Freedom and Grace Forums
November 21, 2014, 10:36:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: freedomandgrace.com is alive!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Finding the most Bible-based candidate  (Read 2606 times)
Kings_kid
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9862


View Profile
« on: February 24, 2012, 10:24:41 AM »


There's been a lot of heated discussion in the politics forum, and that's to be expected.

Personally, i'm only interested in one thing.  The actual voting record of the candidates, and how they line up with the Bible, as much as can be determined.  Yes, i know, we will have have great debates about what exactly that means.

What i'm looking for (since i have to vote very soon now), is sites which give the breakdown on Biblical values and the specific voting records of the candidates.  If a politician has a consistent voting record that supports things the Scripture opposes, then a lot of their attractive qualities aren't going to matter when the important things come up. 

Whether we like a person or not, their recognition of Who needs to be in charge of government is what counts.  And no candidate may be fully trustworthy, so their voting history needs to be the real criterion for our support, not just their campaign rhetoric.

Anyone have any Christian sites which offer detailed voting records compared to Biblical standards? 
Logged
CPB
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1279



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2012, 08:30:59 AM »

Meaning what exactly? I guess by most conventional standards Santorum is the 'Bible' candidate. He hates gays, loves bombing brown people and is a big fan of the nanny state (the right wing version of course) Im not a fan of big brother, even when its wrapped in the flag and holding a cross. I stand with the candidate who stands for sound money, cutting spending, paying off debt, a non interventionist foriegn policy, and above all liberty.  Im electing someone to civil government not an elder at my church I do not care what their theology is. If you want to live in a theocracy feel free to move to Iran.
Logged



Heaven help me for the way I am
Save me from these evil deeds before I get them done
I know tomorrow brings the consequence at hand
But I keep livin' this day like the next will never come
-Fiona Apple

http://landsharkattacks.blogspot.com/
Kings_kid
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9862


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2012, 10:01:00 AM »

Meaning what exactly? I guess by most conventional standards Santorum is the 'Bible' candidate. He hates gays, loves bombing brown people and is a big fan of the nanny state (the right wing version of course) Im not a fan of big brother, even when its wrapped in the flag and holding a cross. I stand with the candidate who stands for sound money, cutting spending, paying off debt, a non interventionist foriegn policy, and above all liberty.  Im electing someone to civil government not an elder at my church I do not care what their theology is. If you want to live in a theocracy feel free to move to Iran.

The Bible doesn't teach hatred of "gays", just that homosexuality is wrong, and "gay marriage" isn't part of the original Plan.  The Bible doesn't teach the love of bombing brown people, but does teach loving our enemies.  The Bible doesn't teach having a "nanny state", but rather each person being responsible for their own lives as much as they are able to be.  And the Bible doesn't preach being ruled by any "big brother" other than our Elder Brother, Jesus.

A theocracy isn't in itself a bad thing, depending on which understanding of God is in power.  Iran is based on a religious understanding that demands death and destruction.  Israel was raised up as a theocracy, until they rejected the King over all kings, and asked for a human king, and the nation went downhill from there.  The final Kingdom on earth will be the final theocracy which will be eternal.  Until then, we need to look for people to lead us who look to Christ, not themselves for the ability to govern.

No, we won't find perfection in a candidate, but we may find clear evidence that the candidate chooses to support what the Bible supports.  Like Washington, Lincoln, and others who made it clear that, to them, the Word of God had the best guide-lines for governing.  And that should include encouraging religion, not suppressing it, decreasing bureaucracy not expanding it, strengthening heterosexual marriages not undermining them, helping the poor find jobs not mere handouts, among other things.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 10:08:10 AM by Kings_kid » Logged
Willis
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6716


Follow the Shepherd


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2012, 12:11:45 PM »

There is some argument about how "Christian" some of the Founding Fathers were. But no one can argue that they didn't support at least the moral values of the Christian faith as the dominant faith of the people they were representing.

Now sure they had to make some serious compromises such as those over slavery, but those compromises were mostly worked out over time with Amendments and changes in culture. (Not to mention 600,000 dead in the Civil War.)

Yet, all in all, they created a secular document--the U.S. Constitution--for running a government with Judeo-Christian ethics as the key component. That document has stood the test of time and IF followed it would give us a government closer to any set of Biblical standards than any other nation in history. Unlike any theocratic or tyrannical government on earth to that time or since, the U.S. Constitution was written to protect the people from the government so that the people could have the rights we cherish so much now. The freedoms of speech, religion, to politically assemble, to be free from government intrusions on our person or property without due process, et al...we take these rights for granted now but in the 18th century they were truly revolutionary.

There is only one candidate (unfortunately) who TRULY believes in following the U.S. Constitution. All the others may give it lip service, but they are still just statists to varying degrees.

There is only one candidate (unfortunately) who doesn't believe that the USA should be the world's policeman and thus get us entangled in foreign countries all over the world without a Declaration of War--which was purposefully intended to give war powers to a consensus of the PEOPLE through their elected Representatives.

There is only one candidate (unfortunately) who believes in true personal liberty. The U.S. Constitution was written to protect our lives, our liberty, and freedom over how we choose to conduct our personal lives without undue interference by the government. Today, these freedoms have increasingly been sacrificed on the altar of safety. The government uses fear to enact laws and regulations restricting almost every activity one can think of because most people do not want the responsibilities inherent in freedom. How does that square with the concepts of personal liberty we read in U.S. Constitution?

If you take even a tiny amount of time to look at the four remaining Republican Candidates you will see which Candidate I'm talking about. Voting for the U.S. Constitution, given the limitations of human government, is as close to voting for a Biblical standard as one can get.

 
Logged

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. -- Charles Krauthammer
another beloved child of HIS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4160



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2012, 01:13:56 PM »

This is a no brainer.  Vote Obama.  Not only the best candidate, but by far, judging by record and behavior, the best Christian.
Logged

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.
Herman Melville
CPB
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1279



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2012, 01:49:47 PM »

How exactly does it undermine your marriage if the government gives two gay guys a marriage license? Im not even 'pro-gay marriage' per say. Given the problems we face I could care less. But how does it undermine your marriage if the government gives them a peice of paper?
Logged



Heaven help me for the way I am
Save me from these evil deeds before I get them done
I know tomorrow brings the consequence at hand
But I keep livin' this day like the next will never come
-Fiona Apple

http://landsharkattacks.blogspot.com/
another beloved child of HIS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4160



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2012, 04:52:00 PM »

Here we go again................   

It doesn't effect or undermine my marriage.  My marriage is not based on anyone else's.  Just mine. 

I could care less who is married and who is not, although sometimes it does make me wonder when people have fancy marriages with each one they have.

I believe that even though the divorce rates, which are the same, Christian or not, don't really effect my marriage either.  Unless, we go back through time to the women I descend from and how living in poverty because of alcoholic husbands or lived with abuse because the church told them, and so their families told them, it was their job to stay with that man.

Then I looked up statistics.  Always so interesting.

32% of married Christians divorce as compared to 33% in the regular population.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-christian-divorce-rate-identical-to-national-average-31815/

Nest I looked up gay Christian percentages.  Same people, Barna did this study.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights

The thing is, 51% of adults (over the age of 18) are married. 

Then I found this stat:  The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

and:  In August 2002*, Gallup asked Americans, in an open-ended format, to estimate the percentage of American men and the percentage of American women who are homosexual. The average estimates were that 21% of men are gay and 22% of women are lesbians. In fact, roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual. It should be pointed out, too, that many Americans (at least one in six) could not give an estimate

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

That's not adding in all of the people who are married and unhappy or just living two separate lives, which is also against the bible...if that's what you are calling gay marriage.

I think that it is not the government's job to discriminate.  This is a free country.

I think it's a nasty, divisive, hateful campaign that some so called Christians and many politicians play...but people are motivated by fear, not facts.

Matthew 23 isn't about gays, but about Christians.  Jesus wasn't too fond of the money changers in His temples either.  Where was He teaching legislating against people who didn't go along with Him?


Logged

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.
Herman Melville
CPB
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1279



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2012, 05:34:05 PM »

You know I believe homosexuality is wrong. Not just different, wrong. But I could care less weather the government lets them play house and I certainly dont blame a very small minority for ruining marriage. The institution of marriage is such a joke in this country right now I dont even see why they gays want it so bad. But hey if they really want to lose half their crap when they break up they can be my guest. And I absolutly oppose crap like sodomy laws. It is in NO WAY the governments business what 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy or their bedrooms. Not in a free country at least. The government can allow things without endorsing them.

And KK except for the Kingdom Jesus will eventually establish a theocrasy is ALWAYS a bad thing. When the church and state get in bed together the state loses its mind and the church loses its soul.

More to the point gay marriage or no, it wont matter once we spend ourselves off a cliff. I just dont see how its at all a hill worth dieing on.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 05:39:11 PM by Chris Bechtloff » Logged



Heaven help me for the way I am
Save me from these evil deeds before I get them done
I know tomorrow brings the consequence at hand
But I keep livin' this day like the next will never come
-Fiona Apple

http://landsharkattacks.blogspot.com/
Willis
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6716


Follow the Shepherd


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2012, 09:01:21 AM »

I don't know how this topic got off to gay marriage land, but some of you might be surprised that I don't think the government has any business regulating marriage anyway.

Since the late 1600s in America there was a history of miscegenation laws that forbade interracial marriages. After the Civil War these laws took on a much broader scope and in the South became what was to be called "Jim Crow" which in effect instituted legal segregation. One method for controlling marriages in violation of the miscegenation laws was for county clerks to register marriages by issuing marriage "licenses." Without such a license, a "marriage" was not considered legally binding. The idea spread, even outside of the South, as a means of tracking marriages and also as a source of income for local governments.

As a side note, I want to point out also that a much more ancient form of marriage licensing was instituted by the Roman Catholic Church...for almost the same reasons, that is, to make sure that only Catholics in "good standing" could get married. This was at a time when the Church and the State were synonymous and thus marriage licensing was a powerful way to control the population and keep people "in line" since marriages that were not sanctioned by the church had severe social and legal consequences.

So consider the involvement of the government via marriage licensing in something that should be only between the marrying couple and God. Is this not a violation of Church and State and thus unconstitutional?

Now many will throw in the argument that licensing is necessary to form a legal contract between the two parties (husband and wife) for the purpose of insuring children are cared for properly. I will answer by saying that people have been marrying and having children (and caring for them) for millennia without the need for government approval via the granting of a license. Think about it: the very idea that you need a license to get married is nothing but a limitation on what surely must fit the concept of an "inalienable right"--that is the right for a man and woman to be married. Additionally, the very act of the license makes the government a third-party to the marriage contract. That fact is being used ever more frequently by State Social Service agencies as a proto-legal means to inject themselves into our domestic lives wherever it suits them with little recourse by private-citizen victims.

Another argument for licensing has to do with property and privacy rights. I believe that the government's role is to enforce contracts between private parties, not to entangle the government by MAKING the contract and doing so by force of law. Contracts are by principle agreements between consenting parties. When one side forces itself into the equation by force then it violates the very concept of a contract. The government should just butt out and let people create their own contracts for sharing property or, for example, giving another person access to their medical or legal records. We can already do that in infinite ways through the process of Power of Attorney. That is all we need.

If a man and woman want to get married it is a social (and perhaps a religious) event. Legally, they can simultaneously draw up a legal contract to cover future property claims against each other. (A lot of people do that anyway through what we call "prenuptial agreements.") But doing away with marriage licensing and converting solely to some sort of "co-habitation" prenuptial contract would cover traditional marriages AND allow for unconventional yet common situations such as two men or two women or even a mother and son or any combination of people living together to protect their legal property and privacy rights. This would improve individual rights and take power away from the government (which is why it's not likely to happen any time soon).

 
Logged

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. -- Charles Krauthammer
another beloved child of HIS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4160



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2012, 09:28:41 AM »

Lots of great perspective Willis!

And, I don't know how the subject got changed either.

I find myself wanting to add: 

I think President Obama has done more for marriage than can be explained away in political chatter.  Our president loves his wife.  He cherishes her.  I know they say they do, but politicians all want to have that pro family look.  It is in the way he, especially, but Michelle also, treat each other.  It is in the way they look at each other.  I hear women, especially comment about the way they treat each other.  But men have to see it too.

President and Mrs. Obama are a positive view for marriage.
Logged

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.
Herman Melville
Willis
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6716


Follow the Shepherd


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2012, 10:06:56 AM »

Lots of great perspective Willis!

Wow! Another breakthrough! Mary and Willis finding common political ground! That's the earth you all feel shaking...  cheesy

 
Logged

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. -- Charles Krauthammer
Kings_kid
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9862


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2012, 11:14:52 AM »


chris:  "And KK except for the Kingdom Jesus will eventually establish a theocrasy is ALWAYS a bad thing. When the church and state get in bed together the state loses its mind and the church loses its soul.

More to the point gay marriage or no, it wont matter once we spend ourselves off a cliff. I just dont see how its at all a hill worth dieing on."

K_k:  I don't recommend a theocracy until the Kingdom comes, since we don't really have "what it takes" to run such a government (Jesus in Person).  The best we can do is what the "founding Fathers" did, try to protect ourselves from government domination.  And that includes encouraging religion, instead of trying to suppress it because it may upset some atheists.  And extremely limiting abortion, and defining marriage as between a man and a woman, not between a man and an animal, or an adult and a child, or between groups of people who want to have sex with each other.

Still, "gay marriage" isn't the major point, but rather just an indicator, as is "abortion on demand", as is rejecting our relationship with Israel, as is prayer in public, etc, that our leadership isn't in tune with Scripture, but moving away from it, as our society has been for decades, in general.  Anyone who consistently votes in alignment with God's Word to us, (if there are any such candidates, otherwise closest to the goal), should be our first choice, if we claim Christ as Savior.

Obviously we will disagree on who that is, but if we know Jesus, we know we need more of His influence in Washington, not less, and more of Biblical principles, not more secularism.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 11:18:07 AM by Kings_kid » Logged
another beloved child of HIS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4160



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2012, 11:53:21 AM »

Indicators....

Encouraging religion, instead of trying to suppress it....Really?

You are not for encouraging any religion that you don't okay.  Furthermore religion is the slipperiest slope ever.  God is not in religion.  It is man's manipulation of God's view that is religion.  The government should encourage religion. With, of course, the religion police in charge.   You have some strange ideas.  

Founding fathers...b.s.  Government domination.  Who grew government in raging multiples never seen before?  Those Republicans in charge in the 2000s.  Who was in charge of the entire congress, the presidency, and the supreme court and yet didn't treat abortion the way they do when it's a handy little tool to get votes with.  Republicans will NEVER get rid of abortion, because it is always their ace in the hole.  ...Not only that, sending our citizens off to wars with made up reasons and every death and destroyed life that is attached, is equal to abortion, and worse.

Who in your life do you give a blank check to and whatever way they point you follow?  Is it your pastor?  The people in your AA group?  Your wife?  Children?  Who?  Do you really give up all of your decisions to God?
 
Where on the face of the earth have we not helped our Israel?  Believe it or not, all of the people living in Israel don't agree with their own government.  Where the heck, so many Christians I know, think we should stick our nose up the butts of the Israelis and support them, no matter what they do, get if from.  They make no wrong decisions?  They deserve us to bail them out, no matter what or we are evil?  Give me a break.

You want indicators?  I will happily supply you with a list of "indicators" that hurt society.  It's always someone else's sin that has everything messed up.  

Moving away from scripture in our society for decades?  So when were the people in the United States living with scripture?  Did religion in the past really honor the Lord or show who He really is better than now?  Dream land, you live in.

When we really know Jesus, we do not spread untruth, and we especially don't label it with His name.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 01:25:16 PM by another beloved child of HIS » Logged

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.
Herman Melville
CPB
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1279



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2012, 08:11:43 PM »

 The best we can do is what the "founding Fathers" did, try to protect ourselves from government domination.  And that includes encouraging religion, instead of trying to suppress it because it may upset some atheists.  And extremely limiting abortion, and defining marriage as between a man and a woman, not between a man and an animal, or an adult and a child, or between groups of people who want to have sex with each other.

OK first of all how exactly does keeping two gay guys from getting married protect us from government domination? Because right now in most places two gay guys cant get married and government is still pretty dominant.

But another thing I gotta take issue with is I for one think government has NO BUSINESS suppressing OR encouraging religion. In my state of PA the legislator just declared in 'Year of the Bible' I groaned when I heard that. Not only was it totally inappropriate for a civil government to do, and a complete waste of time (we have REAL problems in this state to tackle) it was worst of all A BAD WITNESS. As I said in another thread KK I didnt grow up in an evengelical bubble. I came to Christ as a young adult so I know a little something of how we are preceived by unbelievers. An I can tell you this sort of crap makes us look like people who want to use the sword of the government to force Christianity down their throats. Not a good witness AT ALL.
Logged



Heaven help me for the way I am
Save me from these evil deeds before I get them done
I know tomorrow brings the consequence at hand
But I keep livin' this day like the next will never come
-Fiona Apple

http://landsharkattacks.blogspot.com/
Kings_kid
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9862


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2012, 11:27:25 AM »


I believe most evangelicals don't want to "force Christianity down the throats of unbelievers with the sword of government".  On the other hand, God's standards against adultery, incest, homosexuality, beastiality, child abuse, murder (including most abortion), theft, etc, need to be upheld as much as possible.

All we have to do is ask ourselves if we would rather live in a society in which the 10 Commandments were followed, at least partially, or in a world which does just the opposite of them.  God had a better plan for government than we have come up with, and the more we move away from His recommendations, the more we will deteriorate as a people.

As far as "encouraging religion" goes, that was the initial intent of the "separation of church and state", not to suppress religion, but to encourage it, yet without the problems immigrants had with a single "state religion" being forced on everyone in their native lands.  This country was founded on Biblical principles, more so than any other nation in history (other than early Israel).  And the further we get from it, the more we are supporting an anti-Biblical government, which will sooner or later bring on us His judgment.  I think it is both sooner and later.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 11:28:57 AM by Kings_kid » Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!