, as found in Romans. The State is regarded as put there by God to maintain law and order. This is also assumed in passing in the book of Corinthians when Paul discusses church discipline, but does not presume to rule over non-Christians.

So do read those letters of Paul, have a think, and then get back to us.

@ Eclipse now....

Mate.. very nice to see someone with some big picture grasp of the Old Testament/New Testament and an understanding of the Covenant.

But you lost me a little on that last bit:

//But if the Greens are a part of the *Senate conversation*, they can help make Australia far more compassionate about refugees and global warming.In these very pragmatic issues they are far more compassionate.//

Given the real agenda of the Watermelons (Greens), I can't believe you don't see such expressions of 'compassion' for what they really are.. political opportunism extrordinaire.

Have a read of "Agenda 21" and think about "GLobal Government".... those things form part of the Watemelon Agenda mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

"Behind the Green Curtain" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7934453684194357754#

Vancouver Declaration 1975

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.
Secondary Source: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm

Primary Source (for verification)

http://habitat.igc.org/vancouver/vp-d.htm Just read the first paragraph of the preamble.

Green watermelons have wormed their way into the UN and exist in many levels of our own government beaurocracy.... be afraid.. very afraid.
*socialism* is knocking at your door..and it wears a U.N. hat.

Banjo today there is a ticker that Gillard wants a Republic when the Queen's reign ends. But I'd assume that will be the system of a President appointed in similar way to the GG.

I think most people want a President - that everyone gets to vote for.
And that is a major problem how would the constitutional change be arrived at. We would a forum and referendum that did not reach any agreement on a Republic. How much time and money do we want to spend on this. I'd also say if Gillard wins and moves to a GG style republic would you want someone who deposed the elected PM setting up the President. Let's forget it

Banjo and Rob- we should start a new separate Republic thread, because this is something I would like to talk about in more detail in its own right- if neither of you get around to it first I'll make one to start if off.

Relating that to the religion debate- well, it really comes down to constitutional reform and expansion of democratic input rights.

Eclipse Now

You write

'You seem to fear the Greens forming GOVERNMENT. But they’ll be lucky to form the balance of power. This means they won’t be able to just foist any of their ‘bad’ policies onto Christians, because neither of the main parties want to be seen as banning scripture teaching in schools, and neither support gay marriage. (As if banning Gay marriage somehow makes Oxford Street any less what it is? I don’t really care! That’s up to them!)'

I don't fear the Greens getting into power but I certainly don't wish it upon our children and future generations. Ultimately the worst they can do is lock someone up for telling the truth like the Victorian Government tried to do recently with the 2 Danny's. I would like to think that future generations had the freedoms that I have had growing up. Unfortunately those that don't hold biblical family values will continue to push their lack of values on the rest of society.

You also write

'But if the Greens are a part of the *Senate conversation*, they can help make Australia far more compassionate about refugees and global warming.'

This is really an insult to most of your own congregation. You seem to have swallowed the notion that the lefites are more generous and compassionate than others. They are certainly more generous with tax payers money but you could hardly say encouraging leaky boats is compassionate. You ignore the number of deaths caused by this 'compassionate policy'. Labour/Greens are always generous with others money. You should not have to think to much to see that even your own church members are far more likely to give money to poverty and other causes than the general population.