Vote American, Vote Christian

Another question he has failed to answer is when was the last time you voted? and Who was the last nominee for President from the two party system that met your excellent standards?

 

I doubt he's old enough to vote, and if he is and does this will be his first time.

 

Last time I checked, I didn't know any of you personally. You want my SS# and bank account numbers too?

Gosh one would almost think that the clique thinks it can say jump and everybody will fall in line and just do it.

Who was the last person you shared the Gospel with? How long ago was it?

 

By word and/or deed, every opportunity that each day presents.

Yesterday. His name starts with C.
Last few weeks B. returned to church after a prolonged absence.
Last few weeks D. made a profession of faith in our Lord and Saviour

Some I don't know their names. Clerks in stores, customers shopping for the same same mercandise. etc. Further there are other ways to "share" the Gospel. Ex: while in a doctor's waiting room, read the Bible instead of one of the dog-eared magazines. People do notice. Some will comment which opens an opportunity to share the Good News.

How about you? Care to share how you've shared the gospel face to face with others? Who was the last person and when?

What's your testimony? I've given mine here, several times.

Or, do you consider that to be as personal and private as your SS & bank account numbers. Your claim that we'll be asking for them shows your immaturity and/or your desire to simply be a disruptive minion in this forum.

Is this the same type of behaviour that you display when your pastor steps on your toes during his sermon? And, please don't tell me that doesn't happen. A God-called, God-fearing pastor will step on the toes of his flock on a frequent basis, as none of us are perfect in our walk with our Saviour.

In closing, I'm not ashamed of how I've voted in the past. I have no reason to keep it a secret. I am a Republican and vote a straight ticket, unless there's a better Democratic candidate(s) on the ballot for a given election. What do you have to hide about your voting record? Is that something to be kept as secret as college records?

 

Probably a few days ago. I spend more time on visitation that on BB, but that is not the point. This is not a game with a score.

For you information, I am very active being anti-clique in our church. I do not know what that has to do with politics.

No, I do not know your ssn nor do I care to. You reveal yourself with every post. As far as my past voting record, this is my twelveth Presidential election. That will make nine Republican and three Democrat. The Democrat years were 1976, 1988, and 1992. Everytime I voted for a Democrat it blew up in my face. My reasoning for the Carter vote was the Nixon pardon. The reason I voted for Dukakis over Bush the First was he seemed totally out of touch with the average American, and voted against Bush also in 1992 because of "read my lips." Bush also put David Suiter on the Court, which turned out to be a liberal vote. I voted for the other Bush both times, along with Nixon, Reagan both times, Dole, and McCain.

 

Ha! I voted Republican until Bill Clinton, that really worked out well, didn't it? I was so happy to have someone of "my" generation running for POTUS....back then, I didn't know about the STARK differences between the Republican and Democrat parties, Internet access was kinda new for me, dial-up AOL.

In some ways, BC was a good president, but the shame he brought to the Office, not only for Americans but the eyes of the world, was really the start of the world hating America, losing respect for America, I do believe. Who can forget the embarrassment of personal, private things, cigars, and the stains on the blue dress for all the world to know about?

I went back to voting Republican (except in 2004, voted CP), except I can say that I did vote for Hillary in the 2008 Primary, because by then, I did have high-speed cable internet service and had researched obama, his background, the stuff that was out there that the mainstream media refused to reveal about him. Everyone, it seemed, was caught up in the Hope and Change, wanting to be a part of history to elect the first black president, like a badge of honor. Socialists (aka progressives) had worked for this power for decades and finally had "their man," their token black who could sweep the socialist movement in our nation to victory, and they did. He was raised and tutored by Communists, studied at the feet of terrorists, selected his "socialist" friends carefully (according to his books), managed to hide his questionable roots, invent authenticity and qualifications to the highest office in the world, and was swept in to victory by fraud, coverups, deceit, and untimely deaths of those who opposed him, whisked to victory by so-called journalists who made him the new "messiah," lauded as the One who would "heal the planet" and cause the "oceans to recede." That the masses are/were so deceived would be laughable if it weren't so sad. People really believed obama would heal the planet? Give us a break. The honors bestowed upon him were also bestowed upon Caesars and Hitler and despots throughout the ages. How ridiculous!

And now, here we are. Nature's God has just proved Who allows the whirlwinds to be and their course and keeps the oceans in check and truly Reigns over this Planet He Created and will One Day Make Things Right!! There is coming a day when EVERY knee (yes, even those false messiahs and their followers) shall bow to the True and One and Only King Jesus and proclaim Him as LORD of ALL! Amen!!!

 

What would you do if the president decided to reinstate [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Jus Primae Noctis?

Would you still say [/FONT][FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"[/FONT]?

 

So you are saying God has limited the authority of the magistrates He has appointed over us? Okay then what exactly are these limits God has set on the authority of these magistrates are they written down somewhere? And if they are then where can I find these limits?

From Snopes . . .
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]
urely the use of political power to secure sexual favors is ancient and widespread. The droit du seigneur in the broadest sense — political pressure for sexual favors, what we now call sexual harrassment — must have been invoked informally all the time but was formalized in the myths as if it were a kind of unofficial law or right, one that was, from the start, intolerable. It may never, or seldom, have been technically legal, but it was not "just a myth."3

In other words the "nobles" of that time period were enforcing [/FONT]droit du seigneur using the color of law as it was not "technically legal". It's no different than say a government official using the color of law to violate the civil rights of a citizen today. As an example we have police all over the country forbidding citizens to film them by telling them it is illegal to do so when it is not. Some even go so far as to confiscate cameras and memory cards and arrest those who do the filming.

I just wondered what our friend The Biblicist would have said to a young woman in which a nobleman of that time period was trying to secure sexual favors from using the color of law. In all probability he would have quoted her the same scripture he gave us as his "answer".

"Give unto Caesar the things that belong unto Caesar and give unto God the things that belong unto God."

I have another question for him . . . what rightly belongs unto Caesar? I'm hoping The Biblicist will give us a straight answer this time. But I'm not going to hold my breath. :smilewinkgrin:

 

He's already answered.

"Okay then what exactly are these limits God has set on the authority of these magistrates are they written down somewhere? And if they are then where can I find these limits?"

As I've said many times before, I'm a layman who visits these forums to learn. It bother's me greatly when I read questions like these, written by those that I presume to be in the body of Christ.

Questions that the questioner knows cannot be answered within the context of the discussion. In this case, the NT does not specifically spell out the authority of governmental officials in all the possible positions that can exercise application of rules and regulations to govern.

The scriptures clearly define sexual sin that can be condoned in both written and unwritten secular law. A Christian obeys God with regards to this sin regardless of how Caesar tries to exercise authority that opposes the scriptures.

Abortion is legal in the US and elsewhere. Forced abortions have become "legal" in some parts of the world, if I understand correctly. In this case a Christian is to obey the commandment Thou shalt not kill (murder) regardless of what Caesar choses to mandate.

In closing, God limited the authority of all men, whether magistrates or a layman, like myself. All are to submit to Him. When a magistrate assumes authority not given, then it is our responsibility to submit to God first, even if that means giving our lives in disobedience to an ungodly magistrate's demands.

 

That is so right. Look at the candidates. Romney, will all his flaws from his record in MA to his religion, is the ONLY candidate who opposes abortion and gay rights. We know what Obama thinks about the record. Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate, is for legalizing drugs, prostitution, and for no laws concering gay marriage or abortion. Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party candidate, is only on 24 state ballots, and has distanced himself from his own platform of prolife and anti gay marriage.

How can anyone, that has bothered to study the candidates, including all their flaws, come to any conclusion other than to vote for Romney? He is the only chance of at least slowing down abortion and gay marriage.

 

Actually no he hasn't answered. Okay I admit it's a trick question. I knew all along where these limits on our magistrates authority could be found. I just wanted to see if he knew. Obviously he doesn't. So it looks like I have to educate him.

These limits on our magistrates authorities are clearly defined and can be found by CLICKING HERE.

Now on to Romans Chapter 13 . . . for the umpteenth time.

The Biblist is correct about Romans Chapter 13 up to a point and this is where most Christians stumble today. I have to leave for an appointment in a few minutes so I'll let a real bibilist explain it.

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).

The apostle clearly states that civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

< snip >

[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that, in America, the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.


And to my friend SN. Romney is not "pro life". In order to be pro life one first has to have empathy for others. Romney does not display the fruits of empathy. On the contrary he displays the fruits of greed and personal gain at the expense of millions. He is a Goldman Sachs/ Monsanto man. His close ties with these two organizations shows he puts personal gain above human life. He is an enabler of those who rob from us through the practice of usury. He is a champion for those who willingly poison us to death for the sake of monopoly and the almighty dollar.

These are not the fruits of a pro lifer. Remember how we are to judge these people. Not by their words but by their fruits.
[/FONT] [/FONT]

 

Far as I know, the Christians never rebelled against their Roman government.

 

Gonna close this now, it is on page 10, per forum rules.

It was a lively discussion!

Lady Eagle
Moderator