A New Type of Christian Political Discussion

Christians should know better. And those who support abortion or those who do are not acting "Christian".

 

Christians can and do display un-Christ-like behaviors and some even do things that the Bible speaks against. When discussing such things it may well be reasonable to place " " marks around the word Christian in order to make a point that what some Christians are doing is not biblical or Chirst-like. Does this mean that someone is questioning their salvation? I don't think so. It is simply pointing out the fact that as a professing Christian one ought to be as biblical as possible and seek to be Christ-like in all they do. So with respect to the abortion debate and/or the homos*xual debate the question is would Jesus support voting for a candidate who endorses/supports abortion and/or same s*x marriage? I don't think so. Therefore, as Christians why should we support/vote for such candidates?

 

The only answer that is right for any of us as Christians is what the whole counsel of God's Word has to say with respect to Christian Just War criteria. The only way for us to know that answer is to use sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis to arrive at the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. Then we must acknowledge that God's Word is the final and absolute authority over our lives and as such we cannot allow our personal experience and feelings to have authority over God's Word in any way shape or form. If we can agree on those principles then I have no problem returning to that discussion/debate. However, if personal experience and feelings are to be allowed to trump the Scriptures there is no point in discussing it further because we will just end up arguing past one another.

Regarding Quakers and Mennonites I respect their right to hold to their beliefs. However, that does not mean that I agree that their position is correct, that their interpretation of the Scripture which led to those beliefs is correct, or that their hernemeutical method leading to their interpretation is correct and/or the most biblical.

I agree that another thread would be the best place to hold this discussion.

 

Well...

That idea apparently didn't last long. :BangHead:

Apparently Ken thinks it is "nonsense" for us to try and determine where political leaders stand in the political spectrum based on a comparison of their speeches and records with the published political agenda of political parties in the US.

 

Well, Bible-boy, since your side didn't adhere to that standard I saw no reason to go into a rhetorical gunfight with only a knife.

 

We absolutely adhered to this standard. We presented honest and straight-forward information obtained directly from the political organization that published their political philosophies and ideas on the Internet and then presented President-elect Obama's own statements on those same political philosophies and ideas. We provided the direct quotes and the links to all the sources. Then we asked some very honest and straight-forward questions regarding those political philosophies and ideas. No one has called any poster here mean names or engaged in any heated rhetoric. However, you chose to call the honest attempt to discuss the issues (with evidence and sources provided) nonsense and to introduce off-topic material in an attempt to derail the discussion. I am sorry that you do not like the facts that have been presented. However, if you believe us to be in error with the information we provided then please address the issues and disprove our conclusions by presenting quotes and sources from President-elect Obama that contradict and disprove our conclusions. However, please do not introduce off-topic material and attacks against other people that have nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

 

Either you are refusing to admit what your side is doing, Bible-boy, or else you are blind to it.

 

Well said! Very well said.

 

Well yes I do.

11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

A vote for the national Democratic ticket yoked many Christians to the harbingers of gay rights and abortion.

 

Yes and his deception is on him. For it was only after his testimony that he was a Christian and that he was pro-life. Franklin Graham did not help matters. However the option was Al Gore and his tree hugging or John Kerry. Again the deception is on him not me.

 

Does being wrong and/or uneducated with respect to soteriology (regarding Islam) equate to the clear sinfulness of murdering the unborn and rejecting God's Word by supporting/embracing what God has called sinful and an abomination?

 

You need to study that issue.

 

If Mr Bush is looking at the fact that Islam has it's roots in, Ishmael the son of Abraham, thus has a heritage of worshiping the God of Abraham, then it stands to reason that this was the context of his reasoning. I do not see it as blasphemous. Salvation is indeed through the God of Abraham. However if he meant in context of salvation through the teachings of the Koran then Just Christian will get no argument from me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustChristian
God will not forgive the following kind of blasphemy:

Big time!!! :thumbs: