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 > Onward Christian voters > Comments

Onward Christian voters : Comments

By Rod Benson, published 30/11/2007

The Christian churches and agencies have served up too much conflicting and confusing commentary and analysis in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
It is of concern to note that the author of this article simply assumes the doubtful right of churches, regardless of belief, to direct their acolytes towards a particular political outcome. It is to be hoped that the post Howard years will put paid to this notion, although Kevin Rudd's own religious convictions may prove to be at least one impediment to that happy result.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Friday, 30 November 2007 12:58:21 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
You think you've got problems. In the Senate it looks like we'll have FF's Fielding and the great unknown media stuntman from SA, Nick Xenophon deciding the fate of Government legislation. Fielding normally voted exactly the opposite to what Barnaby Joyce did. What's he going to do now?
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 30 November 2007 2:26:34 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
There is indeed “a fundamental ideological gulf” between certain sections of the Christian Church, but this is not necessarily a bad thing.

The emergence of a coherent activist right-wing Christian political movement, based mostly in the newer and/or more evangelical churches, and focussed on “family values” such as hostility to divorce, drugs, gambling, homosexual rights etc contrasts with the more familiar (in Australia) left-wing Christian activism concentrated in the traditional churches’ (Uniting, Anglican and Catholic) clergy which emphasises “social justice” and tends to support refugees and multiculturalism and advocate interventionist social and redistribution policies.

This diversity of views is, to my mind all to the good. It contributes to debate and allows churchgoers to think theologically across a range of issues and political perspectives.
As I have argued elsewhere (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1219&page=0#21865 )
the core values of all our main political traditions resonate with Christian values - the left’s solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor and marginalised; liberals’ respect for freedom and unique value and dignity of the individual; the Greens’ concern with creation and misuse of the earth’s resources; and conservatives’ respect for living tradition and concern to sustain common values and social cohesion, for example.

None of our parties has a monopoly on “Christian” values, nor is any party without fault in their interpretation and application of those values. So no political party or movement is the “only” or “best” party for which Christians should vote.

In this context, a diversity of church perspectives is helpful.

The appearance of unanimity is only really attractive to those who want to pass off their interpretation of the best fit between Christian values and parties’ policies as the only one that is legitimate.

We should beware anyone, left or right, that want to tell you that as a Christian you should vote for Party X.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 30 November 2007 3:13:07 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
Rhian

I was really impressed with your post, and particularly your ability to contemplate the worth of each party.

Having grown up in a family of fundamentalist Christians, I can communicate that these people indoctrinate their children that Arabs are our enemies, unless they've been 'redeemed' and converted to Christianity somewhere along the gene pool. Therefore, we are set on a pathway to war with them of biblical proportion. Many of these Born Again Christian groups are borderline sects, and preach to their followers to prepare for the 'hard times'.

Let me give you the 'logic' behind the indoctrination that takes place among born-again Christians:

According to biblical theology, Jacob and Esau, the twin sons of Rebekah, fought in the womb to be the first born.

During the struggle, an arm protruded from the birth canal. The midwife tied a ribbon round the wrist of the protruding arm. However, when the first-born arrived (Esau), he didn't have the ribbon on his wrist. The second-born twin (Jacob), emerged with the ribbon. But because his arm protruded first, he is deemed (by fanatalical Christians) as the rightful firstborn, and rightful heir to the 'promised land', and that dastardly feotus, Esau, cheated to make sure he came first. As you can see, this makes him a dirty-player even before he was born.

According to born-again Christians, whose values are entrenched in Old Testament scribes, Esau (the cheating first born), ended up being the father of the Arabs, while Jacob (the wannabe first-born), was the father of 'the chosen people', the Jews.

This transcribes as Jews being 'righteous' while the poor old Arabs are delegated the evil demon role, and therefore the enemy of Christians.

I believe that is why Australian Muslims are experiencing such appalling discrimination in recent times. And it's directly related to right-winged Christian groups involvement in politics.

When I lived in London many moons ago, I worked with Jews who couldn't fathom the narrow-minded values of born again Christians who were so anti-Muslim, based on Biblical reasoning.
Posted by Liz, Saturday, 1 December 2007 5:39:57 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
Liz,

(PART I)

[[[[During the struggle, an arm protruded from the birth canal. The midwife tied a ribbon round the wrist of the protruding arm. However, when the first-born arrived (Esau), he didn't have the ribbon on his wrist. The second-born twin (Jacob), emerged with the ribbon. But because his arm protruded first, he is deemed (by fanatalical Christians) as the rightful firstborn, and rightful heir to the 'promised land', and that dastardly feotus, Esau, cheated to make sure he came first. As you can see, this makes him a dirty-player even before he was born.]]]]
I am a theologian. What you have said here is simply a fable, and therefore untrue. ‘Chinese whispers’ amongst the unlearned.
Esau was born first, then Jacob. The births were natural, there were no ribbons, and Jacob’s arm did not emerge first. Esau was completely first. Furthermore, it was God who declared that Jacob would rule over Esau.
The full account is at Gen 25:21-26, which is part of the Jewish Torah, which preceded the advent of revealed Christianity by a few thousand years. So it has nothing to do with “fanatical Christians”, but is a Jewish account.

In my second part to you (next post), I explain the significance of this ‘Jacob over Esau’, theologically.
May the Lord bless you as you read.
Posted by Liberty, Sunday, 2 December 2007 10:38:22 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
Liz;

(PART II)

[[[[Esau (the cheating first born),]]]]
As I have pointed out, Esau was the natural first born.

In scripture it was always the second-born who would represent God's calling. That is, in God's choosing to work through the second-born, He was declaring man's will/effort/ability to be of no account when it comes to doing the will of God.

So then we had the first born of Abraham, Ishmael, by natural means, but the second born, Isaac, was born supernaturally, for Sarah his mother was 99 years old.
And we had Esau the first-born of Isaac, but God declared that the "elder shall serve the younger" (Gen 25:23). Esau in fact sold his birth-right to Jacob (you can read all about this at Gen 25:29-34).

These things are what we call in theology "types" (prophetic foreshadows of a future event). And in fact the event that they foreshadowed was God's choosing of Jesus Christ, who is, as the apostle Paul explains, the 'second Adam' (second man), over the first Adam. (See 1 Cor 15:45-47)

That is, man apart from God (Adam, and all those who descended from Adam) cannot obey God, being autonomous from God. Whereas the second Adam (Jesus Christ), who descended not from Adam, but who was born of a virgin who conceived by the Holy Ghost (the 3rd person of God), obeyed God fully, for in fact He was God in the form of man.

So the lesson is that only God can obey God, and only God can satisfy God. Therefore Christianity teaches that only as Christ is in you (only if you accept Jesus Christ into your life as both Lord and Saviour), will you (not really you, but His very real presence in you on your behalf), obey God.

So Christianity preaches an effortless faith in the sense that, once Jesus Christ has become your Lord and Saviour, it is His responsibility, and His alone, to ensure you please God.
And this is what at Isaiah 9:6 we are told that "the government [(the administration, the responsibility)] shall be upon His shoulder".
Posted by Liberty, Sunday, 2 December 2007 10:39:02 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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