Featured Biblically Speaking, Would You Vote to Secede from the Union?

Zaac doesn''t get it. Does the Bible show Christians supporting non-Christians in government? Absolutely YES.

Joseph faithfully served Pharaoh and furthered his kingdom. Was Pharaoh a Christian? NO, the Egyptians were idol worshipers and had hundreds of false gods. Yet Joseph served Egypt faithfully and made Egypt more powerful than any other nation during the seven year famine.

Daniel is another example, he served under three different kingdoms that were idol worshipers and very ungodly.

Another example is Mordecai in the book of Esther, he also faithfully served an idol worshiper and prevented his assassination.

None of these men were unfaithful to God, but all of them faithfully served ungodly kings and kingdoms.

So, we can see by example that it is not wrong for a Christian to serve someone who is not a Christian.

This was pointed out to Zaac in the past, he had no answer for it.

 

No, I would not.

 

No I would not, Biblically or unBiblically.

 

Lying and breaking sworn oaths is "blatantly against the Word." It is plain as day that all branches of the federal government break the oath of office virtually 24/7 to uphold the Constitution, which requires adhering to its obvious enumerated powers according to their original intent.

 

But I bet you had a pretty good idea that they weren't members of what the Church calls a cult.

He worships a false god. He's completely immoral.

Then if you don't get the connection, it doesn't make sense for you to really speak against the connection.:laugh:

 

Joseph submitted to the authority that God placed over him. That has nothing to do with endorsing someone to lead over him who was against Christ.

Again, you're talking apples and oranges as Joseph's submission to the authorities that God placed over him is NOT Joseph endorsing that which is against God to lead.

Yet Daniel endorsed NONE of them to rule over himself. He was placed underneath their ruling authority. So again, apples and oranges.

Same as above.

.

Who said anything about serving underneath ungodly kings? I spoke to endorsing that which is against God and you have yet to show where any example you gave endorsed those who were ungodly to lead over them. All you have shown is people who submitted to authority that was already over them.

That's quaint. But I haven't said anything about a Christian serving a non-Christian.:laugh:

Why would I have an answer for it when I haven't said anything against that? We're talking about two different things as I have shown.

You're talking about a Christian serving someone who was placed in authority over him. I'm talking about Christians endorsing as a leader over themselves someone who is against Christ.

 

Gosh all that shows is that you're as confused as he is.:laugh:

 

Being a son of the Confederacy, I'd say no. It didn't work out too well last time. Look, I think Obama stole the election, as no way he gets over 100 percent of the vote in some precincts. Ohio machines were counting votes for Romney as for Obama. Obama got 10 million less votes than last time, and Romney won the independent's vote this time, but he still loses? No way. Obama won no states that require picture voter i.d. None. Vanloads of dems were driven around to vote numerous times, no i.d. needed. We are no longer a nation with laws and a Constitution that is being upheld. No, not secession, but revolution. That is the only thing that would change anything.

 

That is baloney and you know it. Joseph interpreted Pharaoh's dream and told him to prepare for the upcoming famine. This allowed Egypt to become very rich and prosperous and to rule over the other nations around it. If that is not endorsing someone, I don't know what is.

And the Bible says the powers that be are ordained of God. God ordained that Obama and Romney would run for President. God ordained that we be allowed to vote for our President. It is our responsibility to vote for who we think is best for the country. I believe Romney would have been far better for our country than Obama. Your no choice was in effect a vote for Obama.

It is true that Daniel did not choose to be in captivity, but he did choose to serve these kings. He did not have to serve in their government, he could have refused. He might have been put to death, but I don't believe Daniel was afraid of that.

No one is endorsing Romney being a Mormon, where do you get that? We are endorsing him being President. I can only think of three Presidents who were Baptists, Truman, Carter, and Clinton, and I did not endorse or vote for the last two. Simply being a Baptist doesn't necessarily make a man a good President or leader.

Serving these men faithfully is an endorsement. I would not work for Obama, would you?

But if I were to work for Obama, that does not necessarily make me a bad Christian. It would depend on the particular job I was doing. If I was promoting abortion, that would be evil. If I was doing something truly good, that would be good.

I did not have that choice, my only choice was to vote. I endorsed Romney and not Obama. Not because Romney is a Mormon, but because he is conservative. He would very likely choose justices that would overthrow Roe vs. Wade. We know Obama is the most pro abortion President EVER.

Again, you fail to realize that God picked these two men. That is the choice God gave us. It is our duty to pick which man would best serve and help our country. A non-vote is a vote for Obama. That is what you chose whether you admit it or not.

 

God allows the good and the bad. He allows kings, potentates, tyrants, and benevolents--all for His glory.

He allowed His only begotten Son to be crucified--for His glory. He has left a remnant in every generation--as a witness to the world regarding sin, righteousness and judgement to come. In Noah's time it was eight--the world that then was perished.

Many were separated in the Civil War--a lot of blood was spilled. The issues which caused the war are still in place. One of the major issues, curiously enough, was excessive federal bureaucracy. Yep, too much government. Now we have bureaucrats ad infinitum at several levels--with a dwindling tax base from which to support the waste, fraud, and abuse which goes along with a welfare state. Crank up the national debt--everything will be all right. I just paid over $4 for a loaf of real bread.

Peacefully severing ties with the feds has not been very peaceful--kind of like unionizing Henry Ford's Model A factory.

I would vote NO for another declaration of independence--such would invite anarchy.

The problem is still: SIN. The answer is still: JESUS.

The scripture does not say the world will be won for Christ--in fact, quite the contrary--we are at the end of two millenia of apostasy. Man-made religion is still in charge.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Give me a guarantee that the suceeding states would be totally FOR the cause of Christ---and we may have something here!!!!

 

As was said in another thread, for those who want states to leave the union based on their warped theology, you have the perfect solution. If you cannot live with this nation with fifty states, there are 187 other nations around the world. Planes leave everyday, and tickets can be purchased one way.

 

Yes on both counts.

 

One last thought for those who would secede. Obama would not blink at attacking his own countrymen with weapons, as he has already done it with stomping on the Constitution. I can understand Texas, though, as their GDP is more than that of Canada, and they have enough oil to exist on their own. Obama will never let that happen. But if it did, they could boot out all the illegals, secure their borders as they already have a militia. They will need to do that, as Mexico might have designs on them as well. I can't see it happening, but just sends a message to a President that does not care.

 

Take your little game elsewhere.

The question was about how individuals would vote and why. This thread is not about how involved in any secession effort I would or would not be. It is not about what influence in the process of setting up a new government I may or may not have.

 

Right. It's baloney because you and others want to justify endorsing that which is against God.

Then you don't know what endorsing someone is then.Pharaoh was already the ruler. Joseph was submitting to that which God had placed in authority over him. Joseph's people are the same people that Moses led out of bondage. So you can stop with all this craziness about the man of God endorsing that which is against God. He submitted to Pharaoh because that's what he was supposed to do. And when God was ready to get His people out from under the rule of that which was against Him, He did.

It is our responsibility to keep God and His eternal Kingdom FIRST just as His word directs. And this supersedes any responsibility to do what you think is best for this temporal country.

Yes the vote of 78% of evangelicals supporting that which is against Christ establishes that 78% of you were dead wrong because the focus of many of that 78% was on this country and not God's Kingdom.

And??? At least with Obama everyone already knew he was unGodly. Now 78% of evangelicals got folks thinking that a man against God is moral.http://i.imgur.com/NsphD.gif

Again, this has NOTHING to do with endorsing someone who is against God to rule over anyone. HE served in submission to those who had been placed in authority over him.

Then no one was endorsing Obama to be pro-abortion or pro-same sex marriage. Where did yall get that?

But no one said anything about the endorsement of a saved person to mean they would be a good President. You vote to put him before the world, then you're putting him and all that he is before the world. And if his Mormonism was a none issue, it wouldn't have been avoided like the plague by every evangelical who was trying to convince people that it was in the country's best interest to support him. If his Mormonism was not an issue, the Billy Graham Organization wouldn't have taken it down as a cult.

A lot more folks who are willing to admit it recognized that to the world it looked like evangelicals were saying that Mormonism was just another brand of Christianity and that's why 78% of evangelicals had no problem backing a Mormon.

And one and all can continue to pretend like it didn't matter, but it does indeed matter.

Serving has nothing to do with endorsing. It has to do with obedience. Scripture directs us to submit. And submission is about serving, not endorsing that which is wrong.

I am called to submit to President Obama's authority. But I in no way endorse his wickedness. By endorsing to be in authority over them a man whose very identity is based in that which is against GOD, 78% of evangelicals have given the world the impression that they endorse that wickedness.

And God's word says to not give the appearance of evil. So either there is nothing wrong with Mormonism, or there is and we have given the world the impression that there is not.

And it's all well and good to say we weren't electing his Mormonism, but that is not what the world is going to see anymore than it would ignore the atheism of a would be atheist candidate that we would back.

Again, God has called us to submit to authority. But He has not called us to disobey Him in submitting tot hat authority.

Mitt Romney was not in authority. He was running to be in authority. And there is a stark difference between submitting to someone whom God has placed in authority over you and endorsing that person who is against God to be placed into authority over you.

There just isn't any cause for the people of God to be seen as yoked to that which is against God.

Had that man been elected, it would have completely changed what Christianity is in the eyes of the world. And to an extent, it probably already has.

You did too have a choice just like the other 78% of evangelicals had a choice. They simply decided that it was more important to win an election and get Barack Obama out of office and "turn the country around" than it was to not give this appearance of evil in supporting that which is against God.

And no matter how folks continue to try and distinguish between the two, Romney and his Mormonism, the world does not.

Not to mention that I saw very little of anyone who was supporting Romney attempting to make sure that people understood the Church's stance on Mormonism and how it is not Christian. But how could they rightly explain that to folks when the organization of a man who is considered the greatest evangelical of the 20th century takes down Mormonism as a cult?

I can't speak to what his politics would have been. I can only say that his truth is based in lies so I don't think I would trust him period.

What I know is that everybody is always talking about Obama and abortion. But no one ever seems to talk about all the folks Mitt Romney has led to an eternal lake of fire with the false teachings of Mormonism. His entire family is on the way to hell because he has taught them these lies. He was a bishop in the church teaching over thousands the very same lies. Does this not matter?

If Obama is wicked because he supports abortion then Romney is wicked because he teaches that which leads to eternal destruction.

Again you fail to realize that GOD let US pick them. God does not author confusion. And God ain't picked anything that is against Himself. Why would God PICK that which would divide His house? He would not.

The picking of these two wicked men who are against GOD is strictly man's doing.

Nope. It is the choice we gave ourselves. God just let us give it to ourselves. It is completely unBiblical to say that God chose that which is against Himself.

I spoke to someone the other day who said they had spoken to someone who said that God told them the President He had chosen for this time was aborted back in 1970. Interesting thought.

It is your duty as a Christian to honor GOD FIRST above yourself, family and country.

I don't know where you're getting your misinformation, but I voted. :laugh:

A none vote by someone may have been a vote for Obama, but a vote for Obama is no more against God than was a vote for Romney.

 

This is an un-fairly mis-construed solution...."Secession" isn't the same thing as a "Take-my-ball-and-go-home"....I am as much a "patriot" as anyone here...but I understand the notion of the FREE ASSOCIATION of SOVEREIGN STATES. Just listen to the name of the Nation "United States"....They are "States"...they are sufficient and legitimate Governments unto themselves...They have chosen either to ratify or not to ratify that free association of Sovereign States or not to. The question of "secession" is merely one of whether said Sovereign Governments have a right to freely choose to disassociate with a "Union" which they feel is no longer truly representative of the "consent of the governed". If those states (which are Sovereign Governmental entities) no longer feel want to "consent" to the Union Government with which they associate...then they may "secede" or "resign" their participation.....That is the question. The question isn't whether you are a God-'fearin 'Red-blooded 'Merican......it's a more complicated issue than that. We are all happy that you are a: God-'fearin 'Red-blooded 'Merican...... .......But if Sovereign State of say..........."Kalifornia" has become so godlessly and insanely influential in the "Union" or "Federalized" Government of said United States...then why should the good people of Oklahoma suffer? They haven't once voted for a Democrat in the last 80-gazillion years....What if they simply feel like they should peace-fully move along???? That is what secession is.....

It isn't a question of "Alec Baldwin hates G.W. and therefore threatens to personally move to France if Kerry doesn't win...."

Rather, It's: "Our Sovereign STATE <---a meaningful word actually.... or Government no longer feels as though we should consent to obeying edicts we utterly can't control by a Governmental Power over which we have ZERO influence, and said 'Union' is in no way any longer in our best interest therefore we no longer wish to consent to a free association therein"

 

quoted because it is worth saying twice. :applause: