Christians voting for Romney or Giuliani

[Pastor Larry]

I dunno, Pastor, isn't voting for someone doing exactly that? Participating with them in something? Taking part in a sort of business partnership? It's saying, "You be our leader and we will follow."

No, not at all

I am really struggling with what I should do if Romney or Gulliani wins the nomination. I don't know if I can vote for either in good conscious, and I certainly can't vote for Hillary.

That's fine. I don't know who I will vote for. I cannot support in any significant way any of the candidates. But that wasn't really my point. MY point was the misuse of the passage on unequal yokes to apply it to voting. That is not what the passage is talking about, and it is not a legitimate application of the passage.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You may think that votes are frivilous, but we will answer to God for every vote we cast. Whether or not you call it a yoke, the fact is, voting for a pro abortion candidate is endorsing it.

No, yes, and no.Votes are not frivolous, we will give account for them, and I don' t think we should vote for a pro-abortion candidate. But we may not have any legitimate option that does not involve selling our country down the river in other ways.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Romney was either lying about abortion and gay rights when governor of Mass or now, running for President.

Why do you keep saying this? It excludes the possibility that he was genuine both times, or lying the first time and telling the truth this time. Your continued repetition of this puts you in the position of possibly lying, as you are accusing him of doing.

It suggests a flawed character.

If he changed his mind on this important issue, it suggests a strong character, not a flawed one. It is never wrong to change one's mind from wrong to right.

Frankly, I dont think he cares one way or the other about abortion. He cares about what gets him elected, exactly what we do not need in a leader.

You may think this, but that doesn't make it right. We need to admit we don't konw exactly what Romney's heart position is.

Why are you loathe to do that?

 

[saturneptune]

Why do you keep saying this? It excludes the possibility that he was genuine both times, or lying the first time and telling the truth this time. Your continued repetition of this puts you in the position of possibly lying, as you are accusing him of doing.

If he changed his mind on this important issue, it suggests a strong character, not a flawed one. It is never wrong to change one's mind from wrong to right.

You may think this, but that doesn't make it right. We need to admit we don't konw exactly what Romney's heart position is.

Why are you loathe to do that?

Why to you put the most likely reason to the status of a unlikely event? What are the odds that Romney had a change of heart about gay rights, abortion, and gun control from leaving office in Mass to the exact moment of running for President?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why to you put the most likely reason to the status of a unlikely event?

I don't. I don't know if it the most likely reason or not, and it is not unlikely that someone, particularly a religious person, would change their mind.

What are the odds that Romney had a change of heart about gay rights, abortion, and gun control from leaving office in Mass to the exact moment of running for President?

50/50. He either did or he didn't.

So far as I know, there is no reason to doubt that he did. I don't know that that makes him a good candidate. But to charge him with lying out of your limited knowledge is inappropriate, IMO. You simply don't know whether he is lying or not.

 

[Martin]

Under what circumstances would you as a Christian vote for Romney or Giuliani?

==I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Rudy Giuliani. If I wanted to support a liberal, I would support Obama, Edwards, or Clinton. I could vote for Romney, but I would have to be more certain that his positions represent his personal beliefs and not just what he believes to get elected.

My candidate choices are (in order):

#1: Ron Paul

#2: Alan Keyes

#3: Mike Huckabee

 

[saturneptune]

I don't. I don't know if it the most likely reason or not, and it is not unlikely that someone, particularly a religious person, would change their mind.

50/50. He either did or he didn't.

So far as I know, there is no reason to doubt that he did. I don't know that that makes him a good candidate. But to charge him with lying out of your limited knowledge is inappropriate, IMO. You simply don't know whether he is lying or not.

Oh, and Merry Christmas to you and your family.

If I am proven wrong about my gut feeling of Romney, then there would be no reason not to vote for him.

 

[webdog]

And this has to do with representative government in what way?

Well, if you are employed, in your estimation, you are "yoked" together with the company. You are partners in making money for the company, and are compensated for it. If you buy anything from anybody, you are providing them money in exchange for something. That is also a partnership of sorts, as you are keeping them in business.

Scripture please.

Jesus considers hating and being angry with your brother murder, did He not? I don't know one person this doesn't apply to.

 

[steaver]

Well, if you are employed, in your estimation, you are "yoked" together with the company. You are partners in making money for the company, and are compensated for it. If you buy anything from anybody, you are providing them money in exchange for something. That is also a partnership of sorts, as you are keeping them in business.

Not in my "estimation". But it is obvious that asking another to represent you certainly is.

Jesus considers hating and being angry with your brother murder, did He not? I don't know one person this doesn't apply to.

Yes and no. Yes "hate" is murder. No "anger" is not.

In your anger "do not sin". And if you hate your brother then you are not a Christian. Since I have received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior I have not committed this sin. I can't.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

Yes they are. Ask someone who tries to get out of them. There are numerous hassles precisely becuase you can't just walk away.

Well if you wish to play the "binding agreement" angle to justify your position on the scripture then certainly voting for a representative would apply. Once in office he is there for a term and I cannot divorce him from being my rep. I am stuck with him so I guess I am yoked together until his term is up. It is even tougher than getting out of a marriage!

I know many who voted for Bush and sorely regret it, BUT they are stuck with him! YOKED!!

God Bless! :wavey:

 

[webdog]

Yoking has to do with spiritual matters, and that's it. We (believers) are not to be yoked (go down the same path together) with unbelievers. It's spiritual. This only applies to marriage, IMO, since the 2 become 1.

 

[KenH]

I can't.

Really? If that is the case, then I am impressed that you have that much self-control.

 

[steaver]

Yoking has to do with spiritual matters, and that's it. We (believers) are not to be yoked (go down the same path together) with unbelievers. It's spiritual. This only applies to marriage, IMO, since the 2 become 1.

Can you show in the passage that it only applies to marriage?

We apply it to marriage because we must apply it to ALL situations involving believers with unbelievers.

Why the need to place the word of God in a box? Is it so one can feel less guilty about yoking up with the unbelieving that they may benefit in other areas such as their pocket books?

The passage is clear and it is not isolated solely to "binding agreements".

Pastor Larry has shed some light on the seriousness of casting a vote though. Voting is more binding than marriage or contracts. You sign your name at the poll and agree to have your vote cast to support the candidate you want to REPRESENT YOU. If that candidate wins you have in part made him your representative for said term. You cannot get out of it. The candidate can walk away from the post at any time but if he stays you are stuck until next election. This is more binding than marriage or business agreements. You cannot get out! You cannot go to the government and say I wish to withdraw my vote and void the election. They will say you signed and voted and it is a done deal.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

Really? If that is the case, then I am impressed that you have that much self-control.

It is not about self control. It is about Christ in you.

1Jo 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

1Jo 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Are you in darkness?

Do you have eternal life abiding in you?

God Bless! :wavey:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Oh, and Merry Christmas to you and your family.

If I am proven wrong about my gut feeling of Romney, then there would be no reason not to vote for him.

Same to you and yours. I have no idea about Romney. I can see him changing for political reasons, and I can see him changing for honest reasons. Time will tell.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Well if you wish to play the "binding agreement" angle to justify your position on the scripture then certainly voting for a representative would apply. Once in office he is there for a term and I cannot divorce him from being my rep. I am stuck with him so I guess I am yoked together until his term is up. It is even tougher than getting out of a marriage!

But again, that's not the biblical idea of yoked.

I know many who voted for Bush and sorely regret it, BUT they are stuck with him!

Yes.

YOKED!!

No.

 

[steaver]

But again, that's not the biblical idea of yoked.

Sorry, but you are merely holding onto an unfactual opinion. The passage gives no inkling whatsoever of "binding agreements". Yoking up is yoking up no matter what the situation. It makes no distinction of "binding".

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Sorry, but you are merely holding onto an unfactual opinion. The passage gives no inkling whatsoever of "binding agreements". Yoking up is yoking up no matter what the situation. It makes no distinction of "binding".

What do you think a yoke is if not something that binds two people together?

 

[steaver]

What do you think a yoke is if not something that binds two people together?

You are right in part. I said what I said because you added the condition to the "binding" or "yoking" of not being able to easily get out of the agreement for the scripture to be properly applied to life situations. This is not supported by the passage nor by other scriptures. In fact the opposite is true, there is always repentance and one can always drop the yoke and do right, however difficult it may be.

Even if we conclude it is "binding agreements" only it would cause two problems. 1) now it becomes opinionated as to just what we will classify as "binding". 2) Casting a vote for a winning candidate is very binding for the voter, the only way out is to leave the country (if it is yoked to a President) and denouce citizenship.

But let's not get hung up on this one passage of scripture. It seems obvious to me that voting for a candidate is nothing less than yoking up. How could it be anything else?

Then we have another scripture that states we are ambassadors for Christ. We represent Jesus Christ and that alone should cause us to understand that supporting the unbelieving for representation is against God's word.

Scripture also declares we are to do all things to the glory of God. Does supporting an unbeliever for representation of Jesus Christ bringing glory to God? I think not.

God Bless! :wavey:

 

[Pastor Larry]

I said what I said because you added the condition to the "binding" or "yoking" of not being able to easily get out of the agreement for the scripture to be properly applied to life situations. This is not supported by the passage nor by other scriptures.

It absolutely is. Read the passage and study it.

In fact the opposite is true, there is always repentance and one can always drop the yoke and do right, however difficult it may be.

You can always repent, but you can't always break the yoke legitimately, adn when you can, it is often painful.

Even if we conclude it is "binding agreements" only it would cause two problems. 1) now it becomes opinionated as to just what we will classify as "binding". 2) Casting a vote for a winning candidate is very binding for the voter, the only way out is to leave the country (if it is yoked to a President) and denouce citizenship.

1. Not all that hard. 2) If you cast a vote for the loser, you are still bound with the winner. and you can't change it.

But let's not get hung up on this one passage of scripture. It seems obvious to me that voting for a candidate is nothing less than yoking up. How could it be anything else?

Is the reason you don't want to get "hung up" on this passage because you can't answer it? Your position is fatally flawed. Furthermore, voting for a candidate is not yoking up in any way.

Then we have another scripture that states we are ambassadors for Christ. We represent Jesus Christ and that alone should cause us to understand that supporting the unbelieving for representation is against God's word.

The Scripture you cite here is about the gospel, not politics.

Scripture also declares we are to do all things to the glory of God. Does supporting an unbeliever for representation of Jesus Christ bringing glory to God? I think not.

You think wrongly. Supporting a conservative unbeliever is far more glorifying to God than supporting a liberal unbeliever.

You have bought into a false dichotomy that separates your politics from your gospel. You can't do that. These two are related, and you can't just punt and cry out "Don't yoke with them." That misunderstand yoke, misunderstands the relationship between gospel and politics in a fallen world, and abdicates your responsibility.

The "all or nothing" approach to voting that says "If I don't have a perfect candidate I won't vote, or I will vote for someone who can't win" is a cop out. It allows the country to be run by a lesser qualified candidate than a better one. It is someone who says, If I can't have a thousand dollars, I won't take a hundred. That's pure nonsense. At some point, you take what you can get and work for more later.