"Left vs Right" - Politics is a farce.

If all Christians stay out of politics -- then Christians have no right to say anything when non-Christians, anti-Christians, etc. make the laws that prohibit Christian freedoms.

No man-made system is perfect. But it's the one we have to live in. And all we can do is do our best to make it better.

 

One of the best posts I've read on many a message board.:godisgood:

 

Well go find a cave to hide in

 

I agree. The politician who put his/her populace ahead of their own ambitions and chances of being elected again is exceedingly rare if, indeed, it has ever happened.

It is really so often the voting for two evils, or voting for the lesser of two lessors?

Countries, empires rise and fall ... one of the lessons of history.

You say a rigged system. Who rigged the system? Who would rig it to fail?

Just curious, is there a government in existence you would rather live under?

 

There was no mention of a need for Christians to stay out of politics.

 

I forgot who I was responding to. Never mind.

 

WHEW! For a minute there I thought I was gonna have to endure more justification for political idolatry.

 

IMO, it was implied when he said:

To me, that means don't vote if there is only evil to vote for.

 

It was inferred from this:

I checked the poster's personal info, and in it, he claims he's a Christian.

A self-proclaimed Christian states "politics is meaningless...this is my only "contribution"...I hate politics." What other conclusion are we to draw than that this Christian feels it's best to withdraw from the arena of politics?

Thus, I framed my answer for his/her consideration.

 

Or it could have just meant don't vote for either of the evils ,but to vote and write someone in.:thumbsup:

 

You based your unrighteous judgment on your opinion. It would be different if he had said "Christians stay out of politics" but he didn't. And now y'all are making a big deal out of something that wasn't even said.

I do sense a pattern in how some of y'all who have been on this board for a while respond to folks.


It's kinda like what liberals do when they try to frame the conversation to make their position seem like the correct one all the while covering up the truth.

 

"Unrighteous" judgment? How, exactly, is my evaluation of the poster's message "unrighteous"?

You read far too much into my answer to Ceegan. As I said: I framed my answer for his/her consideration.

You should consider: Is your personal dislike of me clouding your objectivity?

 

There's a Scripture that says 24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.” John 7:24

You made it an explicit point to say what you INFERRED not what Ceegen had written, and then proceeded to seemingly get indignant about something he didn't even say.

Seems like it's YOU who read too much into what Ceegen said and thus your response to him.:laugh:

I love you. Why would I have a personal dislike for you? We might disagree on some things, but that doesn't make me dislike you.:thumbsup: But you know, that's unrighteous judgment rearing its head again.

 

Regarding the OP- The tone of it sure leads one to think that Ceegen was advocating giving up on and withdrawing from politics.

Anyone who is not willing to cast a vote or run for office has little credibility when they complain about the state of the nation they were unwilling to have a voice in.

 

Quite familiar with it. The fact that you chose to immediately take a contrary position instead of rationally indicating why you think my inference is wrong, indicates that perhaps you should re-look at Matthew 7:1.

Here's my explanation: I replied to Ceegan the same way I would reply to any fellow Christian individually and privately, in an attempt to see the situation from another angle.

Au contraire, mon ami; I made an inference directly from what he said: "This is my only 'contribution'" and "I hate politics." Combine the two, along with other elements of his message, and you see someone saying s/he's not getting into the politics arena.

So why, exactly, was my judgment "unrighteous"?

And where, pray tell, is my so-called "indignation"? If Ceegan believes I got indignant about what he/she said, then I wholeheartedly apologize to him/her; that wasn't my intention at all, and I have no indignation whatsoever about what he/she wrote. All I have is a differing viewpoint.

Seems like it's YOU who's ignored certain words that Ceegan wrote--such as the ones I and others have specifically pointed out, that create a context.

I didn't say you didn't love me; I said "dislike." There's a difference.

You do realize that you've made an inference yourself, while taking me to task for making one? You read what Ceegan said, ignoring specific words; and thus, you've inferred from your personal viewpoint and opinions that I'm completely off the mark about what Ceegan said.

The only person who can confirm which of us is correct--or that in some way, both of us are correct, or that neither of us are correct--is Ceegan.

 

I already told you why your inference was wrong: HE DIDN'T SAY WHAT YOU'RE MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT.

And that's still based upon you jumping to a conclusion about something that has not been said.

It's the same reason people get confused about God's word. Always inferring stuff and then acting like it was actually said. (smh)

I see someone saying what he said and someone else complaining about something he didn't say. But like I said, this seems to be consistent with the way you folks who have been on here for a while tend to operate.

There seems to be a penchant for making scenarios into what y'all think is being said and then starting debates against things that were never said.

It was unrighteous because it wasn't based in truth. It was based in your opinion of what you thought he was saying instead of what he said.

Notice I did say "seemingly" so as to not INFER that you were indignant.

Yes, the group is always right. Give me a break. It's no surprise that sharks travel in packs. Folks on here feed off each other. And those who have been here the longest seem to kinda dictate the direction that the tone of a thread will take.

But if he didn't say it, stop arguing from the angle that he did.

Love is greater than like. I can't get to loving you if I don't like you. That's just like telling Christ I love your Church but I don't like its members.

You have no basis for saying that I'm off the mark about what you said because I didn't speak to what you said but rather the lack of a basis for you to say it.

He did not say what you said.

And to acknowledge that he is the only one who can do that is to acknowledge that you inferred based upon your own opinions instead of dealing with what he DID say.

It's like some of you are just looking for something to come at someone sideways about.

 

Really you shouldn't feed it.

 

That is correct Salty. The then big states wanted only a house of representatives, the little states wanted a senate. So the compromise was agreed upon, have a house and a senate. It was a wise compromise.

I agree and isn't it interesting that this is found to be the case year after year after year.

Run for office or vote the rascal out so another future rascal can be elected.

Politics has been defined as the art of compromise.

Good grief Salty, here we are agreeing again. Twice in one day!