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 > Why a conscientious Christian could not vote for the Greens > Comments

Why a conscientious Christian could not vote for the Greens : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 18/8/2010

The Greens are a party fundamentally at odds with basic Christian values and concerns.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
godly values and godly policies? wrath? flood? stonings?

They seem to be actions "cavalier about human life" too, Bill.

Then there are the non-sequiturs and red-herrings of adoptive rights and same-sex marriage supposedly denying children's rights to their *own* mother and father, "radical social experiments", or Peter Singers philosophical ramblings about various contentious issues, being key points in an Australian election.

This superficial puff piece is immoral and unethical
.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:02:54 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
Jesus wept! As if we didn't have more important issues than this.

Bill,you are stuck in your theological ditch.Best you get out more,laddie.
Posted by Manorina, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:08:42 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
I'd find this unbelievable, except that I've seen so much similar stuff before. A self-described Christian finds a party "radically deficient" when measured against the "teachings of biblical Christianity", without alluding to any of the following:

refugees,
overseas aid,
making war for reasons which may fairly be described as somewhere between unclear and non-existent,
climate change (in terms of our responsibility to future generations and the poorer countries which contribute less and suffer more)

And of course one of the sins mentioned most frequently in the Bible is deceit. In this regard, it is important to note the remarks

"the Greens want to completely gut these [ie, marriage and family] and replace them with ..."

I'm pretty sure this is a lie (though I'm willing to be convinced, but not by assertion, rather by clear evidence)
Posted by jeremy, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:24:12 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
I am a Christian (and in my own words) conscientious, informed and involved. I am quite at peace in voting for the Greens and recommending that others do so. The one important fact that Bill mentioned is that no party in Australia at this time has a monopoly on Christian values.So far the Christian lobby has been dead silent on the issue of the mining tax. Perhaps showing a bit of leadership on this fundamental issue and standing up for the rights of all Australians to their resources would be valid Christian action. God has given the earth to the poor as well as the rich.We are not talking about genuine profits and return for effort here but the right to the whole rent for our resources. There are many ways of looking at things and it is most arrogant of Christian leaders to be telling people not to vote Green. They need to look humbly to their own corners. The Greens in this country add to the democratic voice.I say vote Green if you think their policies and their voice will add to the flourishing of democracy in this country.
Posted by Margaret, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:28:37 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
The greens have policies to protect animals but to give women the right to abort their baby up to full term. As a Christian I am concerned about the environment but I am more concerned about the protection of human life from natural conception to natural death.

I only see an opposing policy from the greens. Why save trees, if there are no people to benefit from the clean air?

A protest vote against the main parties may deliver you Julia Gillard and her anti-Christian stance on life.

Ultimately on Saturday you will end up with a pro-life, Christian Tony Abbott or anti-life Julia Gillard. Christians, we need to examine our conscience on this issue not just blindly protest by voting green who have done a deal with the greens to deliver anti-life labor the government with the Greens only the balance of power in the senate. Remember each Senator has 6 years in the parliament.
Posted by Liz Unch, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:36:23 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
Where were the "conscientious Christians" when the government was involved in illegal wars that killed thousands?
Why do they *still* apologise for world-wide institutionalised paedophilia?
Why do they support lies about contraception in Africa?
Why do they support ongoing undermining of rigorous knowledge? ("Create the controversy, teach the controversy!")
Why do they support policy that encourages wealth disparity?
Is gay marriage *really* more important than real deaths, real lies, real corruption and real ignorance?
Oh, and killing doctors for removing a few thousand cells that has *no* consciousness (far less than a cat or dog), but is "human" and therefore "sacred"...is just lunacy to those who know how natural fertility works.
Just admit it: you are playing for the Right and trying to sucker in folks based on the religious tribe they belong to.
It fits your creed, but don't expect us to respect your motives or methods.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:44:50 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
"Nor should we forget that the Greens leader, the secularist homosexual Bob Brown, proudly co-authored a book with Peter Singer on Green beliefs and values. So he certainly shares with Singer in these ungodly and appalling beliefs. Yet somehow we are supposed to embrace him and his party as the epitome of Christian conviction."

Please crawl back into the gutter you came from.
Posted by Daviy, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:48:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Manorina, perhaps you could give me an example of something more important than the value of human life.
There is something seriously wrong with a political party which advocates for a mother killing her unborn child. I'm sorry that you don't see it that way.
Of course Bill is correct in describing the Australian Greens as a radical anti-christian organisation. These are the people that want to eliminate school chaplaincy, eliminate religious education in schools, and remove any reference to God in parliament. Not only do they advocate abortion in our own country but they want to promote abortion overseas via overseas aid funding.
So much for the Greens being a Christian political party.
Posted by MrAnderson, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:06:53 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
"Why save trees, if there are no people to benefit from the clean air?"
Liz Unch, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:36:23 AM

Really? The Greens policies are going to extinguish people? Totally?

That is really going to happen if people vote Green? Is it going to take 100? or 1,002?

Now we know why appealing to the Christian vote is futile - their pseudo-arguments and reasoning are!
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:09:23 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
This article reminds me of the dull phrases and
stale ideas engraved since childhood, the
archaic vocabulary, the abuse of others, the
rehasing of personal obsessions - all of this
is supposed to prepare the people for the
banquet of Christ.

A decade ago we could, perhaps, endure the
impoverished preaching such as this. We were
wrapped more carefully in our parochial ghetto.
We were taught to carry home whatever little
defective pearl was offered and to overlook
the irrelevance. But today, we no longer have
to listen the long harangues of vehemence.

The world has become meaning-centered, and the
individual measures the traditional truths in
terms of personal value. People refuse to accept
irrelevant sermons, they won't be bullied by
authoritarian demand, nor moralizing which ignores
the true and complex context of modern life.

By all means don't vote for a Party that wants to
reduce pollution, save the climate, increase our
quality of life. A Party that's concerned about
the adverse impacts of climate change, food security
for the poor, water security for all, the continuing
loss of biodiversity, and the ongoing threat of
environmental diseases.

Lets not divert our energy and resources to the real
problems that face us, including poverty, disease,
overpopulation, injustice, oppression, and the
devastation of our natural environment.

Instead, let's preach hatred against people who happen
to be different to us, let's not do
unto others as we would have them do to us - and then
let's call ourselves Christians!
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:17:27 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
Congratulations McReal, Manorina, Ozandy, and Daviy - you have successfully demonstrated that you are not in the set of people this article was addressing - i.e. "Biblical Christians" (as identified by the author). So why exactly do you feel the need to vehemently react?

e.g. Daviy :

"Please crawl back into the gutter you came from."

Profound insight - ah, were you actually making a point?

McReal - if you knew the Bible well enough, you'd know that the only floods, massacres and stonings that God promoted in the Bible were deaths that prevented future deaths, spiritual and physical.

In contrast, human blood spilled for mere human convenience is needless death.

Granted, you don't believe in spirituality nor spiritual deaths, but once again, that means you were not addressed in this article. Your comments are not relevant to those who _were_ addressed in this article, because you have faith in the exclusive existence of matter and the non-existence of super-material realities.

Likewise, Ozandy's ignorant assertion that the unborn child is mere cells and nothing more, simply proves that he too has faith in the non-existence of anything non-physical. So why's his nappy in a knot? He ain't being addressed in this article.

Oh - and Ozandy, you might be interested in knowing that sex crimes are committed by public school teachers far more often than by clergy :

http://www.duhmag.com/Commentary/guvtskoolshavemoremolesters.html

Far more often _per capita_, not just in absolute terms.

So this suggests to me in fact that the religious views and practices of the clergy are actually helping them to some extent.
Posted by Verbose Philosopher, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:25:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal is most amusing of all commenters - "this superficial puff piece is immoral and unethical".

By what standard? Are you imposing your standard of morality on this article? Bill appeals to a group who believe in absolute moral standards. You mock that, but then present absolute moral standards of your own! "Hypocrite" might apply.

Refugees etc are real issues, and Christians must form a Biblical perspective on these issues (and many have), but the Bible presents the shedding of innocent blood as bringing a curse on a nation far worse than that of mistreating foreigners.

So to get our priorities straight, supporting policies that protect life - something the Greens are against - is very relevant to Biblical Christians.

And if you ain't one of them, spare your breath - the article wasn't written for you.
Posted by Verbose Philosopher, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:26:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Social justice to a leftie is just another code word for redistribution of wealth.

Did the good Samaritan force others to pay to help the man on the side of the road or did he do it himself. If left to the greens we would all have to pay more to do less.

As for the policies of the greens, How any Christian can support a group that supports Abortion in any form is a Christian who has not read the Bible at all, nor do they want to support the least of us as Jesus commands us to.
Posted by wakey74, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:31:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" .. present absolute moral standards of your own!"
Posted by Verbose Philosopher, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:26:20 AM

"absolute moral standards"? Huh - Considering the overall sneering in the principal article, and the lack of addressing issues such as asylum seekers, or ways to reduce the abortion rate - which we would all like to see - my comments were contextual.

Refugees etc are real issues, so *politicians and diplomates* must form a *humanitarian* perspective on these issues ...

I know the bible and the history of its development based on selection of popular Gnostic-like stories that retrospectively fulfilled OT prophecies (such as epistles attributed to Paul) to know it is fiction.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:44:19 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
Bill; You criticise the 'religious Left'; effectively citing Abbott's social conservatism as cause to vote Liberal.

But let's be clear: labour market deregulation combined with a flattening of the tax system, and with a withering away of the social wage - will hurt the poor most; and will favour the rich as against the rest of us.

There are members of the Greens who are resolutely opposed to religion. There are people on the Left who hate Christianity: though if you looked deeply enough you'd see the same is the case with the Right as well!! I am sick of vilification of Christians: but to stand up to this we should always be unequivocally in favour of social justice. I am always trying to stand out and say to people that they should drop the stereotypes.

Moving on - So Julia Gillard is an atheist.

But we're not supposed to be voting for 'personalities' on the basis of their private lives.

We're supposed to be voting on POLICIES and the effect these will have. What's wrong with supporting policies to increase foreign aid to some of the poorest people in the world? What's wrong with voting for a fairer social wage, welfare and tax system: for the sake of distributive justice and the rights of the poor? And what of the humanity and dignity of refugees?

And you talk of economic management. But the Conservatives would have seen us into recession.

All I can think of for now. But it's important to challenge stereotyopes of right-wing Christianity.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:59:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A real conscientious Christian would not use their religion as a political tool to tell other Christians who they should or should not vote for.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:07:50 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
Then there are the non-sequiturs and red-herrings of adoptive rights and same-sex marriage supposedly denying children's rights to their *own* mother and father, "radical social experiments"
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:02:54 AM

So it is more important to you that lesbians and gay get their latest accessory (a child) rather then have that child have the right to both a mother and father.

That is really going to happen if people vote Green? Is it going to take 100? or 1,002?

Now we know why appealing to the Christian vote is futile - their pseudo-arguments and reasoning are!
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:09:23 AM

Why that sound like the made up climate change arguement dnow doesn't it.

Refugees etc are real issues, so *politicians and diplomates* must form a *humanitarian* perspective on these issues ...

I know the bible and the history of its development based on selection of popular Gnostic-like stories that retrospectively fulfilled OT prophecies (such as epistles attributed to Paul) to know it is fiction.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:44:19 AM

Your post actually show that you do not know the Bible in any way shape or form. Oh you might have deluded yourself to think that you do but you don't otherwise you would not be saying the rubbish that you are.

As for refugees, give us all the benefit of your vast knowledge. Rather then bash the article and all Biblical Christians give us the wisdom of yoru vast knowledge
Posted by wakey74, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:20:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So far the Christian lobby has been dead silent on the issue of the mining tax

Posted by Margaret, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:28:37 AM

Hmmm!. Mining tax or abortion. Tough choice I know but maybe as a Christian you should look more at your priorities.
Posted by wakey74, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"the Greens want to completely gut these [ie, marriage and family] and replace them with ..."

I'm pretty sure this is a lie (though I'm willing to be convinced, but not by assertion, rather by clear evidence)
Posted by jeremy, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:24:12 AM

Check out the following link to see just how anti family their policies are

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/02/15/thinking-about-the-greens/
Posted by wakey74, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:21:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course Bill is also a featured blogger over at Quadrant where his uni-dimensional rants are regularly featured.

Plus check out his personal site Culture Watch. A truly awful site, where ignorance and right wing group-think rules.

He does not even allow space for contrary opinions to be expressed.

Even if they were, they would make no difference whatsoever to either Bill and his group-think true believers.

Such being the nature of his essentially intolerant, even totalitarian world-view, or ideology.
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:55:27 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
About the limit of my christian beliefs, is in chapter 23 in the book of Matthew, in the King James Bible, and I doubt if it throws any light on whether a good christian or conscientious christian would vote on saving trees, although it definetly says to save lives.
Posted by merv09, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:55:33 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
When did the right to life become a Christian value?

"almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22.

It is also interesting to note that you didn't mention that the author of the positive piece was a catholic priest.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 1:06:49 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
I do agree with some of the point's made early in the article around the point "The truth is all political parties deal with such issues, and it is a question of which policies in fact really do benefit all Australians. Indeed, the real question to ask is not, is this party concerned about the poor, but, what economic policies will in fact best help them?"

A point that's often lost.

I do think that Bill overstates the christian case against abortion, there are other issues which the bible is much clearer about (greed, lying etc) which don't seem to be taken nearly as seriously by many christians.

Will we see a piece from Bill suggesting that christians not vote for either major party because much of their election advertising is designed to mislead?

If the bible was clearly against abortion Bill would have a good point regarding abortion but his use of selected verses from proverbs with the following comment "While these texts do not speak solely to matters such as abortion" is misleading at best. The topic has been thrashed regularly on OLO and other places but in the context of this piece it's worth repeating.

The bible does not make any clear statements against abortion. The arguments against are inferred from a few verses about specific individuals, from a disputed interpretation of a word and from how people would like it to be.

From capital punishment for pregnant women, the dust from the temple floor administered to women suspected of infidelity, the punishments for striking a woman and causing a miscarriage and the value placed on children only after they are one month old the case is if anything quite clear that except in a few special cases the fetus is given little value in the bible.

A good summary of the points is at http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html for those who consider an acceptance of abortion to be fundamentally anti-christian.

A summary of the arguments from the other side can be found at http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html .

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 1:20:45 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
"So it is more important to you that lesbians and gay get their latest accessory (a child) rather then have that child have the right to both a mother and father."
Posted by wakey74, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:20:41 PM

That is so simplistic and so wrong - there are many scenarios; many where inherently gay and lesbian people have felt compelled to try to live a conventional heterosexual life and had children. Their hetero relationships break down for various reasons.

What about an abusive parent - physical or psychological? You imply children should stay with them. You imply a right to deny a child's right to escape abuse. So simplistic, so sad.

As far as the bible development goes, dozens of Gospel stories and variation on them were doing the rounds in the 1st to 3rd Centuries, including the now-called apocryphal gospels, and these supported many beleif systems such as Docetism, Montanism, Marcionism, etc. The most popular were those that aligned with the OT prophecies.

"The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, was the result of debate, disputes and research, not reaching its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent" [1545-63].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

"Vatican I on April 24, 1870 approved the additions to Mark (v.16:9–20), Luke, (22:19b–20,43–44) and John, (7:53–8:11) which are not present in early manuscripts [such as Codex Sinaiticus, the fist intact bible written in the 4thC]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Later_Developments
..................................

"deaths that prevented future deaths, spiritual and physical."
Verbose Philosopher, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:25:40 AM

That view about future spiritual and physical demise could be attributed to abortion, as well: perhaps that's why God allows it.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 1:46:29 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
"Moreover, it does very little good to carry on and on about social justice when we kill 100,000 unborn babies each year. Where is their justice?"

WHO kills 100,000 unborn babies? What happens is the abortion of fetuses which are non-viable and far less developed than, say, the lamb whose chops you happily eat for dinner. If abortion is killing -- really genuine killing, not just a religious no-no -- then the slaughter of lambs, cattle, pigs and chickens is wholesale genocide. But I don't see many Catholics holding back from meat, or protesting outside abattoirs.

Yes, abortion is regrettable. Yes, it should be avoided if possible -- preferably by spreading sex education and making contraception readily available without shame. But let's drop the 'killing babies' thing, shall we? It only makes you look ridiculous.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 2:58:30 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
I’m a Christian and will not be voting Green, but I disagree with this article.

There are many ways of interpreting political policies that could in good faith lead thoughtful people with different worldviews to contradictory views on what a Christian political agenda might look like.

Even if we could work out what a Christian Agenda would look like, probably no current party would be completely aligned with that agenda nor completely outside it - so Christians’ choice of party depends on matters of weight and degree, not a black-and-white choice.

The author has cherry-picked Green issues which he perceives to be hostile to a Christian agenda and ignores issues such as refugees where the Greens are arguably closer to a Christian perspective than the major parties.

By all means we can discuss why our faith inclines us to vote in a particular direction, but to deny the legitimacy of different opinions and perspectives is bigoted and coercive, whether done by left-wing or right-wing Christians.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 3:29:23 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
any honest person knows killing the unborn is murder. To kill babies at nine months as Emily's list advocates is rotten to the core. Any one claiming to be a believer in Christ who can't see that is totally blind to right and wrong. Usually they then take up some self righteous cause like to environment to mask their self righteousness. Human life is very cheap for those swallowing the humanistic faith of secularism.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 3:59:19 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
Sorry, Runner -- most abortions take place before three months. Are those also 'murder', and if not, why not? When exactly does it become 'murder'? Are you going to be daft enough to go along with the Catholic doctrine and claim that killing a blastocyst of eight cells is still 'murder'? Because everything that blastocyst can do -- and much more -- can be done by the healthy cells mixed in with the skin cancer which gets frozen off by your doctor. Is it murder to get that treated? In a few years we will be able to create a complete new human from any cell of your skin; will it then become 'murder' to prick a blister or scratch a scab?

By adopting an unreal view based on religious faith rather than science you are only harming your real case.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 4:15:04 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
If the Greens are fair-minded, tolerant, anti-racist, pro-religion, community-minded, pro-humanlife, pro-education, socially-just, unselfish, charitable and equitable, why are their supporters being so hostile to the author?
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 4:37:28 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
As one is viewing this from across the ocean I can only comment
as to to how it compares to the leftist, liberal, progressive
agenda here in the states.

The green party is out to destroy the same thting the left
wants to do in the states and it is through the three toxic
stews of western society is how this takes place: Political correctness, Diversity and Multiculturalism. These have gotten
buried into the fabric of politics, education, the legal
system, the environment and economy. These three toxins have
more responsible for the degradation of the west. That the
greens can be equated with Christianity as I know it and the author here has explained quite well, just does not work. The parallels to what the demosocialistacrats have done here in the states is a sad commentary on the cheapness of life(abortion), embracing diversity at the cost of western freedom(islam and sharia law),rabid environmentalism to the point of costing jobs and increasing
costs to all of us in the name of 'green energy' based on
expensive, altrenate technologies and fuels(ethanol here),
if I lived in Australia there is no way as a Christian man
I could vote for such a party as the green party.

I have witnessed first hand the wreckage such a liberal
agenda can cause over the years here in my home state of
Oregon. It is the most 'progressive, regressive' state in
the USA. While you may not agree with the author's views
or opinions(I do!!) you can at least accord him respect in
your comments. Almost all the Christians I know here
stateside behave in a proper manner and rarely stoop to
the level that the left has lowered themselves to.
Posted by PatriotUSA, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 4:42:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perfectly pitched and spot on in my opinion Bill.

The practice of human abortion is just brutal murder, we dehumanise our little sons and daughters like the Nazis dehumanised the Jews and Gypsies and slave owners dehumanised blacks. It just makes them easier to kill.

A populace that is inured to this level of brutal violence is in a very dangerous position with respect to seeing and judging clearly about a whole range of goods.

Which leads into marriage and homosexual sexual behaviour. Our people have decided they want 'sexual liberation' and have decided this liberation will need to be built on the corpses 100 000 babies a year. With our reason deformed, consciences wounded, we refuse to see the same sex coupling as 'marriage' proposal for what it is; the destruction of the institution in our country.

The selfish stealing of the lives and futures of children in the womb, of boys and girls who will never have the same opportunity to live under marriage norms they way we did - all this is not justice but its antithesis. It privileges the selfish desires, the will, of the strong over the voiceless and weak. They reject Christianity and they reject the really new thing that the Christian revolution brought - the revelation that humans have intrinsic dignity.

Labor-Greens are dishonest and refuse to come out and admit this, they hide behind their green moral facade.

It is difficult to think of a more obvious case of an anti-Christian platform than Labor-Greens. No Christian of good conscience can give power to this atheist/abortion/homosexual marriage double team. I couldn't agree more Bill, we are lucky to have your sane voice in the public square.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 4:44:03 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
Jon J,

You stick to your faith which allows the killing of the unborn in the name of 'science'. Your faith has obviously helped create your callous heart towards unborn children. Thankfully their are plenty of doctors and Scientist that totally disagree with your condoning of blatant murder.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 4:54:26 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
I'm glad hear that "a conscientious Christian could not vote for the Greens". For a minute there I thought they'd got it wrong!
Thankfully, there are far more hypocrites than "conscientious" Christians.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 7:20:55 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
It's rather ironic that there should be such a clamour about the Greens supporting abortion, when the legislation supporting abortion was created by the major parties. The legislation has been in existence for some years while Liberal and Labor Governments have been in existence.
Likewise, one must wonder about the stupidity of some people when they believe that Peter Singer, and by inference the Greens, support beastiality.
The question arises how can a Christian support the Liberal, Labor or Green Parties on Saturday.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:00:30 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
My Catholic friend informed me that there was shiny lift-out in the latest "Catholic Record" newspaper providing "information" on the Greens.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:11:22 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
Ant is right. The current abortion legislation was agreed on by both major parties, and is now legal. It is a mute point that the Greens do or do not support abortion laws really.

So why are some posters flogging this dead horse of an issue?

A secular, democratic country like Australia will never force women to go through with a pregnancy if she chooses not to.

If some don't like that legal operation, then don't have it yourselves or move to another country that won't allow it.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:44:34 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
This is a part-copy of a post of mine from a different thread; but I think it's worth a look - especially if you follow the URL and see the basis this has in scripture...

Early church leaders adovacated a form of communal church organisation what was really very close to the communist spirit. Some people have even talked of 'Christian communism'.

This 'Christian communism' is a different creature from Marxism - as it is a 'communism of the Christian community'. But some of the values are the same: especially the Marxist dictum 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.'

For those who are shocked by the comparison I urge you to look at the relevant scripture - starting by checking out the URL below:

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

sincerely,

Tristan
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:47:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, the Greens talk a lot about the environment and promote their credentials there - mind you, I don't think closing all the coal fired power stations down will help the poor as it will result in increased electricity and food prices.
They often sidestep any criticism about moral issues. That's not surprising for a party that seems more humanist than anything else, with Bob Brown named as 'Humanist of the Year' for 2010.
But the truth is they are specifically in favour of abortion on demand, teaching children sex-ed about 'diversity in sexuality', euthanasia and more.
Since the point of Bill's article is to talk about what a Biblical Christian might believe and how they can vote, it's vital that we consider the Greens views on these issues. The Ten Commandments tell us not to murder - and that certainly covers abortion.
While we're at it - Labor also has a specific policy supporting abortion and the State Party introduced Victoria's Abortion law Reform Bill.
On the other hand, Liberals and Nationals don't have a policy on abortion and give a conscience vote.
Parties such as CDP, Family First and the DLP all oppose abortion.
So if we’re considering how a Biblical Christian might vote, assessing the views of each party on issues such as abortion and marriage are very relevant!
Posted by Jenny Stokes, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:21:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a list of some of what the Greens publicly stand for.
1. Christians not allowed to voice their values and beliefs in public discourse
2. Public cricitism of other religions and homosexuality to be outlawed as “vilification of minorities”
3. Abolition of tax exemptions for Christian organisations
4. Abolition of selective employment privileges for Christian organisations
5. Funding removed from Christian independent schools
6. All schools forced to teach secular values, secular morality (including “gay = normal”), and evolutionism
7. Replacement of school chaplaincy and Scripture classes with secular equivalents
8. Non abstinence based sex education
9. Universal, free, Medicare funded abortions from conception to full term
10. Legalisation of euthanasia
11. Legalisation of human embryo research and therapeutic cloning
12. Gay and lesbian marriage
13. Adoption of children by same sex couples
14. Medicare funded assisted reproductive services for same sex couples
15. Christian churches, hospitals, and agencies forced against conscience to participate in abortions, same sex marriage and same sex adoption
16. Easier access to X-rated pornography, especially in emerging media (eg. PC games, the internet)
17. Decriminalisation of drugs, safe injecting rooms

I'm sorry, but no amount of refugee concern and environmental concern (good as these things might be) can counter-balance the sheer weight of these other evils. If you think it is possible, you have obviously checked your brain out at the door.

Christians can definitely NOT vote for the Greens.
Posted by Jereth, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:58:14 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
Tristan Ewins,

There is a critical difference between the "Christian communism" described in the book of Acts and Marxist communism.

The Christians *voluntarily* shared their goods.

Under Marxism, goods are *compulsorily* acquired by the Government and redistributed.

It is a false comparison.
Posted by Jereth, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:03:54 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
Let's call a spade a spade, Jereth: right-wing Christians cannot vote for the Greens.

Not all people read the Bible the same way. It's a big book, and often self-contradictory, and people tend to pick and choose according to their personality. Some folk will read it and pay particular attention to the strictures on homosexuality, promiscuity, and basically anything to do with sex. Some will ignore Mark 12:17 and Matthew 22:21. Some will focus more closely on the Ten Commandments than New Commandment. And some hard-of-thinking folk, sad to say, will take Genesis literally, and treat the Bible as a science textbook rather than a religious document. These people are variously known as conservatives, [censored], fundamentalists, [censored], idiots, religious extremists, [censored], George. W. Bush, and [censored].

But others will focus on the words and deeds of Jesus. They will pay particular attention to Matthew 19:24, and cheer when quietly to themselves when Jesus chucks the money lenders out of the synagogue. They will focus on Jesus' committment to charity; on sharing everything you have with those who have nothing, 'coz whatsoever you do unto the least of his brethren, you do unto him. They will rate the New Commandment above the old lot. They will attempt to judge not, lest they be judged; and to remove the plank from their own eye before worrying about the speck in their brother's. These people are variously known as lefties, bleeding-hearts, watermelons, dirty pinko scumbags, and decent chaps. They can vote for the Greens. Just 'coz they share your imaginary friend, it doesn't follow that they should share your politics.
Posted by Riz, Thursday, 19 August 2010 2:24:38 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
When I read the rubbish the christian loonies quote from their book of nonsense (bible) I'm heartened by my belief that we Greens are on the right track. As for the Greens being anti family in all my years of party membership no one has ever suggested I should get divorced, turn gay, send my kids to public school etc etc. As for the high moral ground if you so called christians were to meet a 16 year old pregnant girl who doesn't know what to do, or a lad who has mental problem due to his sexuality or a person living a shocking life because of drug dependence, what would you do? Quote from your book of nonsense and tell them its gods will!
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 19 August 2010 6:13:04 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
And thats about all the greens have Paul1405 just bigotry masquerading as informed criticism. You caricature the arguments here as mere argument from the authority of scripture and then proceed to use argument from the authority of your own sincere 'feeling' and 'compassion' as if they are pristine sources of moral knowledge! And from the authority of the wacky sacred text of Peter Singer, propose THAT to the Australian people. Stop being such a whiner (something the Greens have nurtured in you I'm sure) and actually defend your horrific policies and philosophical anthropology.

The arguments presented were both metaphysical (everyone has metaphysical commitments you have shown your disdain for the belief in a loving Creator) and prudential.

The Greens offer death to the children of unprepared mums and dads as a solution to her crisis. The Greens propose death for elderly, depressed and sick people who in a moment of crisis feel despair and want to suicide. The greens offer free drugs and prophylactics to confused people rather than helping them grow in virtue. The really genuine assistance is helping them becoming people capable of ordering their desires to the good of authentic personal freedom. You offer them increased dependency - surprise surprise on people like the greens and their taxpayer funded bureaucratic jobs doling out 'assistance'.

The Greens want the principle of the intrinsic dignity of human life, stricken from our laws and replaced with radical autonomy. But this is a false anthropology we are radically dependent not autonomous; it's an attractive metaphysical principle for the well heeled, advantaged and narcissistic (the defining feature of our age) who feel like any check on their desires is, ironically, an intrinsic evil. So the babies have to die, the druggies have to check out because they are a drain, the elderly have to die because they cannot contribute etc etc. Give me give me give me. Put a few old growth forest fig leaves around this horror and you free the atrophied consciences of thousands to vote for you.

The Greens standard of public debate is woeful and you typify this.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 19 August 2010 7:04:13 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
Actions speak louder than words, the Liberal and Labor Parties have allowed abortion to occur through legislation. The Green's have never been in Government, were not responsible for the legislation; yet, get the blame for abortions that are occuring.

The ethics of pushing half truths or lies, is very questionable from those who represent Christian values; no better than the half truths that are being bandied about by the Liberal and Labor Parties in their advertising campaigns. The advertising campaigns might be lawful but do not stand up to any investigation regarding ethics.
For example, the Liberals are pushing the view that Labor is pushing us into severe debt by borrowing 100s of millions. A couple of economists have quietly stated in relation to the loans that they represents no more than about 6% of GNP. There are Labor examples as well.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 19 August 2010 8:03:48 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
Christians like any of us (human beings really are not that different in essentials) will make choices based on their perceptions of who best fits their values.

For some Christians the Greens may epitomise more closely their values about egalitarianism, equal opportunity and humane treatment of asylum seekers, stewardship of the planet etc.

For other Christians, free market ideology and the concentration on the individual rather than the whole may fit best with their ideas of what works best for human beings.

We can all cherrypick from the Bible those passages that best fit our own view of 'God's plan'. Whether Jesus would have been a right winger or a left winger is really superfluous and assumes once againn that Christians are a homogenous group.

One point which spoilt the article for me was using Peter Singer as an example of who the Greens are in particular in regard to having sex with animals. I don't think you will find that in the Greens Charter given animals cannot give consent let alone the moral aspect. You would be hard pressed finding a Green that would agree with this sentiment. (Many are also vegetarian and care deeply about animal rights as well as the human).

I am sure if you look hard enough at both the ALP and the Coalition you will find something that goes 'against' Christian principles whatever one purports them to be. You will find many Libertarians on the Right who support abortion as a free choice for the individual as well. One side of politics does not own 'Christian values'.

This is just an anti-Green article which is your right but one cannot assume the values of Christians will be reflected in the same voting decisions based on your own worldview Christian or not.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 19 August 2010 9:26:10 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
RIZ...I surely HOPE people focus on the words and work of Jesus!

When they've done it, they will realize there are not 'many ways to read' the Bible, but just 'one' way.

That is.. New Testament fulfils the old in Christ.

God's salvation history finds it's epicentre in Christ, His death and resurrection, and history will be wound up with His glorious return.

The details might be open for a bit of speculation.

The 24 questions the GREENS refused to answer show exactly where they are coming from.

GREENS are just wolves in sheeps clothing, once they have power or enough power.. gone will be the conciliatory "We won't block supply, we will be responsible in the Senate"

and we will get:

"8 para: Anyone who, through expression or other form of communication that is spread, threatens or expresses disrespect for a group of people or other such groups of persons with reference to race, color, national or ethnic origin, confession of faith or sexual orientation, is sentenced for instigation against a group of people to prison up to two years or, if the crime is minor, to fines.
If the crime is major is sentenced to at least six months and up to four years in jail. In the determination of whether the crime is major, consideration shall be given to whether the message has had an especially threatening or offensive contents and whether the message has been spread to a great number of people in a way that is meant to generate considerable attention."

THAT is the Swedish hate crime law which saw Pastor Ake Green convicted of 'hate crimes' and initially sentenced to 3 months jail, which was overturned on appeal to the EU Human Rights group.

UK has this kind of thing and the Police are very aggressive against Christians.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 19 August 2010 9:34:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""The Greens offer death to the children of unprepared mums and dads as a solution to her crisis. The Greens propose death for elderly, depressed and sick people who in a moment of crisis feel despair and want to suicide. The greens offer free drugs and *prophylactics* to confused people rather than helping them grow in virtue.""
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 19 August 2010 7:04:13 AM

Yes we do need to help people grow in virtue, but such sweeping and emphatic statements debase your argument, Martin: the Greens policies are not going to be law or societies "policies".

We do need to try to reduce abortion rates. There is a correlation between use of prophylactics and abortion, albeit a negative one.

No-one is proposing death per se or will allow it. Palliative care will improve and cover 99.8% of case well enough for vol. euthanasia to be not even considered.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 19 August 2010 10:02:12 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
McReal,
Thrilled to read you referring to addressing "...ways to reduce the abortion rate - which we would all like to see- ..." Well, you won't find the Greens worrying their heads about that issue - they are pro-abortion, to birth. And electing a pro-abortion Julia Gillard as PM, with pro-abortion Greens with the balance of power in the senate, will not promote any thinking about ways to reduce the abortion rate. Oh, and wasn't Tony Abbott shot down in flames for even suggesting he thought the abortion rate was too high? He's the only one among the contenders in this election to address this issue. I'm becoming a little clearer now how I might vote on Saturday.
Greenup
Posted by GREENUP, Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:01:20 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
@ GREENUP "electing a pro-abortion PM, with pro-abortion Greens with the balance of power in the senate" should have nothing to do with , "thinking about ways to reduce the abortion rate".

They should be independent of each other. In fact, a campaign to reduce the abortion rate would be a very good one for anyone to run - promote sensible sexual behaviour, judicious use of contraception, etc, etc

Perhaps Tony Abbott should do more than suggest the abortion rate is too high, too.
Seeing some positive policies would do him some good

Fixation on "pro-abortion to birth" - the very, very rare late-term abortions for foetuses that will be non-viable outside the womb is unnecessary. Those mother suffer loss, badly.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 19 August 2010 1:02:52 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
Jereth;

You seem to concede the idea that within the Christian community this is support for the idea "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." (ie: implemented in the context of the Christian community)

But you oppose this principle in broad society because of co-ercion.

Co-ercion, however, already exists. The State implements taxation; without which we wouldn't have transport, health, schools, parks etc. Indeed, we could go down the Amercian path and have hundreds of thousands sleeping it rough on the street.

So co-ercion is a given anyway. Why wouldn't you use it to help to poor, and provide social and economic justice?

Arguments about liberty in opposition to social wage and welfare state redistirbutive policies involve a double standard anyway.

The State rules that workers cannot withdraw their labour - which you'd think would be an inalienable right. But while most accept this state of affairs; progressive tax to provide for social goods and social rights is opposed on the basis - again - of 'co-ercion'.

It just doesn't make sense.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 19 August 2010 1:50:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

The bible has little to say on the state’s role in redistribution, which just means it’s a product of its time and does not anticipate the welfare states of developed economies like ours.

It is clear on the individual and clan/family responsibility of mutual care and particular concern for the poor and vulnerable (widow/orphans/refugees), and also on responsibilities of those in power not to oppress the vulnerable or abuse privilege. It is reasonable to interpret that in a modern context as endorsing protections of the welfare state, but is not an inevitable conclusion.

Those of us concerned about too large a role of the State in redistribution have many concerns. One is its coercion, which is quite different from the free sharing model of the early Jerusalem church (and that was not a successful model - the early church quickly took other forms). Statism also encourages abnegation of individual responsibility that social provision entails (“it’s not my role but the government’s to look after the poor/sick/unemployed/refugees...), which may account for the comparatively high charitable giving in countries like the USA with a smaller welfare state. It also encourages an excessive and narrow materialism, making current living conditions the main focus of religious activism. Christianity certainly emphasises the material more than many other faiths, but it has other imported facets too.

Like most Australians I support a mixed economy balancing economic freedom and redustribtuion, with elections mainly about where that balance lies.

As you know, “from each according to his ability...” is from the Communist Manifesto, not the bible
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 19 August 2010 4:03:56 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
Even after all this time, Boaz, you still cannot get it right.

>>THAT is the Swedish hate crime law which saw Pastor Ake Green convicted of 'hate crimes' and initially sentenced to 3 months jail, which was overturned on appeal to the EU Human Rights group.<<

He was sentenced to one month in prison, not three, by the District Court.

The sentence was overturned on appeal by the Jönköping Appeals Court.

The public prosecutor appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court, in order to clarify the legal position. The Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court decision. The case did not go to the European Court of Human Rights.

You never actually do any fact-checking, do you Boaz?

Ever.

You just write the stuff that suits your prejudices, and shrug your shoulders when you are caught out.

Did you actually bother to read the sermon, by the way?

I especially liked the part where he links homosexuality to bestiality.

"The Lord knows that sexually twisted people will rape the animals. Not even animals can avoid the fiery passion of man's sexual lust."

And I wonder whether he had any inside information into the habits of his fellow priests, when he said:

"We have gotten to learn words like 'incest, pedophile, and child molestation.' Words that make us shudder, that belong to the abnormalities."

He didn't pull any punches.

"Homosexuality is something sick. A healthy and clean thought has been exchanged for a contaminated [or defiled] one. A healthy heart has been exchanged for a sick one. A healthy body has been devastated because of an exchange."

A man most definitely after your own heart, Boaz, you employ many of the same arguments.

Nevertheless, it is good that Sweden had the sense to overturn the District Court decision. However bilious his prose, he should be permitted to display his bigotry without being banged up for it.

But please, Boaz, do try occasionally to get your facts straight.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 19 August 2010 6:40:02 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
Tristan,

Voluntary redistribution of wealth is workable in a Christian community because it arises from love and concern for brothers and sisters. The greater the love, the more is given.

Involuntary acquisition of goods and their redistribution by the Government is very different. It does not spring from sincere love of one person towards another. To the contrary, it creates resentment in the richer person, whose goods are taken away, towards the poorer person, who gets something for nothing. The higher the tax rate, the greater this resentment.

Compulsory Marxist redistribution is therefore diametrically opposite to voluntary Christian communitarianism.

You are right that taxes are in some sense "coercive" but people will vote out a Government which imposes too high a tax. Therefore, there fundamentally is still a choice. The tax rate is set at a value which is considered acceptable by the majority; any higher, and the resentment starts to build.

Jereth
Posted by Jereth, Thursday, 19 August 2010 9:52:56 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
A conscientious Christian could not vote for the Greens. The Greens as a party support abortion, even of healthy babies, right upt until birth. Yes, it is true that some LIberals support abortion but it not part of their party platform, like abortion is for Labor and The Greens. In Victoria ALL members of the The Greens voted for the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008, but not all members of the LAbor or LIberal Party voted for it.

Conscientious christians should vote for the Democratic Labor Party www.dlp.org.au or the Christian DEmocratic Party as these parties oppose :abortion and volutary euthanasia, cloning etc.

The Greens are not upfront about their policies and the website www.greenswatch.com shows the true nature of the greens.
Bob Brown ( some people's new messiah!) went after the Exclusive Brethren, misusing his position in the Senate, because the Brethren had had the temerity to produce campign material critical of the Green's whacky, economically damaging policies. Bob Brown was arguing that the Exclusive Brethren should not get money for their schools ( as their children do not do teriary education). Bob Brown was saying, I believe that the Exclusive Brethren should not be able to run political campaigns because they do not vote. There are other Christian sects which do not vote such as the Christadelphians but Bob BRown was not pursuing them in Parliament as he was having a vendetta against the Brethren for daring to criticise the Greens.
This certainly is not christian behaviour.

Bob Brown has taken action against the Herald Sun for running an article on Greens policies. The Herald Sun quoted the Greens website word for word but Bob didn't like their policies being up for public scrutiny.e.g. The Greens do not want the public to know they are in favour of decriminalising ( read legalising drugs). The Greens are not honest about what they believe. The Greens refused to answer many of the Questions put to them by the Australian Christian Lobby. LIberal, Labor, The Democratic Labor party, Family First and the Christian Democratic Party could all answer the questions.
Posted by squiggy, Thursday, 19 August 2010 10:12:47 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
Squiggy you write

'The Greens are not honest about what they believe.' Of course they aren't. They have no basis for morality which explains their intolerance for anyone who does. With their High Priest Singer who has openly endorsed bestiality it is no wonder they won't answer questions. The award for humanitarian of the year is an absolute joke seen they are so obviously anti human. Almost every false religion has offered children as sacrifices over the centuries and the Greens faith is no different.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:27:28 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
Hogwash. Utter Hogwash.

What Planet are you on Bill Muehlenberg?

"A major secondary factor in the American Civil War, and one which many contend was the primary factor, was simple economics. One of the greatest powers of bondage at the end of the age will be that of money over people. Money will be the ultimate false god at the end, which is why the "mark of the beast" is an economic mark, and why "the love of money" is called "the root of all evil." A god is not just something you bow down to, but what you trust in. Many of the coming conflicts between movements, denominations and individual churches will be deeply rooted in the power that money now has over the church. Many will use doctrinal differences or other issues as justification for their attacks on their brothers, but the real cause will be over a loss, or potential loss, of money."

http://www.etpv.org/1996-97/civwar.html

Is it worth even talking with you.

We need to embrace ALL Australians, especially under the name of the spirit.

Get a life! Seems you are a pot calling a kettle black. A delictum gravius!

Worldwide the church has alot to answer for. Talk to that!

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

Find comment by miacat, Sunday, 1 August 2010

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/compose-message-article.asp?action=preview

Say it all in one.

http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:49:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article Bill. The Green’s policies are diametrically opposed to so many of the fundamental beliefs of Christians. The notion that a ‘conscientious’ Christian could vote for them is ludicrous. Only a naive or seriously deluded Christian could vote for them in my opinion.
Posted by Tim W, Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:51:24 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
At the end of the day who cares who the true Christians in Australia vote for, I've been around a while and never actually met one, must be a very rare breed. Met plenty of Sunday morning christians and I suggest they vote for the FFP, DLP or a write in vote for Father George.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 20 August 2010 7:11:08 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
I'd be interested to know how many of the "bible believing" christians who see the abortion issue as so fundamental have actually done the research from the bible to see what it says on the topic - including those references which don't support your current view.

Can you justify from scripture claims that abortion is murder? Can you justify claims that your god places an equal value on the life of the unborn (or even very young infants) to that which is placed on adults and older children?

From what I can see of the issue the anti-abortion stance of many fundies has become a cultural artifact which most assume is grounded in scripture without any real understanding of what the bible says on the topic. Bible believing becomes preacher believing and don't worry about what the bible actually says.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 20 August 2010 7:43:31 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
The Greens policy on abortion will have no bearing on what happens after the election, nor will the fact a few late-term abortions are performed for foetuses that will be non-viable outside the womb - Get real.

A conscientious-Christian would be conscientious about facts and correct emphasis on issues around them
.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 20 August 2010 8:00:47 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
Jereth
"Voluntary redistribution of wealth is workable in a Christian community because it arises from love and concern for brothers and sisters. The greater the love, the more is given."

These are admirable sentiments Jereth but better than a dependence on voluntary redistribution of wealth is an economic system that works to the benefit of the many not the few in creating equal opportunities and access, as well as limiting opportunities for exploitation.

You make an assumption that Christianity develops this sense of love and concern - it may certainly for some, but does not always.

It is not reliable if taken on faith alone and means that a whole group of vulnerable people are at the mercy of that goodwill (or lack of). For example sweat shops are highly exploitative and result in a group of working poor, who is protecting those people?

Sometimes the fact is governments who work for the people (in their best form) are better at achieving this balance.

This is not the same as socialism in forcing the distribution of wealth but protects the rights of others to earn a living wage.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 20 August 2010 9:17:02 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
Bill, maaaaaate.

Christians are no more conscientious than any other people, perhaps you meant to write "contentious" instead?

If so, that would make more sense as you prefer to pontificate to other Christians how they should vote.

Now, I am going to tell you something that you may not be aware of, Christians are no more 'special' than anyone else.

I hope you were sitting down when you read that. LOL

You are as subject to drought, floods, illness, car accidents, criminal acts, hay fever, losing, earth quakes, fire storms, burglaries and birth and death just like the rest of us.

Tell me, do you have any form of insurance? House? Contents? Health? Car? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then you're not really truly faithful to your Lord are you?

You might want to take a gander at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m12mZiiaWuw&feature=bulletin

And you might want to consider which political party's policies are concerned with the long term welfare of not only Australia but its part in this world, or as you would put it - creation.

"Christians! It's all about them!"
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Friday, 20 August 2010 11:24:17 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
Rhian; you point out that:

“As you know, “from each according to his ability...” is from the Communist Manifesto, not the bible”

But there is this also:

Acts 2:45 And they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need.

Acts 4:32-35 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability_to_each_according_to_his_need
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 20 August 2010 11:43:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another issue re: distribution of wealth.

I have no problem with the principle of private property per se: in the right form.

But the destruction of Kevin Rudd basically followed as a consequence of the economic power of the mining giants. These people could afford a campaign going into the hundreds of millions to destroy Rudd; and force the government to back down.

That's money tat could have gone towards a National Disability Insurance Scheme, or a National Dental Scheme - Indeed both, and more besides!

Isn't there something wrong with this scenario? Where a small minority hold most of the wealth; and hence economic and political power?

But there are elderly Australians living in appalling conditions with appalling inadequate aged care facilities; People on lower incomes have trouble affording dental care; public hospitals are over-crowded; public education as grossly under-resourced as opposed to private schools; students and job seekers live in appalling poverty - and students are forced to supplement their income with part-time with - the problem of which is that they cannot get the most out of their studies? And pls note it is only the Greens who are arguing for an increase in Foreign Aid: and one need only look at the floods in Pakistan to see the need!

There's more. But what kind of Christian can support this state of affairs because they don't want to be 'co-ercive' in redistributing wealth from the rich to those in need?
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 20 August 2010 11:54:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So when Jesus heard these things. He said to him "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me."
LUKE 18:22

"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
LUKE 18:25

Anyone doing this? I guess not, all still have a 'puter hummmm.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 20 August 2010 1:17:07 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
I love trees. I love the bush and I with my wife own a small backyard worm farm because I believe in doing your best to look after the environment. After all God made our beautiful environment but he also made us in his image. Therefore I feel it is incumbent to honor my fellow human beings with the respect they so deserve. I respect and honor my friends in the green party who are made in the image of God but my conscience would never allow me to vote for a party so bent on the destruction of humanity whether by abortion or euthanasia because that would mean I hate my brother and that I also hate God and I would not like to be party to such an alliance.
Posted by Warwick Marsh, Friday, 20 August 2010 10:27:06 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
Tristan and Pelican,

If you support a Government system which compulsorily acquires and distributes wealth, that is fine. What I am objecting to is the fact that you are comparing this to the situation described in the book of Acts chapters 2 and 4. You appear to be claiming that marxist redistribution of wealth is a Christian principle because it is described in the book of Acts.

As I have explained, this is not a valid comparison because what happened in Acts occured voluntarily and was based on brotherly love and concern among a small community; what happens in marxist systems is compelled and in most cases resented by those whose goods are acquired by government. Superficially it may look the same but the realities are polar opposites.

You can argue for compulsory redistribution all you want; just don't try to use Acts 2-4 as your platform. Acts 2-4 has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism.

Jereth
Posted by Jereth, Friday, 20 August 2010 10:43:42 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
Tristan, you’re right, the early Jerusalem church looks rather like a commune. I’d offer a few observations, though.

First, although Acts says “Neither was there any among them that lacked”, other evidence suggests the Jerusalem church was desperately poor (Acts 6:1, 2 Corinthians 8:4), to the point of being financially dependent or even parasitic. The Jerusalem leadership demanded that Paul and his followers support the Jerusalem church financially (Galatians 2:10), and collections for “the poor” in Jerusalem are a recurring motif in Paul’s ministry (1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 9:12, Romans 15:26-28). Paul praises the impoverished Macedonians for subsidising Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:1-4). The Jerusalem model was not sustainable or successful economically.

Second, though founded on principles of equality, it’s clear that a hierarchy of status and function quickly evolved in Jerusalem. The disciples soon devolved menial jobs to others (Acts 6:2-4). Leadership of the Jerusalem group fell not to Peter or one of the disciples but to Jesus’ brother James, who apparently subordinated Peter (Galatians 2:11-14).

Third, despite the idealised picture in Acts 4, in Acts 5 we see something very different - the mysterious deaths of Ananias and Sapphira for failing to disclose and share all their assets. At the very least this indicates that not everyone was happy to share everything. At worst, it suggests a threat of death hung over those who failed to comply. Hardly cheerful and unanimous compliance, anyway.

Fourth, this is not the only mode of ministry and community we find in the early church. Many of Paul’s early communities were house churches, often sponsored by the comparatively wealthy (Acts 8:8, 16:14-15). Paul himself “did not eat anyone’s bread without paying for it,” and worked rather than accepting his (due) keep from the community (2 Thessalonians 3:7-10)

The communistic Jerusalem community was a bold socio-religious experiment, but ultimately an unsuccessful one. It was unsustainably impoverished, divided, soon gave up on its egalitarian ideals, failed in its attempts to direct the growth if the early Christian movement, and soon faded from history leaving little lasting influence on the church or society.
Posted by Rhian, Saturday, 21 August 2010 4:13:50 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, there were dozens of social and spirit-seeking experiments at the time: Gnosticism, Monatanism, Docetism, Arianism, etc, etc
Posted by McReal, Monday, 23 August 2010 8:03:03 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
Biblical Christianity?
The only direct rules I know are the ten commitments.
Whatever Bill Muehlenberg derives as rules from quoting the Bible to explain why Green politics opposes Christian ethics is as sensible as to explain why females should cover their faces based on the Koran.

There are much stronger reasons why not to vote for certain Australian parties.

Lets look at history instead of religion:

1950 Robert Menzies (Liberal) involved Australia in Korea on request of the UN Safety Council.

1962 Robert Menzies (Liberals) sent Australians for no good reasons to Vietnam.

2001 John Howard (Coalition) sent troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda and to catch Bin-Laden. Now suddenly the goals have changed. Now we fight the Taliban while Osama nearly is forgotten.

2003 John Howard (Coalition) repeated the axes of evil slogans of best mate Bush like a parrot and sent Australian troops to Iraq without a UN mandate and based on lies: Bush and Howard’s crusade (holy war) against terror!

What is more evil, to drag Australia into wars, cause soldiers and excessive civilian death, or being pro-abortion or to accept gay’s rights?

Is it ethic to tell Australians that defending our country in Iraq and Afghanistan is required to make Australia a safer place? This argument is complete rubbish.

Is it responsible to send soldiers into terrible wars and let them suffer later for life from horrible dreams and stress?

There are more ethical reasons for not voting for the Coalition than the Greens!

The Liberals are responsible to have initiated the cause for all life's lost in these wars.

These wars have probably cost Australians more than ALP ever has wasted with alleged economic miss-management.

Liberals and Nationals seem more to be a Coalition of Evil than a Coalition of Christian Ethics?

And unfortunately the ALP has not the guts to end our involvement in wars.

The only party which would support the idea to get out of the wars or better not to get involved in it are the Greens.

Chris
Posted by chris_ho, Wednesday, 25 August 2010 6:36:32 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
Jereth
"If you support a Government system which compulsorily acquires and distributes wealth, that is fine"

That is called taxation not Marxism. As an Atheist I have not used any biblical text as my platform.

Taxation is what supports our health system, fire and police, roads and infrastructure.

As an atheist I have not used any biblical platform to make this argument merely an ideological one that I belive works better for human societies and ensures fairness.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 29 August 2010 11:22:36 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

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