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.

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.

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.

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.

""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.

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