To Ponder. You asked:

"Why the obsessive attention to a belief system?"

The answer? Because it matters. Let's go over a few different belief systems. In Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i, a very strong belief is that there is a God. Who created the universe, and who the world is accountable to. If that is true then that matters a great deal. In Hinduism there is the the belief that people have multiple lives and that their actions will have some karmic consequences in either this life or the next one. If that is true that matters a great deal. If it makes it easier look at a non-religious belief. Global warming narratives repeatedly say we have 10-15 years left of good years on the earth before it goes to hell, and so we should make every effort to right our wrongs to the environment while we still can. If that is true then that matters a great deal.

If any of those beliefs are true then that should affect the actions of those who believe them. They matter enough to change your actions and your behavior. Even if they are not true, those who believe them should have their actions match their convictions. Because those convections hold a lot of consequences to them.

The point is that the attention to a belief system should affect everything else in a person's life, including governing Australia. If it doesn't affect what a person does, then likely they don't actually believe it to be true in the first place. That's the power of a belief.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Actually Ponder, I'm sure you understand this already. After all, in your reply to OzSpen, you also said: "Why allow critical outcomes to depend on faith, instead of fact?" Which is a sign of how to assign beliefs, instead of recognizing their effect. My answer to that is that beliefs should be able to be both scrutinized to see if they are correct or not, as well as respected (as long as they aren't a threat to others) so people have the freedom to think on their own. The facts as they are don't discredit Christianity. But then again, "Why the obsessive attention to a belief system?"

To Alan B.

You said that love never asks for obedience or blind unquestionable faith. I can think of two instances where it does though. Two of the strongest bonds of love that we see in relationships. A parent teaching their kids right from wrong and obeying the rules of the house. They don't have to say why it's wrong to hit, or why they should share, but in loving their children they expect them to obey them and learn these lessons. In marriage as well, a couple expects loyalty from their spouse. This means faithfulness. Don't cheat on your spouse, and if you know something bothers them, try not to do it out of love for them. I know this takes the romance out of the equation, but the truth is that love has an element of being faithful, obedient, and loyal in the nature of love. If it doesn't have those elements in it, you can question if it's love there or not.

To Yuyutsu.

This might be hard to swallow, but hear me out. Jesus warned us about those who are false Christians, as well as gave warnings to so called false Christians. But my point in the matter wasn't about finding out who is a real Christian (and rewording them or something) and who isn't (and ousting them). My point is that unfortunately what would count as a minimum requirement of being a Christian seems to be a hard line to draw, and thus is hard to hold standards for. For the MP, but or for anyone else.

To Armchair Critic.

Was that your experience with Christianity? If so then I'm sorry for you. I don't think that's accurate of Christianity though. It's been my experience that there are many philosophies within Christian culture that are not actually anything Christian at all. Finding out the difference has been one of the first things I've tried to accomplish when I accepted Christianity.

To OzSpen.

I'm glad you understand my stance on the matter. Keep on praying for him.

Hey Spencer,

"Your last post presented a Strawman Fallacy..."

Pfffttt.
Why don't you try explaining that in your own words?
Do you baffle the fragile minds at church with that bs?

"Why do you refuse to deal with the content of my article?"

I did, I just didn't deal with it in the way you wanted me to.

- And you'd think that someone who specialises in parables would learn to see the bigger picture but no...

You keep thinking that you have some control over what I say;
That you pose the questions and then correct everyone's answers.
I might have to start calling you Dorothy (Dixer) if you keep it up.

I'm not a trained monkey.
I wont jump through any hoops for anyone unless I choose to.
Stop asking the questions and then trying to steer everyone towards your own answers and outcome.

[Cont.]
What my comment had to do with your article is that your trying to use the same peer pressuring ideology to force our PM into acting in accordance with religion.

It's not his job to act in accordance to his religion.
In his personal private life yes, sure.
As our PM its his job to act in the citizens best interests, as well as his own, if he wants to get re-elected.

"We can't have a rational discussion when you do this."

You seem to get everything wrong.
It's called online opinion, not online discussion.
You had your say in the article, this is where we have our say.

"Now let's get back to a point I made in the article"

Don't try to steer or control me.
Just ask me.

"Religion and politics don't mix. Is this a true or false statement?"

I'd rather not go with a 'true' or 'false' answer to be honest;
- but if you forced me to choose I'd probably say True, they don't mix;

And why? Because man can't serve two masters.
You either serve your God or you serve your Constituents.
- And I don't think one can successfully serve both -

But that said, I'm not sure politicians can serve both their party and their constituents at the same time very well either.

Dear Critic,

Government is there to serve itself and a political party, not its constituents (which is just an empty propaganda slogan).

Everyone (Christian or otherwise) should always [do one's best to] serve God in whatever circumstance they find themselves.

Now why are you saying that serving God is in conflict with serving His people? Are they enemies?

Different people have different callings from God. The author oversimplifies this reality to assume that one's calling must be equal to enforcing the doctrine of a Church - but this is only one possibility among infinitely many ways God can operate in.

I would like to see some wo/man of God (Christian or otherwise), inspired by the Holy-Spirit to infiltrate the ranks of government and dismantle it from within, somewhat like what Gorbachev did in breaking down the tyranny of the communist Soviet-Union. This requires patience and it makes sense that such a person would initially need to remain quiet and seem to conform. Who knows, perhaps our hero is already there, making his/her way up to the top?