How Does a Christian Choose?

I think that Clinton is obviously not a good choice because of the DNC platform. So the choice isn't between Clinton and Trump right off the bat (there is no justification, IMHO, for voting Democrat. So then there's Trump....but with the DNC excluded from consideration because of an ungodly platform, the OP becomes a different topic all together.

 

I agree with the article....except that the unborn are not citizens (per our qualification of citizenship), so it does become a moral issue and not one of governmental responsibility.

 

I came up from it from this comment - " If God’s purpose for government is to protect its citizens, I can’t think of anyone more in need of protection than the unborn." Quite simply, the unborn are not citizens of a government (at least not citizens when it comes to the US Government). They are unborn and therefore do not meet the qualification to be a "citizen". As I said, I agree with the rest of the article (protecting life...regardless of citizenship). The role of a government transcends how it governs its citizens. It also includes how it acts on a broader scale.

 

I certainly will not depend on a late night (comedy) TV show to help me decide who to vote for.

 

God does not consider all men, women, and children....and the unborn....as citizens of the United States. That's nonsense. Of course a nation is to rightly govern, to include actions that impact non-citizens under their charge. But that doesn't make them citizens. I don't know why you are insisting so hard that secular government somehow sets the standard for moral accountability. Do you believe that the United States is somehow God's governing body for mankind? Sort of a modern day Israel....a theocracy? If so, then consider this...in the OT, God did not consider non-Jews to be citizens of Israel (although Israel was certainly responsible for how they treated these non-citizens). You need to revisit your ideologies here.

If the laws of a government do not consider people citizens then they are non-citizens. Believe it or not, black people at one time did not have the right to vote under the laws of government. Believe it or not, slaves were not considered "citizens" under the laws of the government. Believe it or not, women did not always have the right to vote either, under the laws of the government. Laws were actually changed....imagine that. Does it mean that those people should have been treated as non or partial citizens? No, of course not. But the laws of the United States does not constitute our moral law, nor God's law. It's not a matter of citizenship (a legal matter) but one of love, of godliness, of humanity....a moral issue.

All living in the land of Israel were not citizens of Israel. There were laws that governed such things. But Israel was accountable for how it treated non-citizens within its kingdom. It was not a matter of God insisting that non-Jews were in fact Jews, or that people who were not within His covenant people were in fact citizens of Israel. God transcends human government and "mankind" does not mean "citizenship". I am a citizen of the U.S., not Germany. When I lived in Germany I was subject to their laws and afforded "rights" while living within their boarders, but I was not afforded citizenship.

Abortion is not wrong because God somehow imputes to the unborn US Citizenship and then looks to the government to protect its citizens. Abortion is wrong because it is EVIL. It is a moral evil against God (not somehow a lapse in the governments responsibility to its citizens).

The disagreement that I had with the article was not that it challenged the moral correctness of governmental laws. It was that God's concern is not bound up in the "citizenship" of a people except that they are "citizens" of the Kingdom. Our laws should protect life. When they don't, we can't pretend the laws are anything other than they are.

God's law simply transcends man's. Do you reject that?

 

The "gamble" is always there. We never really know how a candidate will turn out once elected. At least with Trump there is a decent platform (not one openly hostile to the Christian faith).

 

I agree with the article except the classification of the unborn as "citizens". The reason I disagree is that I do not think citizenship as an important issue (and the unborn are in fact not legal citizens of the US) when compared to abortion as an offense against a holy God. Abortion is the murder of children, plain and simple. People who reside in the US also reside under the responsibility of our government (to include resident aliens, citizens of other countries....it's a human issue).

It is not a matter of being a citizen, but of being human. A human is a human regardless of citizenship. Our government is responsible and accountable for what it does to people....young, old, and unborn. My emphasis on citizenship was simply because the topic extends beyond the unborn and to people as a whole.

And no, it is foolish to try and tell me that I'm trying to find a way to justify legalized abortions in some countries. I'm saying this is a human issue, a God issue, and an issue over which that no Christian should remain silent. Abortion is murdering babies, plain and simple. You have severely misunderstood my position.

I support Trump's platform with the exception of reworking the VA (making them compete for dollars in terms of care). But I don't think that he's worked out this one well. I don't think that Trump is the best candidate in terms of character and morals (immorality also plays into abortion), but I am not voting on the basis of his character. I will vote for Trump because I support that platform.

 

You said that I am trying to find a way to justify legalized abortion. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by calling this a misunderstanding. I am saying the responsibility of a government goes beyond its citizens.