Too much politics?

==I don't agree with your understanding of the Caesar phrase (it refers to taxes). Also you do a good job of bashing the liberal democrats, but what about the hypocritical republicans? They lie, they cheat and steal, and they are immoral. May we talk about Mark Fowley, Enron, Ted Haggard, and other republicans who have gone down in various scandles in recent years? How about about our Vice President Dick Cheney and our "christian" President George W Bush who both have serious problems with filthy language. The republicans in power have taken our hard earned tax dollars and thrown it into a million worthless government programs. For example they have several million dollars set aside to help defeat Hamas in the next election. Why is our tax dollars being spent on that? As far as abortion is concerned, the republicans are going to do nothing to stop it. They may drop the religious right carrots here and there but nothing of real substance will be done. In fact I am willing to bet that the republicans next presidential candidate will be a social moderate/liberal (McCain, etc). I believe Dr Rice, Sec. of State, recently appointed a homosexual to some office? So is this the party you are going to vote for? The party of Fowley?

Look. I think George Bush and Dick Cheney are probably nice guys in person. However that does not change the fact that their hands are not "clean", they are national level politicians after all. The republican party is just as immoral as the democratic party. Maybe in different ways but still just as immoral.

Now let's move to a second issue...

==I believe, if you will check the record, both democrats and republicans supported removing the ban on sodomy (in Texas was it). In fact alot of conservatives supported lifting the ban. Why? Because that is none of governments business. The American Government has no right to govern what two adults do in their private homes. I don't care how sick, immoral, or gross it is, the American Federal Government should stay out. Also if we are going to make sodomy illegal we are being hypocritical if we don't also make adultery, fornication, gossiping, pornography, and the like, illegal as well. All of those are sins, and gossip is even called an abominiation in Scripture (Prov 6:16-19).

You see I am a true conservative. I believe in the old Jefferson addage, the government that governs the least governs the best. I want a small, limited federal government. Even if that means allowing behaviors that are sinful and that I personally find to be immoral and sick.

 

My sentiments exactly!:applause:

 

No way! I must have gotten something wrong. :smilewinkgrin: Just ask the Democrats that read the post!

 

I didn't say we have a legal obligation to vote. The duty I discribed is a moral duty. Witholding your vote is akin to withholding relief to the oppressed—you become an ally to the oppressor.

Jesus postulated a universal, non-optional principle, and applied it to a specific circumstance. The "things that are Caesar's" are all things that are Caesar's.

Didn't you just say earlier one of your duties was to pay taxes?

 

A lot of rhetorical subterfuge in that post.:type:

Boiled down, the OP was asking what a Christian's role in civil government was. And I said that we must vote and yield that vote as an instrument of righteousness. We can't get caught up in the deception that we shouldn't be active, or that we have to think like atheists when we are active.

The biggest problem with politics in this nation is that the pulpits are too quiet.

 

I will yield my vote as an instrument of righteousness, as I said.

Let's say you're right. Even so, the push isn't to keep sodomy private. The push is to legitimize it, to grant it the same rights and privileges as marriage, to call it marriage.

No you aren't, because you do not understand the Biblical role of civil government. However, I will say that a constitutional republic may be unfit for the population we have today. The way we're behaving, we're ripe for a good ol' liberty-sucking coup.

 

Again there is no moral duty to vote. That's just rhetoric that folks use to make others that don't vote feel guilty. Well I'm sure it works on some, but not here. My only moral obligation is to the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

He has told me to obey the government (which paying taxes is, so I should have added that into my statement and I am to obey every other law that doesn't violate His law), and to pray for my leaders. That's the only moral duty or otherwise I have.

What a load of hogwash. We are told that we are aliens in this world. We are in the world, but not of this world. Again I could go on and on, but you have already made up your mind that you want to entangle yourself in the affairs of this world and that's fine, but don't unload this nonsense that if we don't vote we are actually helping and siding with the criminals in this country.

Really? You must be reading a different version than I'm reading, because contextually that's not even remotely close to what is being said. Again there is ZERO Biblical support that Christian MUST participate in a fallen governmental system. And there is tons of Biblical support that we should not outside of the two areas that I mentioned.

If you want to that's your business, but at least have the decency to respect the views of others instead of calling them accomplices to evil, becuase that is just plain ludicrous.

 

Advocating privatized Social Security accounts is a policy difference, not a sign of wickedness.

Tell me again which of your constitutional rights you have lost?

Do I need to mention Democrats Barney Frank, who’s boyfriend was running a prostitution rink out of Frank’s home or New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, and his gay shenanigans? Dems go into gay witch-hunt mode only when it is politically expedient.

Your beloved Jimmy Carter did the same. Hmm, maybe he only poses as a Christian…

Faith-based initiatives and pro-life referendums are routinely challenged and overturned by the courts. I don’t see how that is Bush’s failure.

I hate to point this out, but ‘The World’ didn’t like us very much anyway, regardless of what Pres Bush may have done or said. It is just a fact of life.

John Kerry told Larry King Live that on the morning of the Sept. 11 attacks he "sat stunned and unable to think for more than 30 minutes". After hearing that the American fleet at Pearl Harbor had been decimated on Dec 7, 1941, that 2403 soldiers and sailors had been killed, FDR did nothing for 18 minutes. And you make an issue of Bush’s 7 minutes?

Right. Well, the Democrats now have control of both houses of Congress. They can now demonstrate the superior manner in which they will live and legislate in accordance with God’s will. We are all waiting breathlessly for this to occur.

 

I disagree. I think the biggest problem is that the prayer closets are mostly empty and Western churches have trivialized the gospel into something that merely sends you to heaven when you die.

 

I don't oppose either of those on a moral basis. I oppose the first because it is a question of fundamental human rights. If gov't can arbitrarily say that one person has the "right" to kill another person simply because that person is an inconvenient consequences resulting directly from the free actions of the first person... then no one is safe and there is no such thing as a "right".

On the second, the gov't should have no interest in "equitable" outcomes for individuals. Contracts are between two individuals. If homosexuals want to enter into a contract with each other then so be it. Here's the rub though: no employer, property owner, organization, or individual should be required to show respect to that contract. Disagreement with and disassociation from homosexuals is every bit as much a "right" as to choose to engage in homosexual behavior.

Let the free market of ideals work to determine whether homosexual marriage is socially acceptable or not. It shouldn't be a matter of gov't force or influence in either direction. I am primarily referring to the US Gov't here. States should be free to do as they see fit on the issue per the constitutional design... though I'd favor libertarianism at the state level too.

 

When the Constitution was written, the establishment clause would have kept gov't out of education because education was the domain of the church. Do you oppose gov't schools? Charity was the domain of private individuals and churches. Do you oppose gov't interference in that realm? The elderly were cared for by their families, churches, and benevolent people. Do you oppose gov't intrusion in this matter?

Our country was established constitutionally as a very, very libertarian country. Outcomes for individuals were not considered a realm of federal concern. They were very suspicious of gov't involvement in society because they didn't trust the concept of "good government". A government empowered to determine and do good is likewise empowered to call evil good and do that instead.

Exactly! Yet so many in defense of Dems use the justification that they "help" the poor. That is decidedly choosing a vehicle that is "of this world" to accomplish a task that Christ specifically gave to the church and individual Christians.

Show us biblical reasoning for Dem policies or biblical defenses for those like abortion and affirmation of homosexual behavior.

I don't understand your support for them specifically because I find what they support from abortion to wealth transfer to be diametrically opposed to biblical principles and even standards.

Start with the most common justification- welfare. Prove biblically that God intended Christians to use gov't to feed the poor rather than doing individually while also evangelizing. Show me a verse that says that it is charitable to take from one person at the point of the sword to give to another who has done nothing to earn it... even if YOU think they need it worse.

I have seen you and others say "unjust war" but have yet to see your biblical case for it being so. Preemptive war is certainly not forbidden by scripture and God even commanded it.

The intel proved to be wrong but the rationale for the Iraq invasion was as "just" as any war that the US has engaged in. In fact, the Iraqis by firing at our aircraft and threatening us did as much as the Confederacy did to warrant Union invasion of Virginia.

 

Since people that have the info and authority to investigate this claim have repeatedly said that the intel was mistaken, not manipulated, the only deception you prove here is that you are engaging in yourself.

Prove that we have killed that many Iraqis. In fact, that number is conflated to include those killed by the insurgents... a number that dwarfs those killed directly by our forces. Do you have any proof at all that our guys are targeting civilians as a matter of policy or rule? Those who have done so on their own have been charged with crimes when caught.

These actions by the insurgents demonstrate that our rationale for fighting them was correct. Yet you guys seem to think they're not really the bad guys. We have people convicted of crimes for Abu Ghraib. They target women and children in market places... yet you decry Bush as the one who is killing 1000's for no reason.

It isn't a justifiable purpose of gov't to divide people into classes then support one over the other.

When you say support, what exactly does that mean? If you meant that gov't should get out of the business of favoring businesses while also getting out of the wealth transfer business then I'll agree with you.

If you mean that fundamentally all wealth and property belongs to the gov't and therefore they have a right to take from one and give to another (effectively buying votes for the politician with someone else's money) then no. Stealing is stealing whether you do it yourself, hire someone to do it, or elect someone to do it.

Here's a thought for you... maybe we should finally reject the lie of Social Security after all these years before it takes our gov't into default. Before Social Security, families and private interests took care of the elderly. There were some failures but by and large the elderly were as well off as anyone else in standard of living and health care. After so many years of gov't interference, there are many more failures, the programs are taking ever increasing portions of the nation's wealth, and people are so defensive about it that no effective change stands a chance of making it through the political process.

Your complaint doesn't make sense though. Out of one side of your mouth you lament the idea of privitizing SS so that people can have a personal account that will replace pensions. Out of the other you act as if something that belongs to the individual will be taken away. SS is a cruel false hope.

BTW, one average I have put less than 5% of my salary into my 401K. About 15% of my life's earnings have been taken for SS. I get statements from both... which would you guess is more valuable to my retirement?

SSI is a transfer payment directly dependent on demagraphics. When instituted, there was one recipient for every 20 payers. By 2000 that ratio was something like 6:1 to 8:1. By the pinnacle of baby boomer retirement in the 20's, that ratio will be on the order of 3:1. Since the bureaucracy consumes no less than 1/3... There will need to be a 50% SSI witholding to keep the program solvent.

If that same money had been invested in safe stocks and bonds, it would dependent on the size of the economy which means a sizeable portion of the retirement benefits would be paid by profits on foreign products.

Please name the right that YOU have been denied by the war against terrorism. Do you make a large number of calls to known terrorists from within the US?

But since we are talking about fundamental rights, why do you have no respect for property right? Since when is it your "right" to use gov't to force a property owner to pay someone more than they think they are worth under a contract privilege of employment? Since when is it your "right" to decide whether someone is charitable enough? Since when is it your "right" to confiscate estates simply because you don't like someone leaving their hard earned property to their own children?

Better to openly and adamently oppose "family values", huh? You don't really want to get into a conversation about which party is more tolerant of immorality. The Dems have defended and preserved in office people who have done far worse than Foley. Clinton did far worse than Foley. Did liberals demand his ouster? Did they hold him accountable for not delivering on the promise to conduct the most ethical presidency in history?

Speaking of hypocrisy, please name the Dem leader that doesn't say this or worse.

The GOP did a much better job on gov't funding than the Dems did and will do. Bush and the GOP Senate shifted the SCOTUS to a more pro-life position. They passed the partial birth abortion bill that the "moderate" Dem Bill Clinton vetoed.

Considering the resistance on something as cut and dried as banning partial birth abortion... how reasonable do you really think it is to expect all abortion to be outlawed in 6 years?

This was a dangerous idea... the gov't shouldn't be in the charity business. If they can't do it through religion then it becomes a matter of discrimination and a violation of the establishment clause to do it through any secular/humanistic organization.

Is that really something you hold against him? What did you expect him to do? Get in a jet fighter and start patrolling?

NOT HIS JOB. The military has people responsible to do that. They had never faced that situation before... It is beyond stupid to lay blame on anyone for that. Conservatives blame Clinton while libs blame Bush... Let's blame the people responsible, OK? The attacks didn't take place or get worse because Bush read a book to children.

This is a non-sensical statement. What could he have done that didn't get done? Nothing. And you have nothing but your hatred for him that says any different.

There was no evidence at that point that al Qaeda was close to having WMD's. Everyone in the world though Saddam had them. So if you mission is to prevent a WMD attack on the US or its interests you attack who?

That is perhaps the most idiotic thing you guys spew. You don't avoid fighting the enemy because they might become better at fighting. That's inane. You expect them to get better and prepare for it. BTW, would you rather they be training against law enforcement within the borders of the US?

And why? Because Bush is da deebil, right? NO. Because the terrorists know that the establishment of a stable, democratic Iraq would be a major set back to them. They know it would be a beacon of hope to peace minded Muslims around the Middle East while also demonstrating America to be a positive force FOR the average Muslim.

Only folks like you and the terrorists think these are bad things.

Doing the right thing isn't always popular. Doing what is popular is very often not the right thing.

You have demonstrated this at all. You have demonstrated that they have ignored the will of YOU and liberal secularists in Europe... I don't confuse that for God.

 

Is it not amazing folks, the debate of republicans and democrats continues even after the election? Its a fight between most evil and pure evil. To get back to the op, yes there is too much politics. Both Clinton and Bush (along with the democratic and republican parties) should be thrown on the trash heap of history like yesterday's trash.

 

Since I responded to SandN with this the silence has been deafening. Come on folks. We've got people saying that it is perfectly legitimate for Christians to vote for the Dems and their platform of ideals.

Priscilla Ann gave her amen to SandN... Where are you guys?

I would like to be able to consider the Dems. The Republicans have been disappointing and downright corrupt in many instances. However, when I look at the ideals espoused by the two parties, the GOP platform appears to be overwhelmingly more consistent with the Bible than the Dem platform. Please show me a reason to believe otherwise.

 

Why should anyone have to justify anything to you? You seem pretty set in your ways already. Frankly it is a waste of time. BTW, why don't you prove biblically that modern day government welfare is NEVER justifiable. (keep in mind that those on welfare are REQUIRED to work under PWORA and there is no way to get around it unless you are a minor or severely disabled)

FTR, I'm am neither a Dem or a Rep. For that matter matter I am not affiliated with any party.

 

Neither party is consistent with the Bible. Both are more concerned about winning elections and staying in power than they are about promoting morality or religion. The Republicists have tried to engender fear in the voters so that they would be scared into voting for their "solutions". But, they have no solutions, and they are not trying to deal with real problems. They are simply promoting a cycle of fear in order to try to stay in office. It didn't work as the recent election showed.

Now it's the Democrats' turn. I expect that they will do all right for a while, but they will also get bogged down with trying to stay in power. They may even resort to their own version of the cycle of fear. We'll start all over again. It won't end until we stop trying to operate on the world's terms and begin operating on God's terms: sacrifice and servanthood.


Tim Reynolds

 

Did you lose faith in them before or after the recent election? And did you vote for any candidate(s) for any office(s) in that election?

 

Then the government has no business giving marriage certificates to those who live that way. But they want it to be the government's business.

 

Two reasons.

First, because in spite of what you think I am set on, if someone showed me a sound biblical case, I'd change my position.

Second, as a Christian brother I am challenging them as scripture commands. I have no grudge against these folks. Their view just doesn't appear to line up with scripture.

If they've thought it out then they should have no inhibitions about explaining their godly rationale, should they?

If they have not thought it out biblically, shouldn't they?

Because it is never right to steal... even if you really, really need it.

Stealing is stealing whether you do it yourself, hire someone to do it, or vote for someone to do it for you.

When rich people buy elections and politicians then get sweetheart deals at the expense of the taxpayers, I expect that you and I would agree that this is stealing. The morality standard does not change simply because someone is poor rather than rich. It is wrong to use gov't to pick you neighbor's pocket.

Another is the parable of the talents, remember? To the poorest servant who squandered his blessing and opportunity was condemnation. Even that which he had Christ said should be taken away.

The NT tells us that if a man won't work he shouldn't eat.

One who will not care for his own family is worse than an infidel- SSI and other programs directly discourage families from caring for their own. It provides an excuse.

Christians and the church are commanded to care for the poor. Nowhere are we commanded to force "the rich" to care for the poor.

Our founders envisioned a society where these types of values would be part and parcel to self-governance. If we as a society won't do them then we should stop pretending that our Constitution matters and rewrite ourselves as some sort of socialist state. We just need to stop being disingenuous if that is what the people have been deceived into wanting..

I am using "welfare" generically for the whole system of wealth transfer. Nonetheless the notion that it can't be gotten around is downright laughable. I have a sister-in-law who has been scamming the system for years. The only thing wrong with her is that she's lazy and likes to stay high.

That's fine. I am associated with them only to the extent that they stand fot or at least trend toward the ideals of the founders. In 94 the GOP did. In 2006, they didn't. We'll see in 2008 and beyond.

Parties don't matter. They've swapped positions many times over their histories. Ideals are what matter.

 

The ideals espoused by the parties either are or are not. I never said the parties themselves were. God is not a Republican. OTOH, the GOP plank affirming the pro-life position is far more biblically consistent than the Dem plank affirming a woman's "right" to have her unborn child killed because it is an inconvenient consequence of one of her free moral decisions.

Actually the idealism and early accomplishments of the 94 Revolution were different. Over the past few years, what you say has been likewise true of the GOP. They have spent the treasury to try to buy voters.

Actually there are things that we should be afraid of not the least of which is creeping socialism and the hostility among some of the liberal Dem elite toward biblical Christianity.

The GOP lost because they abandoned the principles that put them into power in the first place. Not because they never had good solutions.

The reason I don't like the Dems right now is that I believe they'll do what they say they believe in- grab more power for gov't at the expense of our rights and liberties. The reason I am disgusted with the Rep's right now is that they can't be trusted to do act consistent with what they claim to believe in- pursue smaller, less intrusive, more honest gov't.

May? Did you even pay attention to what they ran their campaign on? What agenda did they come forward and say they would accomplish? Nothing. They simply threw rocks at the GOP and used peoples fear and disillusionment over Iraq along with some well timed scandal coverage.

I advocate that fully and completely. You don't stop doing that because of what gov't does or doesn't do. However, if you have any influence on your gov't, you should use it to prevent state interference in the God given mission of the church.