Republican and Christianity

[tango]

I made my point. It was simple and didn't require nearly as many words as yours. The fact that a couple people seemed to see words that weren't even in my post is what surprises me.

You made one point that people had put the words "vote Republican" into your mouth. Then you made another point that seemed irrelevant to the discussion.

The idea of not accepting those who would lead us into immorality is pretty plain to me. I am surprised it seems elusive to you.

You continue to miss the point. Let's try again.

Within the church we should not tolerate flagrant sin. Outside of the church we should not expect people to live Godly lifestyles. There's no point trying to force people to change from the outside inwards, we should be looking for people to accept Jesus and let the Holy Spirit change them from the inside outwards.

Simple example. I don't go round killing people. If the law were changed such that it were no longer illegal to kill people I still wouldn't do it, simply because I don't have the desire to do it in the first place.

What's so hard to understand about that?

If having two bad choices on the ballot is what we are driven to, we still must decide based on what we have. In your example, choosing between baby-killers or enemy-killers, I think I can make that distinction. There are many more issues than those two, however, and all must be considered. I will never vote for baby-killers or gay-marriage advocates. After that, my choices require more thought.

Many more issues, and whichever way you vote you're taking chances with who will get into power. Although for all your apparent indignation at having the words "vote Republican" attributed to you when you didn't explicitly say it, this paragraph does pretty much imply "vote Republican". If you could never vote for baby killers or advocates of gay marriage you would logically have to vote Republican on the basis voting for anyone else pretty much hands the election to the Democrats. Unless you're trying to say that the Republicans are also baby killers and advocates of gay marriage, which isn't a position often attributed to them as far as I can tell.

[Bandit]

The "homosexual agenda" is imaginary. Peole just want to be free.

For the OP:

Here is an excellent Christian YouTube video explaining why God is not a Republican:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTDzt-qKt7k

Hey Knight Templar,

I just watched this video (well, most of it until I could not stand it any more). What I saw was a few people who want to blame the republicans for all of society's ills. They were saying things like, "We've had republicans in office and we've still got problems, so it is their fault. Those republicans blame the poor for everything." You know, this was one of the lamest attempts to blame society's ills on republicans like Regan that I have ever seen. So this is not an excellent Christian video in my opinion.

[Reynolds357]

Yep. What's your point?



The fact somethign was set up a certain way doesn't make that an inherently good way. It's ironic that legislating Christian morality tends to produce the results that Jesus was so vocal against in the Pharisees.

Every law is someones morality being legislated.

[A Seeker]

Within the church we should not tolerate flagrant sin. Outside of the church we should not expect people to live Godly lifestyles. There's no point trying to force people to change from the outside inwards, we should be looking for people to accept Jesus and let the Holy Spirit change them from the inside outwards.

Much wisdom here.

Additionally, people tend to resist things they are forced into. Trying to force people to live moral lives risks the natural and inevitable backlash being applies to the church.

[tango]

Every law is someones morality being legislated.

Doesn't mean every law is a good one.

[Boo]

You made one point that people had put the words "vote Republican" into your mouth. Then you made another point that seemed irrelevant to the discussion.

You continue to miss the point. Let's try again.

Within the church we should not tolerate flagrant sin. Outside of the church we should not expect people to live Godly lifestyles. There's no point trying to force people to change from the outside inwards, we should be looking for people to accept Jesus and let the Holy Spirit change them from the inside outwards.

Simple example. I don't go round killing people. If the law were changed such that it were no longer illegal to kill people I still wouldn't do it, simply because I don't have the desire to do it in the first place.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Many more issues, and whichever way you vote you're taking chances with who will get into power. Although for all your apparent indignation at having the words "vote Republican" attributed to you when you didn't explicitly say it, this paragraph does pretty much imply "vote Republican". If you could never vote for baby killers or advocates of gay marriage you would logically have to vote Republican on the basis voting for anyone else pretty much hands the election to the Democrats. Unless you're trying to say that the Republicans are also baby killers and advocates of gay marriage, which isn't a position often attributed to them as far as I can tell.

I take it from your words that you do not recognize that it is possible to vote for a Democrat who is anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage. You seem to lump everyone together in a way that is not actually realistic. There are Republicans who are not concerned about either of those issues as well. The "party platform" is not the person. It is also possible that there are other political parties on the ballot. I know that knowing the difference between them all requires effort on our part, but how much effort went into setting up a country where we have the right to do that?

The whole point - and I still am confused about what is so difficult to see - is that each of us as individuals are reponsible for our own actions and our own choices. People seem to be so reluctant to take a stand on God's precepts for fear of being accused of doing something wrong. This is our country, too. It does not belong only to the anti-Christians crowd and the worldly masses. This government was set up so that we all have a voice - however small. If you allow your voice to chime in with the worldly masses, then you have taken a stand. Was if for or against God? If you have been timid about speaking out according to God's instructions, then you should be wondering why. If you have allowed your country to become more immoral in your timidity, perhaps you should wonder how God would see your actions.

Remember, those laws from the beginning were written to support God's teachings. It is through the vote and the liberalizing of the Supreme Court that they have been negated. Our laws have been adjusted to tolerate sin as acceptable. Now when we get a chance to stand against more of the same, we would rather not "force our beliefs on someone else?" Really? Are we merely observers or do we live here as well? When we get a chance to put our voice in harmony with God's instructions, why are we timid? Afraid of criticizm? Afraid of persecution?

What would Jesus have to say about that? As for me and my house? You know the rest...........

[BrianW]

If I could rep you again Boo I would. Excellent post!

[Free Indeed]

Every law is someones morality being legislated.

We agree for the third time!

But *salvation* can't be legislated.

[Reynolds357]

Doesn't mean every law is a good one.

What does that really have to do with anything?

[Reynolds357]

I take it from your words that you do not recognize that it is possible to vote for a Democrat who is anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage. You seem to lump everyone together in a way that is not actually realistic. There are Republicans who are not concerned about either of those issues as well. The "party platform" is not the person. It is also possible that there are other political parties on the ballot. I know that knowing the difference between them all requires effort on our part, but how much effort went into setting up a country where we have the right to do that?

The whole point - and I still am confused about what is so difficult to see - is that each of us as individuals are reponsible for our own actions and our own choices. People seem to be so reluctant to take a stand on God's precepts for fear of being accused of doing something wrong. This is our country, too. It does not belong only to the anti-Christians crowd and the worldly masses. This government was set up so that we all have a voice - however small. If you allow your voice to chime in with the worldly masses, then you have taken a stand. Was if for or against God? If you have been timid about speaking out according to God's instructions, then you should be wondering why. If you have allowed your country to become more immoral in your timidity, perhaps you should wonder how God would see your actions.

Remember, those laws from the beginning were written to support God's teachings. It is through the vote and the liberalizing of the Supreme Court that they have been negated. Our laws have been adjusted to tolerate sin as acceptable. Now when we get a chance to stand against more of the same, we would rather not "force our beliefs on someone else?" Really? Are we merely observers or do we live here as well? When we get a chance to put our voice in harmony with God's instructions, why are we timid? Afraid of criticizm? Afraid of persecution?

What would Jesus have to say about that? As for me and my house? You know the rest...........

It is becoming impossible for a Democrat to be anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage. I was talking with a black Democrat just a few days ago who said he was going to the Republican party for that very reason. He said he was tired of being the Democrats whore. He said he was sick of having to trade his moral convictions for the promise (which is never kept) of economic help for his people.

[tango]

I take it from your words that you do not recognize that it is possible to vote for a Democrat who is anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage. You seem to lump everyone together in a way that is not actually realistic. There are Republicans who are not concerned about either of those issues as well. The "party platform" is not the person. It is also possible that there are other political parties on the ballot. I know that knowing the difference between them all requires effort on our part, but how much effort went into setting up a country where we have the right to do that?

If you vote for a Democrat who is personally against such things the result is one more Democrat in whichever house you are voting to fill. The party platform is not the person although I would tend to be wary of any politician who apparently disagrees with things their party is widely regarded as supporting.

The whole point - and I still am confused about what is so difficult to see - is that each of us as individuals are reponsible for our own actions and our own choices. People seem to be so reluctant to take a stand on God's precepts for fear of being accused of doing something wrong. This is our country, too. It does not belong only to the anti-Christians crowd and the worldly masses. This government was set up so that we all have a voice - however small. If you allow your voice to chime in with the worldly masses, then you have taken a stand. Was if for or against God? If you have been timid about speaking out according to God's instructions, then you should be wondering why. If you have allowed your country to become more immoral in your timidity, perhaps you should wonder how God would see your actions.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand when I say there's a difference between using words and example to show Christ's teachings and attempting to use the force of law to force people to live an outwardly Godly lifestyle. Let's imagine a place where we could pass and enforce laws against against hating my brother, against coveting my neighbour's wife, against every behaviour and thought process that the Bible describes as a sin. Would that make an iota of difference to anyone's soul if they merely stopped sinning on the outside for fear of the legal consequences? If not, how is it better to use the law as a blunt instrument to change people on the outside while not addressing their salvation, than to encourage them to accept Jesus Christ and be willingly changed from the inside by the Holy Spirit?

Remember, those laws from the beginning were written to support God's teachings. It is through the vote and the liberalizing of the Supreme Court that they have been negated. Our laws have been adjusted to tolerate sin as acceptable. Now when we get a chance to stand against more of the same, we would rather not "force our beliefs on someone else?" Really? Are we merely observers or do we live here as well? When we get a chance to put our voice in harmony with God's instructions, why are we timid? Afraid of criticizm? Afraid of persecution?

What would Jesus have to say about that? As for me and my house? You know the rest...........

What would Jesus say about it? Why not look at what Jesus did about it? Take the example of the rich young man - Jesus told him to sell his possessions and give the money away but was willing to watch as the rich man walked away despondent. Jesus didn't run after him and force him to do it, he didn't campaign for more taxes to force the rich man to pay "his fair share", he just let him go.

Want another example - how about the woman caught in adultery who Jesus told "Go and sin no more". Did Jesus expect her to be put under watch to make sure she didn't sin? Did he require her to wear a chastity belt to make sure she couldn't commit adultery again? No, he just gave her the instruction and left her to do with it what she would.

Can you show me a single example of Jesus forcing anyone to live as he would have them live, a single example of Jesus forcing anyone to do anything they didn't want to do? God even gave Adam and Eve the free choice to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree when he could have simply not given them that choice in the first place.

[tango]

What does that really have to do with anything?

The period comment that "that's what this country was founded on" is all well and good but doesn't mean it's inherently a good thing.

[Reynolds357]

The period comment that "that's what this country was founded on" is all well and good but doesn't mean it's inherently a good thing.

Whether it is good or not, that is the way it is supposed to be until the Constitution is amended to make that change. I do not like the idea of legislating from the bench. I am a strict constructionist. I believe T.C.O.T.U.S. is to be followed to the letter. If you do not like it, amend it; do not bastardize it.

[tango]

Whether it is good or not, that is the way it is supposed to be until the Constitution is amended to make that change. I do not like the idea of legislating from the bench. I am a strict constructionist. I believe T.C.O.T.U.S. is to be followed to the letter. If you do not like it, amend it; do not bastardize it.

I agree there's no point having a constitution if it isn't followed, and if the constitution does explicitly say that Christian morality must be imposed by force of law then either it has to be followed or amended.

I don't know the detail of what the constitution says, and since I'm not an American don't really have the interest to dig into it to find out.

[BrianW]

And that is the crux of many of the issues in America. A whole lot of American people have no idea of what the constitution says and don't have any interest in finding out. The really sad part about that is that many of our elected officials can be included in that statement.

Parts of the 4th amendment are being trampled into the dust right now by our government and very few people seem to even be aware of it or even care.