1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

If you were a Christian politician

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by JonC, Mar 8, 2021.

  1. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    24,454
    Likes Received:
    2,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you, being a Christian, we also a politician...say a Senator...would you represent your political party, the people you are charged to represent, or Christ?

    I wonder because it does seem like there is divided loyalties. You would owe your position to your political party. But you are responsible to represent the citizens who comprise your state regardless of political party.

    To make things more difficult, you are morally responsible to represent those who are opposed to Christ. To fail to meet this responsibility is to be dishonest, which is disobedience to God. Yet you would have to fight for the interests of homosexual advocates, atheists, etc. And you would have to represent these people with just as much zeal as you would a fellow believer.

    If you meet your responsibility to those you represent then to a moral atheist you are a poor witness of Christ.

    But if you disregard those you have accepted the duty to represent in order to exemplify Christian values (minus integrity, that goes either way) then you are a poor witness to an immoral world.

    Either way you have to compromise and are compromised. The only group you have are those who are equally compromised and agree with your positions.
     
  2. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    32,192
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    WEll, I dont consider myself a politician when I ran for office. I called myself a statesman!
    A politician thinks of his next election
    A statesman thinks of his next generation.

    Let me give some examples of my campaign

    I would always answers questions honestly.
    If I did not know the answer to a question - I would so state
    (how many politicians do you know that would answer "I dont know"?

    I did run on Line C - the Conservative Party
    Did not seek the Republican Party as I waited too long to get on their ballot
    The main reason, I did run was because there was no Republican who ran
    Now, if the party did not like the way I voted and decided not to endorse me
    for re-election - then so be it. I might consider running on another party line.

    As far as to the way I would vote - yes, I would seek the Lords guidance.
    Now, suppose 80% of the people wanted a bill pass - would I vote for it
    Not necessarily. Look at it this way - if my 7 year old - wanted to eat three
    gallons of ice cream for desert - at one sitting - I would not allow him to do so.
    Likewise, if I felt a law was bad - I would not vote for it, if I believed that in the end
    it would be a bad law. But, I would fully explain it to my constituents.

    Now would you consider this a compromise?
    I also asked the Constitution Party for their endorsement.
    They asked me several questions -including about abortion.
    I told them I was 100% pro-life - the subject came up if a law was presented
    to outlaw abortion - execpt in the case of R@pe, in$est, or the life of the mother.
    I said YES! - They considered that as not being 100% pro-life.
    I told them, I would vote for any law to stop even a few abortions.
    They reluctantly agreed to endorse me.

    Now, suppose a bill came up to allow the teacher to lead prayers in school.
    If I voted against that - would I be anti-Christian - NO - because a Muslim, a buddist,
    ect Teacher - would have the same right to lead prayer in school.

    As far as my political party- I would NOT be beholden to them. However, I am a member of that
    party -thus I agree with the vast majority of the party platform -so I would vote that party line most of the time.

    I do not see in any instance where I am morally responsible to represent those who are opposed to Christ.

    Would I compromise - it depends on the issue. I do like to speak my piece. I also am often a maverick.

    On problem I see in legislative bodies is they expect Freshman to be seen and not heard! That I cannot accept.
    I would be respecting my district - and those constituents should have a Rep who has an equal footing as the
    Rep who has been in office for 20 years. Now using senority for choice of office, choice of committes - I have no problem,
    but I would speak my peace in committees an on the open floor.

    The following was my platform when I ran for NY State Assembly:


    **************************************************

    Platform Conservative Platform POLITICAL STATEMENT - 120th Assembly District

    THEME: RETURNING TO TRADITIONAL VALES

    My Conservative values:

    1. Individual Responsibility
    2. Limited Government
    3. Lowest Level Government

    My promise:

    1. I will not vote for any pay raise If a pay raise is passed, I will donate the net increase to a 501(c) within my district.

    2. My office will be a full time job. I will not have outside employment during my term.

    3. I will vote against any bill after 1 April if the budget has not been passed. (unless of urgent necessity)

    4. I will fulfill my entire term of service.

    POLITICAL PLATFORM REACH OUT TO TEACHOUT

    1. ABORTION - All abortions should end

    2. AMENDMENTS
    A. Strong support for right to keep arms
    B. Strong support for States Rights

    3. BUDGET:

    A. Pass on time

    B. Reduce taxes and spending

    4. COURTS:

    A. Tort Reform

    B. Punitive damages - should be payable only to a 501 (C) non profit charity of the choosing of the injured party (lawyer gets no fee as damages will be paid to court for payment to charity)

    5. EDUCATION

    A. Parents have the right to home school

    B. Students should not be promoted unless standards have been met

    C. Oppose “No Child Left Behind”

    6. ELECTIONS:

    A. Recalls should be allowed

    A. Only those who voted for the office in question should be allowed to participate in the recall election

    B. Election district

    1. Non-partism commission

    2. One Senator / county & all State Assemblyman W/I county

    C. Ballot status Good for six years, with 25,000 votes in any statewide election

    D. None of the Above: All elections should have a :“none of the above line”

    7. DEATH PENALTY - In favor of for first degree murder

    8. EMINENT DOMAIN : Only for actual public projects ie schools, highways, ect and then only with minimal acquisition of land

    9 ENGLISH - Official language

    10. MARRIAGE One man & One woman

    11. IMMIGRATION:

    A. I favor legal organized immigration

    B. Illegal aliens should not be entitled to any government benefits

    12. INDEPENDENT CITIES - Virginia Plan

    13. RETIREMENT - No Retirement for (state) elected officials

    14. STATEHOOD - Split Upstate from NY City
    (Since I ran for office - there is a new plan - - three autonomous regions
    Should New York be split into three separate regions? )

    15. STATE ASSEMBLY RULES

    A. Unrelated bills should not be allowed

    B. Electoral College based on election per centage
    That is if a candidate receives 10% of the popular vote, he would receive 10% of the EC votes

    C. Delete unnecessarily laws & regulations

    E. Unfunded Mandates : should be severely reduced

    F. Consistency - in application of laws

    G. Voting in Asy should be secret until all votes cast

    16. SURCHARGES (traffic tickets) delete
    (Since that time, NY has established a "Drivers assessment Fee" I would want that eleted also
    As both are simply a way to raise money)

    17. TERMS LIMITS - Max of 12 years in State Leg

    18. VETERANS & Active Duty Military No fee Vet/Mil plates
     
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,445
    Likes Received:
    2,730
    Faith:
    Baptist
    By your standards one could not be the owner of a company or an executive, as would have to balance what they personally viewed with what others though!
     
  4. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    24,454
    Likes Received:
    2,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My concern would be "serving two masters").

    In politics a representative is a public servant, charged with representing a people and the interests of those people.

    But the interests of the World are not God's interests, so there has to be a degree of compromise to represent both the interests of the World and the interests of the Kingdom.

    A Christian politician belongs to the Kingdom and the World - the Kingdom by virtue of faith and the World by choice of vocation.

    One will get the better of the compromise, the other will get the worse. Neither will get a fully devoted representative.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,187
    Likes Received:
    720
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As a Christ-follower, if I decided to enter politics (unlikely), I would campaign on telling the truth; dealing with realities, not a party ideology; adherence to the text and spirit of the Constitution; and a commitment to human flourishing.

    I would have no particular loyalty to a political party, but I would represent what I believed to be the best interests of the people I represent.

    In the way things traditionally go, almost all politicians owe their position to a political party. But if one's character and accomplishments were so well known (think Dwight D. Eisenhower), that a party would seek the person to run, instead of vice-versa.

    At the same time, a candidate who is open to her/his constituents, and takes the time to educate their constituents regarding the issues under consideration and why she/he is voting the way that he is, can do a lot of good.

    I have worked many years in the AEC (Architecture/Engineering/Construction) industry, and the best firms are professional in their dealings with clients and become trusted advisors who will tell the truth, deal with reality, and educate the client, thereby earning their fees. But some clients don't want that, so the next time that client comes calling or has a job, a good firm will decline to work with them because the cost of doing business and dealing with client headaches just isn't worth it. A good firm lives by its reputation and repeat business from satisfied clients. That doesn't mean everything always goes as planned (it rarely does), but the client knows that you are doing what you believe is in their best interests. And expert wisdom is vindicated by its results (or as Jesus would say, "wisdom is vindicated by her children" - Luke 7:35).

    Just like most people in the world who serve people. Attorneys, doctors, and even Jesus represented people opposed to Jesus. It is not a moral failing, but a holy calling.

    True.

    That's part of loving one's neighbor. It is a holy thing. Only a false gospel of culture war would think it is evil to fight for justice for all.

    Actually, the reverse is true. I've stood up for atheists on numerous occasions, not taking their false position, but standing up for what is true about them and the value of them as a person made in God's image. What has been the consist result? I have a lot of atheists who want to talk to me about spiritual things, with some moving into faith.

    Disregarding the humanity of those you disagree with and not fighting for justice and mercy for them is antichrist, not an expression of "Christian values."

    Not at all.

    20-21st century American Christianity has forgotten about the example of Jesus. Just look at Jesus and see how He dealt with people. He did not compromise Himself, nor the truth of God. However, He angered those who thought He was compromising their religious traditions and associating with "sinners," and Samaritans, and the woman caught in adultery. The scandal of those associations, and His unwillingness to go along with the popular sentiment that He should lead an earthly rebellion against Roman occupation caused Him to be crucified. But His resurrection demonstrated that He was correct, and the petty false religion of first-century culture warriors (literally, fighting against Roman and Hellenism), was doomed.

    Learn from Jesus.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    24,454
    Likes Received:
    2,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Obviously I disagree that one can be involved in the politics of this world while remaining a faithful child of God. I see these as opposing positions that cannot be reconciled. People can be reconciled to God, and Christians can be witnesses to those involved in the powers of the World- but I believe Christians entangled in the affairs of the World have forfeited their witness.

    That said, I like the point made about loving one's neighbor.

    In the Gospel of Luke a lawyer asks what he must do to have eternal life. Jesus asks him what the Law says and he answers to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. Jesus then leads him through the parable of the "good Samaritan", in the end not asking who the man in the ditch thought was a good neighbor but who was the neighbor (who would meet that criteria to live). It is about love.

    As Christians we cannot come up with excuses and justifications while sitting idly by as the workd lies in a ditch.

    That is what I see so many doing through politics. Changing laws will not change a heart. When we try to change the world through politics we are no better than the priest or the Levite in the parable....keeping a safe distance from the actual people in need.

    Republicans often talk against abortion....from a distance, never actually addressing the issue. Democrats often talk about social injustice, never truly seeking a real solution.

    I just cannot see politics as a solution.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,187
    Likes Received:
    720
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not as cynical as you are about the prospects of being both a faithful Christian and a politician/statesman, but your point is well-taken in the Christian tradition. Early Anabaptists and Mennonites believed that Christians should not become part of the government, so you walk in good company in that regard.

    I couldn't do it myself, because I don't have the gifts needed for that kind of leadership. If God had equipped me to do it in terms of temperament and spiritual giftings, I would consider the calling, since I think it is potentially noble, and we DESPERATELY need godly and courageous people in those positions.

    I appreciate your thoughts and tone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    24,454
    Likes Received:
    2,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am drawn to some aspects of Anabaptist theology (and some of the opinions of the ECF's). Perhaps a part of this is a sense I have that something is amiss in mainstream Christianity. It just seems so benign. But that could just be me.

    Politics is troubling (to me) because of its divisiveness. It seems not only to divide people in the World but also it seems to come between believers and between churches.

    I know Democrats and Republicans who have the exact same Christian values but allow politics to make enemies of one another. They see problems in the world, have similar end goals, but fight over secular means of reaching those goals.

    I do not fault Republicans or Democrats for their desired end. But here we see Republicans and Democrats approaching denying the other is a faithful Christian not because of their relationship with Christ but because of secular politics. I just see politics as an unnecessary evil, I guess.

    At one time I was very political. Now I am not. My values did not change. But I think my solutions have in a way. I never asked myself before, but I started asking "to what end?".

    That's just me (just my journey). I think we can learn from one another (republican, democrat, or apolitical) if we could set politics aside and just listen.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    32,192
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think you might have a misconception there . Granted 2 politicians -esp from different parties may have exact opposites in opinions but for many - that does not mean they are enemies - actually, they may be very good personal friends.
    These 11 political friendships proved party lines don't have to divide Americans
     
  10. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    24,454
    Likes Received:
    2,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I know several have been friends. Here I am speaking less about the actual politician and more about the voters.

    There is a hatred in out nation which is often expressed through political views.

    Part of this comes from the way parties represent themselves and their opponents. For the most part, I believe the politicians realize the misrepresentation for what it is - a tactic to gain power (they do not necessarily believe the characterization each projects of the other). But when it comes down to loyal supporters it different.

    There are members on this board who hate Democrats, others who hate Republicans. They may deny this, perhaps say "love the sinner hate the sin", but in the end their actions and words tell the true story.

    The main issue I have with secular politics is that it is a power of this age, or this world. It is void of the gospel of Christ because it is, by definition, working in opposition to seek the desires of this world and to establish an improved worldly kingdom.

    I am not saying that Christians are to isolate themselves from the world (quite the opposite, in fact). I believe that we are to engage the world, but that we are to do so as outsiders (in relation to the world). Perhaps the strongest impact Christians had on the world was in the first several centuries of the church. It is amazing that they had such an impact while standing completely apart from these worldly systems. People took notice of the gospel acted out in their lives, of how they treated one another and pagans in need. They took notice of how they cared for the dead, both Christian and pagan. They noticed how Christians cared for the poor and those in need. And that was enough. Just being obedient was somehow enough to change the world and draw men to Christ.

    It is amazing if you think about it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,187
    Likes Received:
    720
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, your sense is correct. American Christianity (the popular expression of it) is essentially a cultural thing, not a living faith where women and men are being transformed by intentional and persistent discipleship to Jesus. In place of Jesus and His teachings, there is an over-reliance on popular Christian leaders and political leaders to show us the way to live. And, for many of them, their 'way to live' has nothing to do with Jesus.

    I am blessed to be a member of a church where Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all worship together. We are bound together because of Jesus, not because of uniformity of opinions.

    I agree wholeheartedly. I listen to and read things from people I completely disagree with and I always learn something. More than that, I can't simply dismiss that person as someone who is not worth caring about.

    When Donald Trump was President, I prayed for him more than any other President before him (even Bill Clinton), precisely because I have disliked Trump since the early 1990s. When a Christian prays for a person, they lose the ability to hate that person. They begin to see them as Christ does, a person that is in need. I try to do the same here, praying for certain high profile persons who tend to dominate the tone of the discussions. It keeps me from building up too much resentment when I am attacked for not falling in line. It also makes me more aware of my own failings and the ways that I might come across to others. And that's why I have Daryl Davis as my avatar, to remind me that simple humanity can reach across an enormous divide and bring healing and reconciliation.

    Thank you for your thoughts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Hark

    Hark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Galatians 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

    As much as the Republicans are considered conservatives, I find voting for them only because of the lesser of two evils. Republicans come off as covetous as they favor the rich.

    For me to definitely vote for them is to take away all the tax breaks given to the rich and then give the rich a deduction for that supposed tax break from before BUT when they prove they had used their money to create jobs in America like funding research or provide grants for small businesses or businesses, be new or established to expand to create more jobs.

    But the idea of the rich buying rich stuff as a trickle down theory seems to be saying.. not sure with all that misinformation on the internet, then they might as well give a tax break to everybody for buying stuff in the economy, and that would not be good for revenue with the increasing national debt in sight.

    Does not our government give tax deduction when anyone gives to charity and one has to provide proof of donations to charity? Why can't that be done in regards to giving tax breaks to the rich? As it is, Republicans & Democrats alike, both come across as loving money more than God. If they think they can love both, scripture proves them wrong.

    Luke 16:13No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

    God be willing, I would also remove evolution theory from being taught as a real science in schools and regulate such science fiction to only literature. Real science is about what can be observed & proven and the basis for a scientific theory to be valid is that the phenomenon has to be observed in the natural world which macroevolution is never observed but microevolution which in reality is coined from the Law of Biogenesis as life did not come from nothing but life comes from similar life. In other words, they are using the term microevolution to make macroevolution look possible when the Law of Biogenesis says t can never happen as a cow may become a different kind of cow but always a cow just as a fish will always be a fish and never grow legs as if genetic information spontaneously came out of nowhere in their DNA suddenly when it can never happen..

    Then all communists organizations like ACLU & Black Lives Matter.Org can go to a communist country of their choice. If we do not allow Putin to run for President in our country, then those who love communism can go to a communist country. As it is, big government is destroying the economy of the State of California. They are trying to penalize people & business for leaving the state to keep them from leaving the state. This is proof that the Democratic dream is not working as if the state of communist countries are not proof enough.

    Inclusion is a disguise to nationalize LGBTQ's ideology on every American that do not accept their ideology so as much as the left is against nationalism, & trying to make inclusion as if that is embracing everyone, it is not because it is done at the exclusion of those that are not comfortable or repulsed by LGBTQ's ideology. Diversity & tolerance is freedom to NOT accept everybody's ideology, but tolerate decency & respect from everyone in a society for what everybody as a majority can tolerate.

    We can't please everyone. No minority can over rule the majority or else it becomes tyranny. When media are giving misinformation & big tech are compromising data, and now voting irregularities, we can be misled by the tyrannical into thinking the majority has spoken when they have not.

    Indeed, we believe the New World Order is coming and for some of us, it will come into place after the rapture event and after that fiery calamity burns up one third of the earth as the rapture can happen at any moment.

    So is it that hard to believe that the powers that be that will be behind the New World Order are in place right now?

    Any candidate has to be cleared by the political party to be supported to run for that political party. Makes one wonder if that is not a screening process to only support those that are like-minded like them in regards to the coming NWO?

    But God can steer the hearts & mind of the wicked for why praying for our elected leaders, even if they are our enemies, is probably the best thing any of us can do for our nation politically. If you think about it, if Christ would have us elected, then would we not be praying for the people in America as well? So fancy what we would do with His help if elected, but pray for our elected leaders now that God would lead them to do the right thing for the majority of the American people & not for points for their political party at the expense of the other party for that would be at the expense of the American people of that party too..
     
  13. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,187
    Likes Received:
    720
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why stop there? Fiction is not true, so why allow it? Burn the books and suppress every idea that is opposed to yours. Seriously though, this is a bad idea.

    This kind of thinking has historically led to people being rounded up and deported, using deadly force. This is a terrible idea.

    Actually, “the rapture” is a 19th century error that confuses the living saints greeting the Lord upon His return on the Day of Judgment and the restoration of the world with a biblically-foreign concept of the saints being ‘taken away’ before a future Tribulation. Persons who hold this view have imposed a Dispensationalist viewpoint upon the scripture and conflated Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD where people are taken away to destruction (just like the flood washed away the unrighteous in judgment – see Matthew 24:39), with a description of the final day of judgment and the symbolic usage of images and numbers in the Hebrew world. That has bred all of the conspiracy theories and rapture teaching of the past two hundred years.

    A disciple of Christ did not want to be taken away (killed), but to be left (live). That is why Jesus told His disciples in Judea to flee to the hills when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, and to stay out of Jerusalem during the time when God would use the Roman army to destroy the Temple and end the religious domination of Jerusalem by Judaism (see Luke 21:21-24). Not a single stone of the Temple would remain in place and intact (see Luke 21:6). When the Temple burned, all of the gold built into the Temple melted down between the stones. The Roman soldiers broke all of the stones apart to recover the gold between them as part of the spoils of war.

    Yes, because the Bible doesn’t teach any such thing. That’s a conspiracy theory.

    I can completely agree with this.
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,445
    Likes Received:
    2,730
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you saying that this decision is a personal one for each Christian, or that you know that its a sin and wrong period?
     
  15. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    19,923
    Likes Received:
    2,134
    Faith:
    Baptist
    JonC,

    [I wonder because it does seem like there is divided loyalties. You would owe your position to your political party. But you are responsible to represent the citizens who comprise your state regardless of political party.

    To make things more difficult, you are morally responsible to represent those who are opposed to Christ. To fail to meet this responsibility is to be dishonest, which is disobedience to God. Yet you would have to fight for the interests of homosexual advocates, atheists, etc. And you would have to represent these people with just as much zeal as you would a fellow believer.]

    No...what you describe here is politics as usual.

    A change is needed.

    A change in local churches being mature and obedient.
    A new theonomic party standing for biblical laws and teaching based on those laws.

    While it would become the law of the land, it would be a righteous standard being upheld.

    These perverted democrats do not hesitate to put forth immoral ideas as the law of the land.
    Anyone who does not like it can go.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    24,454
    Likes Received:
    2,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree this is politics as usual. Politics in our country is compromise within itself (not even adding to it the Christian factor).

    And you are right, there is a change needed.

    I just do not think that a Christian party would work to influence secular politics (although it might work as a witness to the world of the gospel of Jesus Christ).

    A new theonomic party would be opposed by Democrats, claiming it would advocate social injustice. But it would be opposed by the Republican party as well.

    But it would be refreshing to see Christ proclaimed by Christians rather than see one secular party advocated over another. I think that would be a move towards God.

    Some of my views are influenced by my outlook (optimistic towards the Kingdom, pessimistic towards the World). If the Kingdom of God is to come by transforming this World (which is a fair Christian view) then a Christian party has more viability than I am affording the idea. So my own theology extends to how I view these things (probably how I view about any other doctrine as well....and I never claimed to be the answer man....just the very opinionated man :Biggrin ).

    But as it stands now, I do not see a godly choice in either major party.
     
  17. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    24,454
    Likes Received:
    2,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes. I am saying that I know it is wrong to be involved in these worldly powers BUT it is also a decision that each Christian has to make.

    If that Christian ignores God's word and is tempted to become entangled with these powers but somehow I can prevent him from doing so, then that is no good. It has to be out of a spirit of obedience.
     
  18. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    32,192
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is nothing wrong with compromise in itself.
    That is the reason we have a House and a Senate.
    The large population States/Commonwealths wanted representation based on population
    The small population States/Commonwealths wanted equal representation.
    Thus the two houses.
     
  19. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    19,923
    Likes Received:
    2,134
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe unless a no compromise party is raised up ....one that features the ten commandments....things will not change.

    I want a runoff among biblically solid persons.
    We would need someone who has enough education to grasp economics and create a God glorify platform that challenges people to examine themselves as those who.will answer to God for their choices.
    The ungodly will be called to biblical norms...marraige,families, based only on biblical definitions.

    The weakness with my own idea at this time is the local churches hold a weak.form of doctrine.
    Legalistic types would be too severe to get a hearing of those on the fence.
     
  20. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    16,252
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I’d be like Obadiah who hid/protected 100 prophets from Jezebeel.
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...