"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/

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.