Supreme Court Moving on Pennsylvania Ballot Case

[Baptist Believer]

Why would anyone vote for Biden and ignore the Senate races, where the real power lies? Simply put, they would not.

Some voters don't care that much about the local races. However, you seem to be insinuating that there are thousands of votes where only Biden was selected. Do you have evidence for that common claim?

 

[JonC]

That seems to ignore what atheistic Marxist states do. Communist China is in the process of editing the Bible. Their politics are fanatically religious. Bow to the state or else. That is the route of the Dem Progressive Left—Marx my words.

I agree. That is the way of the world. Political parties are worldly powers and stand, ultimately, in opposition to Christ.

 

[777]

just declined Texas - lack of standing.

Some voters don't care that much about the local races. However, you seem to be insinuating that there are thousands of votes where only Biden was selected. Do you have evidence for that common claim?

no coat tails, none at all, lost seats in the House, will almost certainly lose in GA. both of them. Fraud, massive.

 

[Baptist Believer]

no coat tails, none at all, lost seats in the House, will almost certainly lose in GA. both of them. Fraud, massive.

You are making some massive false assumptions:

(1) You assume that people vote straight-ticket. That's not true at all. In 2016, I did not vote for Trump, but I voted for my local Republican House Representative.

(2) I went back and checked Georgia voting. In November 2020, there were 4,998,482 total votes in the Presidential race, while there were only 4,952,175 total votes for the Senatorial race (a statewide race), making a difference of 46,307 voters who voted for President and not for the most frequently voted for Senatorial position. The difference of 46,307 is what I assume you are basing your assertion of fraud upon.

In 2016, there were 4,092,373 total votes in the Presidential race, while there were only 3,897,792 total votes for the Senatorial race (a statewide race), making a difference of 194,581 voters who voted for President and not for Senator. That's more than four times the difference in 2020, so does that mean Trump was fraudulently elected in 2016?

 

[777]

Wasn't talking about the total number of votes for each, just which party won both. Not going to pat a cheater on the back and don't care what SCOTUS thinks about it one way or the other. No way Biden was that far behind on election day then they shut down the ballot counting until observers went away then started counting again in secret and - viola! - Biden wins.

Never going to respect someone who wins that way. Selected, not elected.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No way Biden was that far behind on Election Day...

The votes that were cast that day were counted first (Trump told his people to do that) and then the absentee/mail-in ballots were counted second. It was widely acknowledged that Trump would likely be ahead the night of the election and when the rest of the votes were counted, he would likely lose his lead and it would be close.

That’s exactly what happened. I realize you may not like that, but that’s reality.

 

[777]

No. Trump is leading by 800K votes at 11PM in a state. Then a ballot drop at 4PM and Trump gets 5 percent of the vote? In another state, 132, 000 votes come in in the dead of night, ALL for Biden,

The truckdriver from New York transporting ballots. The taped up windows. Eric gloating that he's sure Trump won't win. The scores of eyewitnesses. The lack of ballot tracking. The tape of election fraud in process.

That’s exactly what happened and more. I realize you may not like that, but that’s reality. So is the fact that this is at least the second person you voted for that cheated to win. Ask Bernie.

 

[Sai]

Trump must be willing to take the country into civil war.

The evidence for cheating is without a shadow of doubt.

And I say that not to be patriotic, because my citizenship is not on this earth but above with my Father.

I say this because in the realm of humanity, a line has been crossed of which the left can not return. By peace or by war.

 

[Reformed1689]

How do you know they exist? Can you show me examples of these ballots?

I often don't vote for people who are unopposed, nor do I vote for issues/races where I am undecided. My ballot for the November 2020 election was missing votes on unopposed Texas races.

Because it is entered into evidence. That's how.

 

[Reformed1689]

How do you know they exist? Can you show me examples of these ballots?

I often don't vote for people who are unopposed, nor do I vote for issues/races where I am undecided. My ballot for the November 2020 election was missing votes on unopposed Texas races.

But missing all other votes? No.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree. That is the way of the world. Political parties are worldly powers and stand, ultimately, in opposition to Christ.

All authority on earth is ultimately answerable to God. Some authorities are much more in rebellion against God than others. All are potentially dangerous.

By the standards you suggest, not even church or family government is or ever has been more justifiable than anarchy. This is precisely the sort of surrender that tyrants like the Progressive Left Dems crave, for by it they can easily wrest away all power to themselves. The only workable solution is that there be checks and balances.

What I can agree to is that no man should place his faith in another, only in God. While we submit to authority, we do not bow to it, do not put our faith in it, not even within the family or the church. We worship God alone. All others must be held accountable, and Christian voices should not be silent.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's the way the cookie crumbles.

I am a pessimistic in a way. I have thought for a long time now that our nation has been on a moral decline. I believe there is no cure (the US is beyond turning to God as a nation). I look for a continued decline ultimately for God's glory in the Church.

We don’t put our faith in man Jon, but in Christ.

 

[JonC]

All authority on earth is ultimately answerable to God. Some authorities are much more in rebellion against God than others. All are potentially dangerous.

By the standards you suggest, not even church or family government is or ever has been more justifiable than anarchy. This is precisely the sort of surrender that tyrants like the Progressive Left Dems crave, for by it they can easily wrest away all power to themselves. The only workable solution is that there be checks and balances.

What I can agree to is that no man should place his faith in another, only in God. While we submit to authority, we do not bow to it, do not put our faith in it, not even within the family or the church. We worship God alone. All others must be held accountable, and Christian voices should not be silent.

I do not believe the Christian voice should be silent. I just believe it should be expressed clearly through the Church rather than muffled in a political party.

I believe the DNC and GOP are equally powers of this world. I believe that Kingdom work is to be accomplished in Kingdom ways and when we lend our voice to worldly powers we become entangled with the affairs of those powers (which I believe by nature are at odds with Christ).

This is not a new idea (it was the position for the early church and many Christian sects throughout history).

BUT that is my belief and I am not imposing it on others.

 

[KenH]

This is not a new idea (it was the position for the early church and many Christian sects throughout history).

David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, "On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It".

“One of the signs of the great Apostacy, was the union of Church and State. Its chosen symbol was a woman upon the back of a seven headed and ten horned beast. It is almost uniformly admitted, among American Protestants, that this is a well chosen symbol to represent the absurd, and unnatural union of Church and State. It is generally conceded, that the woman represents the Church, and the beast the old Roman civil government. This being true, it would appear far more natural for her to be riding the beast, than for him to have his locomotion promoted by the help of the woman! When the State comes forward and proffers its assistance, and the Church voluntarily accepts of such help, it might be a question, which would be the most to blame; the Church for accepting, or the State for offering such assistance. But when the Church gives, unasked, her power to the beast, no excuse can reasonably be pleaded. If the State supporting the Church, is called an adulterous union, I am unable to see, why the union is not equally intimate, and criminal, when the Church supports the State, by participating in all its responsibilities. When the Church offers her fellowship, and co-operation in framing all the laws of the land, and in choosing its judicial and executive officers - when even her members refuse not to become legislators, and are even forward to fill all the offices of human governments, I cannot see, but the relation between church and State, is as intimate as ever, and just as illegal. Ezekiel chided the ancient Hebrews for seeking such union with the nations; and he compares Israel to a woman of the lowest infamy. It is exceedingly painful to me, to see how aptly these symbols of John and Ezekiel apply to modern professors. But how greatly would I rejoice, if the reformation of the 19th century would arise and put on her beautiful garments, and show herself to be the true spouse of Christ. May the good Lord grant that this noble brotherhood, that I so dearly love, may soon see the whole truth! But here, I am met with the objection, that these institutions are ordained of God. And he who resists them resists an ordinance of God, and shall receive punishment. Let me here pause, and remark, that I would sooner be understood as taking the popular view of this passage, rather than appear to countenance any kind of war. Nothing is further from my intention. But the fact of civil government being ordained of God, is no proof of Divine approbation. So long as it can be clearly shown that he has ordained that one sinner should punish another, so long as we read in Isaiah, that Cyrus was sent against Babylon, although he knew not God, so long as we find it not difficult to admit the application of the above passage, to civil government, whether such be its meaning or not. To make the admission saves much time, and leaves the argument much more compact. Something is gained and nothing lost by granting all we can to our opponents. That God can overrule sin, without being responsible for its commission, and without having any complicity with it, is a thing so plain, that to turn aside to explain it would almost be an insult to those for whom these columns are written. Let a hint suffice. Pharaoh was raised up by God for a certain purpose, although his behavior was far from being approved of God. With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him, who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.”

 

[JonC]

David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, "On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It".

“One of the signs of the great Apostacy, was the union of Church and State. Its chosen symbol was a woman upon the back of a seven headed and ten horned beast. It is almost uniformly admitted, among American Protestants, that this is a well chosen symbol to represent the absurd, and unnatural union of Church and State. It is generally conceded, that the woman represents the Church, and the beast the old Roman civil government. This being true, it would appear far more natural for her to be riding the beast, than for him to have his locomotion promoted by the help of the woman! When the State comes forward and proffers its assistance, and the Church voluntarily accepts of such help, it might be a question, which would be the most to blame; the Church for accepting, or the State for offering such assistance. But when the Church gives, unasked, her power to the beast, no excuse can reasonably be pleaded. If the State supporting the Church, is called an adulterous union, I am unable to see, why the union is not equally intimate, and criminal, when the Church supports the State, by participating in all its responsibilities. When the Church offers her fellowship, and co-operation in framing all the laws of the land, and in choosing its judicial and executive officers - when even her members refuse not to become legislators, and are even forward to fill all the offices of human governments, I cannot see, but the relation between church and State, is as intimate as ever, and just as illegal. Ezekiel chided the ancient Hebrews for seeking such union with the nations; and he compares Israel to a woman of the lowest infamy. It is exceedingly painful to me, to see how aptly these symbols of John and Ezekiel apply to modern professors. But how greatly would I rejoice, if the reformation of the 19th century would arise and put on her beautiful garments, and show herself to be the true spouse of Christ. May the good Lord grant that this noble brotherhood, that I so dearly love, may soon see the whole truth! But here, I am met with the objection, that these institutions are ordained of God. And he who resists them resists an ordinance of God, and shall receive punishment. Let me here pause, and remark, that I would sooner be understood as taking the popular view of this passage, rather than appear to countenance any kind of war. Nothing is further from my intention. But the fact of civil government being ordained of God, is no proof of Divine approbation. So long as it can be clearly shown that he has ordained that one sinner should punish another, so long as we read in Isaiah, that Cyrus was sent against Babylon, although he knew not God, so long as we find it not difficult to admit the application of the above passage, to civil government, whether such be its meaning or not. To make the admission saves much time, and leaves the argument much more compact. Something is gained and nothing lost by granting all we can to our opponents. That God can overrule sin, without being responsible for its commission, and without having any complicity with it, is a thing so plain, that to turn aside to explain it would almost be an insult to those for whom these columns are written. Let a hint suffice. Pharaoh was raised up by God for a certain purpose, although his behavior was far from being approved of God. With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him, who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.”

That was the view of the early church. The ECF's were united in the belief that voting was a sin (many don't realize that they could vote for the senate in Rome provided they were Roman citizens). This changed in the fourth to fifth century with the advent of the Roman Catholic Church.

I believe that we are called to be a light, or a "city on a hill". This cannot be done when Christians are united with worldly powers (if social injustice is solved by the DNC then the DNC is glorified, if immorality ceases through the work of the GOP then the GOP is glorified).

While I do not impose this belief on other people I do hold it myself so I will be faithful to my own understanding and conscious in these matters and refrain from involving myself with political parties while speaking out for my faith and the truth of the gospel of Christ. I did not always believe this way in terms of politics, but not long ago I did realize that neither party is the solution to the problems of this world and I already knew that neither party proclaims the gospel of Christ (and therefore are by definition against Christ).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I do not believe the Christian voice should be silent. I just believe it should be expressed clearly through the Church rather than muffled in a political party.

I believe the DNC and GOP are equally powers of this world. I believe that Kingdom work is to be accomplished in Kingdom ways and when we lend our voice to worldly powers we become entangled with the affairs of those powers (which I believe by nature are at odds with Christ).

This is not a new idea (it was the position for the early church and many Christian sects throughout history).

BUT that is my belief and I am not imposing it on others.

Yes, one must hold to conscience and not ask another violate his own. But do note that evaluation of specifics regarding the state of politics is not about conscience but about perception. Arguing that the two parties are essentially the same is not about conscience but about perception.

Since all worldly government is worldly, your argument sounds little different than saying it would be best if all laws and government led to ever more immorality, ever more injustice, because any improvement would be credited to man not to God.

 

[JonC]

Yes, one must hold to conscience and not ask another violate his own. But do note that evaluation of specifics regarding the state of politics is not about conscience but about perception. Arguing that the two parties are essentially the same is not about conscience but about perception.

Since all worldly government is worldly, your argument sounds little different than saying it would be best if all laws and government led to ever more immorality, ever more injustice, because any improvement would be credited to man not to God.

I see what you mean. In one way political parties are the same (they are "powers of this World" and at odds by nature with Christ).

But I also see that there are differences. They hold opposite platforms that oppose one another (like a magnet with two poles).

My belief is that Christians change the world at an individual level (not a social level). The gospel has social implications but is not a social gospel.

The "Christian voice" applied to the DNC is a social gospel of racial and economic justice. Likewise when applied to the GOP it is a social gospel of social morality. But what is missing in both parties is the same - Christ.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, "On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It".
...
“With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him, who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.”

What in the world! LOL. It is hard to fathom a well-educated Christian formulating something so absurd. The "axioms" start in the middle and make no sense.

As the author has graciously exhibited his own ignorance to the extreme, so now let me show a bit of mine. Who in the world is he, this B.U. Watkins, and why would Lipscomb quote him?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I see what you mean. In one way political parties are the same (they are "powers of this World" and at odds by nature with Christ).

But I also see that there are differences. They hold opposite platforms that oppose one another (like a magnet with two poles).

My belief is that Christians change the world at an individual level (not a social level). The gospel has social implications but is not a social gospel.

The "Christian voice" applied to the DNC is a social gospel of racial and economic justice. Likewise when applied to the GOP it is a social gospel of social morality. But what is missing in both parties is the same - Christ.

Again, perceptions vary, evidently a lot. If I were to so contrast the Dems and the Reps, the poles would be better described as the Dems being hell-bent on keeping God out of everything and the Reps intent on allowing him in, Trump in particular allowing God a serious say in his political decisions.

 

[JonC]

Again, perceptions vary, evidently a lot. If I were to so contrast the Dems and the Reps, the poles would be better described as the Dems being hell-bent on keeping God out of everything and the Reps intent on allowing him in, Trump in particular allowing God a serious say in his political decisions.

I am not a Republican. Has the GOP changed its official platform to include recognizing Christ as Savior and the only Power for change?