 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Election 2004 | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/14/2004 4:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
I think that the people would be persuaded that Christianity has something to it if we all walked daily, hourly, every minute in LOVE but that doesn't always mean we all are capable of giving the way the poor need. The world will know we are Christians by our LOVE NOT NECESSARILY MONEY!
1 John 3:17 But if any one has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth.
quote:
I have heard of MANY churches and Christian organizations struggling just to survive. I don't see how churches can give to people in such a way that needs would be met but I might be of little faith.
Jesus also said, "you have the poor with you always," so while He certainly made it clear that he expected his disciples to take care of the poor, He never presented this as some kind of utopian scheme to eliminate poverty altogether. That awaits the fuller revelation of the Kingdom of God.
As to churches not being able to meet their budget, if we compare the New Testament era churches with today's "churches", we will see how huge a difference there really is. Prior to the institution of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire in the late fourth century, Christians' financial resources were much more free to be used in benevolent assistance (like Paul's collection to help the saints in Jerusalem), because they had no building programs, no salaried ministers, etc., etc. Most of them met in private homes; they knew that they WERE the Church.
Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/15/2004 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
The constitution is the supreme LAW of the land.
Have you considered the constitution party?
George Washington feared two threats to America above all others. First, the corrupting influence of political parties with their spirit of faction and selfishness; and second, the weakening of the influence of religious morality on public life. On both counts he was right - the Democrats and Republicans have betrayed us, and squandered the Founders legacy of liberty and justice. Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government take their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution with no understanding of the responsibilities that oath entails.
Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundation.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/15/2004 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
How is our constitution founded on the Bible? I guess I'll check out the link, but from what I remember the Constitution party is one of those that thinks America is a Christian nation.
Hey Sahid you might like them, they don't like taxes.
They want to dump the tea into the harbor.
I don't think they want a theocracy, but they are very biblically based. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/15/2004 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
In a few weeks the citizens of the United States will be standing in the ballot box and choosing who they want in office for the next four years. I have been struggling in knowing what to do...Does anyone have advice on how to weigh out these pros and cons? What are the issues that you are looking at? Thank you.
As a general rule, I stay out of online political discussions due to their tendency to become toxic. But as a minority (it would seem) on one viewpoint after another within American evangelical Christianity, I often can't help but feel the need to present "the contrary view". I am not inviting argument or criticism on what follows, but I will answer respectful questions.
I will be voting for John Kerry. I am disappointed in his support for generally-unrestricted abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research, but I cannot convince myself to let my conservative opinions on those issues trump my moderate to liberal leanings on just about everything else, from the distribution of the tax burden, to the concept of "pre-emptive" war, to the stewardship of the environment. On all those issues I find the Bush Administration to be unhelpful or even dangerous.
As for character, while I know that George Bush is a good and decent man and an honest follower after God in his own way, from what I can tell I believe the same to be sufficiently true of John Kerry. At the same time I consider Kerry to be more capable and competent an intellect, statesman and leader.
I am not alone among Christians in feeling this way, nor will you be if you vote for Kerry. See Sojourners for a Christian perspective that bucks the groove of conservatism that American evangelical Christianity usually treads: http://www.sojo.net
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/15/2004 1:59 PM (GMT -6) | | In all due fairness to the spirited gals of Texas.
…just maybe, Mary Cheney’s campaign strategy for reaching out for the gay vote was not such a good idea. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/15/2004 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Did anyone take the quiz I posted on this thread? I found that I fit with the Bishops. What does that mean?
JEEquote:
1 John 3:17 But if any one has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth.
IF they have the world's goods....I see so many needs but have so little funds. If I were a multi-millionaire I would find such pleasure in filling needs as I saw them but I have very little resources . Yet I do try to live in love the best I can . I believe this is true for others too. Finances only go so far but that is not what God is seeking -- I am thinking of the woman with the one coin for the offering. Or the boy with the loaves and fishes. God’s not interested in our money but in our hearts.
Scott, I hear ya. I believe it is the responsible thing to do to look at all issues and weigh them out in prayer. I respect everyone's decision.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/16/2004 1:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahidquote:
It's my guess that the majority of Americans identify more closely with a non-Kerry/Bush candidate than they do with the big two. If you like Kerry on war and taxes, what does he have that is better than Nader? If you like Bush on beginning/end of life issues, how is the Constitution party not miles better? If you think your money and personal life are yours and not the government's, then Badnarik would be a pretty close fit. There are other options. The more we give into the two party system the stronger it gets.
jefscottquote:
The constitution party and the libertarian party are the only parties I'm aware of which even remotely regard the 10th amendment.
So, what I hear you both saying is that there ARE more choices. WHY can't we see these other candidates debate? I tend to agree that the more we give into the two party system the stronger they are getting. I enjoyed when Ross Perot was a part of the debates back in '92. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/16/2004 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahidquote:
The Green and Libertarian candidates were arrested in an act of civil disobedience when they tried to participate in the debate
Sparknheart, do you have any graphics for this? | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/16/2004 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott,
quote:
to the concept of "pre-emptive" war, .... ...I find the Bush Administration to be unhelpful or even dangerous.
With respect to pre-emptive war, I find Bush dangerous. But the constitution grants no power to the president to declare war, yet Kerry voted to "authorize" him to do just that, did he not? So how is Kerry exempt from this criticism?...
From what I understand, it appears that overwhelming majorities within both parties have, for some time, believed it is legal for Congress to delegate its warmaking authority to the president in even very general terms. This dates back to 1950 with President Truman and the Korean War, and has continued unabated through both Democratic and Republican administrations - and their contemporary Congresses - since then: Kennedy/Johnson (Vietnam), Nixon (Cambodia), Grenada and Libya (Reagan), Panama (Bush Sr), Kosovo (Clinton), Afghanistan (Bush Jr), and of course Iraq (Bush Sr and Jr). Apparently the argument is that, while the Constitution gives Congress warmaking authority, it does not prohibit Congress from passing that buck to the President by means of an "authorizing resolution" or similar device. And so now, for better or worse, we find ourselves two generations into bipartisan support for that approach.
Thus it seems to me almost an academic issue to withhold support for a particular candidate based on that. I do believe politics is - what do they call it - "the art of the possible". So when the only electable choices all agree concerning issue X (such as on the legality in principle of Congressional delegation of its warmaking powers), such agreement therefore automatically removes that issue X from serving as a deciding factor, in my opinion.
Every now and then some brave, crusading Congressman tries to show everyone up and shed some light on the issue by proposing an actual declaration of war. My local Representative participated in such an effort during the first Gulf War, if I recall correctly. I appreciate the gesture, even if it is quixotic.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/16/2004 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I don't think I've ever heard anyone support Kerry without it boiling down to, "At least he's better than Bush." Is second worst what we are going to settle for?...
Well I for one don't believe Kerry and the Democrats are all that bad, but I agree they certainly aren't ideal. Yet in a winner-takes-all system (which tends to lead to a two-party system such as we have), the answer is "yes": even if the best you can do is describe a candidate as only "second worst", that's what you must settle for. Unless you enjoy the self-satisfaction of tilting at windmills, that is (in my opinion).
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
cicilia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 10/16/2004 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting conversation.
I will be voting for Bush, and have not a single qualm about it. I thank God that he has been our President for the past 4 years and pray with extreme earnestness that we will be blessed with his leadership for the next 4 years.
As a Christian, I could not and will not ever vote for any person who supports abortion, homosexual marriages, and embryonic stem cell research. Not only does Kerry support these things, but there are currently six of only nine Supreme Court Justices who will be over age 70 during this next Presidency. Historically, age 71 has been the average age of retirement of Supreme Court justices in the past. If these six retire under this next Presidency, whomever is President will appoint justices who support what he supports. Kerry has stated, "I will only appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold a woman's right to choose."
Not only are we voting for a President here, but we are also voting for much more, because the President's values, morals, and worldview WILL determine who our justices are and so forth. There is no doubt in anyone's mind (unless they are ignorant and uninformed, or misled) that Kerry, both Mr. and Mrs., is extremely liberal. He has an indisputable record in which he has voted against the National Right to LIfe Committee's position on key abortion-related legislation 79 out of 80 times. He is definitely consistent in his beliefs on abortion, and I would rather shoot myself than vote for someone who holds the worldviews that Kerry holds.
Bush is not perfect. And this country will never be a utopia. Christians of all people should best understand that because we know about sin and its affects in this world. People hear Kerry's empty promises in which he truly seems to believe that he will be some sort of perfect President in which under him, America will be a sort of utopia as a result of his leadership, and it ain't gonna happen (how many times did he say, "I have a plan." Over and over, he said it, and I truly think he has deluded himself and is deluding others into believing that he will cure the ills of society in America).
Regardless of whatever weaknesses Bush may have, I have had tremendous peace and joy these past four years knowing that my President is a man who prays to God, believes in God, fights for life, has integrity, understands marriage and the implications of allowing same-sex marriages. Not only that, but his wife is by far one of the classiest, most intelligent, most pleasant and gracious first ladies to grace the White House while Mrs. Heinz reminds me quite a bit of Hillary Clinton, arrogant, brash, and just plain ugly in spirit as a result.
When I think of Kerry as President, I truly feel tremendous fear, and even feelings of despair that the "battle" will be "lost," and I am praying wholeheartedly that his ungodly arrogance will bite him in the butt and be seen by all. I don't even care if he did have a better "plan" than Bush as far as healthcare, etc. At what cost would it have to come? My consience will not allow me to support a man who I know would support my 17 year old daughter's decision to get an abortion without my knowledge. Or whose wife has said that homosexuals "symbolize family" (yes, she actually said that!). I also cannot support a man who is as slanderous and manipulative as I believe he is.
If you want to vote on personality or monetary issues, I suppose then Kerry is your man. My convictions on who I vote for are formed every year before I even know the man running. I already know what kind of man I will and will not vote for, and the debate speeches do nothing to persuade me otherwise because I know that a man's heart and relationship with God WILL be blessed and are far more important than how he talks in a telivised debate. I want the man who acknowledges God. That is by far THE most important thing, because God will NOT bless the man who rejects him, and God will NOT bless the nation led by an ungodly man. If we want God's favor and blessings... well, do you honestly think that Kerry will have God's favor and blessings?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
cicilia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 10/16/2004 8:28 PM (GMT -6) | | "From the movie "Fahrenheit 911" it looks as though Bush may have put our country at war for greedy reasons"
Wow. I thought everyone pretty much knew that Farenheit 911 was a very biased, constructed, and untrue look at Bush in which Moore (who you no doubt know hates Bush and is hell-bent to get him out of office) took bits and pieces and constructed them in such a way as to make a movie full of half-truths and edited stuff in which he made Bush look stupid only because of how he edited it.
Anyways, speaking only for myself, I wouldn't believe a single word that came out of Moore's mouth. He's arrogant, money-hungry, and he's totally immersed in the whole liberal Hollywood Bush-bashing power trip thing that goes on among most of the movie stars there.
But then, I have also never been against the war, and I don't beleive Bush had greedy reasons. If Michael Moore says it is so, then it must be! I'm being sarcastic and hope you can see that just 'cause somebody says its so, don't mean it is. You gotta know all the facts, and not just the opinions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/16/2004 10:17 PM (GMT -6) | | ciciliaquote:
Wow. I thought everyone pretty much knew that Farenheit 911 was a very biased, constructed, and untrue look at Bush in which Moore ... You gotta know all the facts, and not just the opinions.
While some of what Moore was trying to get across was based on opinion and a desire to make Bush look bad.... there is some FACTS that he presented that were disturbing. What disturbed me and many others were the FACTS not the opinions.
ciciliaquote:
Not only does Kerry support these things, but there are currently six of only nine Supreme Court Justices who will be over age 70 during this next Presidency. Historically, age 71 has been the average age of retirement of Supreme Court justices in the past. If these six retire under this next Presidency, whomever is President will appoint justices who support what he supports. Kerry has stated, "I will only appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold a woman's right to choose
I hear what you're saying as far as the issues of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Thank you for pointing out about the Supreme Court Justices -- that will be helpful to keep in mind. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/17/2004 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
From what I understand, it appears that overwhelming majorities within both parties have, for some time, believed it is legal for Congress to delegate its warmaking authority to the president in even very general terms. This dates back to 1950 with President Truman and the Korean War, and has continued unabated through both Democratic and Republican administrations - and their contemporary Congresses - since then: Kennedy/Johnson (Vietnam), Nixon (Cambodia), Grenada and Libya (Reagan), Panama (Bush Sr), Kosovo (Clinton), Afghanistan (Bush Jr), and of course Iraq (Bush Sr and Jr). Apparently the argument is that, while the Constitution gives Congress warmaking authority, it does not prohibit Congress from passing that buck to the President by means of an "authorizing resolution" or similar device. And so now, for better or worse, we find ourselves two generations into bipartisan support for that approach.
There are two very important features of our constitution. One is checks and balances, the other is the separation of powers. It is the separation of powers that has been disregarded by Congress. And it is done for the same reason they allow Courts to legislate - to get the responsibility of their own back. The framers thought the war making power would be more dangerous in the hands of one man. You're complaining about what that one man has done with that power while justifying Kerry for granting it to him. Kerry is guilty as an accessory as far as I can tell - ESPECIALLY since his whole career began on account of the abuses of war!! He of all congressman should know better.
quote:
Thus it seems to me almost an academic issue to withhold support for a particular candidate based on that. I do believe politics is - what do they call it - "the art of the possible". So when the only electable choices all agree concerning issue X (such as on the legality in principle of Congressional delegation of its warmaking powers), such agreement therefore automatically removes that issue X from serving as a deciding factor, in my opinion.
If you're going to vote Democrat or Republican, I agree.
quote:
Every now and then some brave, crusading Congressman tries to show everyone up and shed some light on the issue by proposing an actual declaration of war. My local Representative participated in such an effort during the first Gulf War, if I recall correctly. I appreciate the gesture, even if it is quixotic.
I don't think that the sagacity of the framers is quixotic. It is those who came later that are without sagacity. That wisom has been abandoned by those who think they knew better, and now we have pre-emptive war. And that's just one of many evils that have come about due to the disregarding of the plain wording of the constitution.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/18/2004 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cicilia
As a Christian, I could not and will not ever vote for any person who supports abortion, homosexual marriages, and embryonic stem cell research.
Just as a data point, Cicilia, John Kerry does not support abortion or homosexual marriage. He is personally opposed to these things, but because there is no moral consensus across our secular nation on these things, he opposes legislating morality against liberty on those issues, at least at the federal level.
Some will say, in response to the idea that "you should not legislate morality", that in fact every law is an expression of "legislated morality" to some extent. But if you look at the morality being legislated by our uncontroversial laws against theft, rape, assault, and so forth, you'll find that the morality they legislate is agreed upon by nearly everyone, of all backgrounds. The point of the idea isn't merely that we shouldn't legislate morality; its that we shouldn't legislate controversial morality in a free society.
Now, please note I relate this as someone whose personal opinion is not only that abortion is grievous, but that there actually is also good basis, based on societal consensus, for legislating against it. One doesn't have to believe that abortion is murder (a controversial equation) to believe that abortion is wrong on other grounds (something which most Americans believe). So I am not with Kerry and the majority of the Democrats on the issue of abortion rights. But I can understand and respect principled disagreement such as that of John Kerry, and cannot allow my difference of opinion with him on abortion (and embryonic stem cell research) to trump my alignment with him on the war, the environment, taxation, and etc.
In my opinion George Bush launched an unjust and incompetent war in which untold thousands of innocents have died and millions of us have been placed at-risk in a more unstable world. In my opinion George Bush denies and does nothing on global climate change, an environmental catastrophe my children and their descendants will have to live with. And so on. John Kerry would have done, and will do, much better on these things, from what I can tell.
Respectfully,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/18/2004 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
The first and the third involve what many think is murder, so I can sort of understand those. Homosexuality? Why outlaw gay mariage? Why? Because it's sin? Because it's "bad for families"? We don't outlaw glutony, but it is both sinful and bad for families.
It’s a FAT chance America will ever outlaw gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins. Why? The fat-cats $$$$$$$$$$$$
BTW, do you support G.A.G. gays against gluttony? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/18/2004 12:44 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Homosexuality? Why outlaw gay mariage? Why? Because it's sin? Because it's "bad for families"? We don't outlaw glutony, but it is both sinful and bad for families.
First, a technicality: The issue isn't "gay marriage" but same-sex marriage. Gays already have the right to marry--in this respect they have the same right that every else has, namely, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays may choose not to exercise that right, but that's their choice.
Second, nothing in the law says that gays can't pledge a lifelong loving commitment to each other. Many do. The push for same-sex marriage thus has nothing to do with gays expressing love for each other, pledging committment, and so forth. What it has to do with fundamentally is respect and approval--they want committed homosexual relationships to be treated on par with committed heterosexual relationships (i.e., marriages), with all the rights and privileges thereof.
The problem is that to accomplish this marriage has to be redefined. Traditionally, it has specifically meant a lifelong commitment between a man and a women for the sake of starting a new family unit--the same type of act that consummates a marriage also results in the begetting of children. The same-sex marriage advocate has to change this to something like "a loving commitment between two consenting adults". On this view marriage is solely about love and commitment and has no essential tie to procreation or children.
Now, why should a secular government care how marriage is defined. Indeed, why should the government have any interest in regulating marriage whatsoever? After all, the government doesn't care who I am friends with. And if one of my friends and I should decide to make a lifelong pact, the government has no particular interest in that. So why then is marriage, in the traditional sense, a protected institution?
The reason has to do with the connection between marriage and procreation. Stable marriages are the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of society. The government, therefore, has a vested interest in promoting and protecting traditional marriage. Same-sex relationships do not merit the same consideration because they are by nature sterile. Sure, there are some gay couples that have children (e.g., from a previous relationship), but that does not change the fact that the teleology of such relationships is inherently not procreative and thus not something that the government should have an interest in regulating, any more than it has an interest in regulating my friendship with my next-door neighbor.
What about gluttony? Does the government have an interest in regulating that? I suspect so. Just like smoking it creates a lot of health problems that lead to a lot of unnessary medical costs. But it would make little sense to outlaw gluttony and, say, fine fat people. A more sensible approach would be to, say, tax junk food. But then one has to balance the possible gains in lower health costs from reducing gluttony to the increased costs created by added regulations, loss of jobs in the junk food industry, etc. Whether on balance it's worth it, I don't know.
At any rate, gluttony and same-sex marriage are not analogous. Not extending the marriage franchise to same-sex couples, however, does not create any new regulatory burden, nor would extending it free up resources. On the contrary, it would undermine traditional marriage and with it the family--for it will communicate that marriage is all about committed love and has nothing essential to do with children. If that is the attitude we take toward marriage it is precisely our children who will chiefly suffer.
For a good article on why same-sex marriage is a bad idea, see www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG0405.htm.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
| 103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:53 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|