POLL: Can You Be a Good Christian and Support Obama?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
My pastor I grew up with is a great Christian and voted for Obama. He obviously doesn't support all of Obama's viewpoints.
It's not always a black and white issue. Sometimes you vote with whichever candidate holds more of the beliefs you do. My dad is a Christian and there were a few stances Obama had that turned him off. My dad voted for Romney once and wrote in a candidate the other time.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It's not always a black and white issue. Sometimes you vote with whichever candidate holds more of the beliefs you do. My dad is a Christian and there were a few stances Obama had that turned him off. My dad voted for Romney once and wrote in a candidate the other time.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Well he feeds the hungry and cares for the sick, but he isn't a great steward of the land and doesn't turn the other cheek much. I would think it would be hard to be a good Christian involved with politics. It would probably be wise for believers to isolate themselves from the world to protect their souls.
Just out of curiosity, which Obama viewpoints doesn't he support and why is it "obvious" that he wouldn't support them? I might agree - since I also think some of this administration's actions are pretty unChristian - but I wonder if those are the same ones a Christian pastor would point to.
No. For Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers."
On the plus side, nor can they support the Clintons, the Bushes, or any other republican or democrat because they are all, right down the line, war mongers.
@ natural, Obama feeds the hungry and cares for the sick but he does it with money stolen from others. It is not Christian to steal, so that is another strike against him. Sorry bud.
On the plus side, nor can they support the Clintons, the Bushes, or any other republican or democrat because they are all, right down the line, war mongers.
@ natural, Obama feeds the hungry and cares for the sick but he does it with money stolen from others. It is not Christian to steal, so that is another strike against him. Sorry bud.
The real question:
Can a Good Citizen Support Obama?
Eric Holder is a political hack who refused to
investigate the IRS and other scandals. The
Department of Justice has stirred up racial
tension in various hot spots to retain the black
vote. Obama runs the Department of Justice
with his brand of injustice.
Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have accomplished
nothing as Secretary of State. One tried to cover
up mistakes she made and the other is guilty of
listening to Obama's hatred of Jews. The Iran
deal will set off an arms race in the Middle East.
The Office of Secretary of Defense has become
a revolving door. Once in that office they begin
to see what a joke our policy has become under
Obama's lack of leadership.
This post was edited on 4/6 8:58 AM by LuteHawk
Can a Good Citizen Support Obama?
Eric Holder is a political hack who refused to
investigate the IRS and other scandals. The
Department of Justice has stirred up racial
tension in various hot spots to retain the black
vote. Obama runs the Department of Justice
with his brand of injustice.
Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have accomplished
nothing as Secretary of State. One tried to cover
up mistakes she made and the other is guilty of
listening to Obama's hatred of Jews. The Iran
deal will set off an arms race in the Middle East.
The Office of Secretary of Defense has become
a revolving door. Once in that office they begin
to see what a joke our policy has become under
Obama's lack of leadership.
This post was edited on 4/6 8:58 AM by LuteHawk
"Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's, and unto God, what is God's." That leads me to believe taxes are not stolen money, but it is my believe it should be the church who feeds the hungry and cares for the sick.Originally posted by shank hawk:
No. For Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers."
On the plus side, nor can they support the Clintons, the Bushes, or any other republican or democrat because they are all, right down the line, war mongers.
@ natural, Obama feeds the hungry and cares for the sick but he does it with money stolen from others. It is not Christian to steal, so that is another strike against him. Sorry bud.
It's hard for me to imagine Jesus objecting to governments feeding the poor and caring for the sick. Or even preferring churches doing it. So while I don't begrudge you having your own preference, I see no basis for thinking that was Jesus's preference.Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:
"Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's, and unto God, what is God's." That leads me to believe taxes are not stolen money, but it is my believe it should be the church who feeds the hungry and cares for the sick.Originally posted by shank hawk:
No. For Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers."
On the plus side, nor can they support the Clintons, the Bushes, or any other republican or democrat because they are all, right down the line, war mongers.
@ natural, Obama feeds the hungry and cares for the sick but he does it with money stolen from others. It is not Christian to steal, so that is another strike against him. Sorry bud.
It is all in how the monies are obtained.
Churches feed the sick through money that is given to them from the charitable hearts of it's parishioners.
The government monies are compelled away from citizens through threat of law.
They both feed the sick, but one is acquired through passion, the other through obligation.
I don't think they would be deemed equal in the eyes of Christ.
I'm positive he has issue with gay marriage. I think it's more Homosexuality is wrong. Where as my father also thinks homosexuality is wrong, however acknowledges its here (had an ex wife who turned out to be a lesbian and was very vocal even keeping his last name out of spite. So this one issue is personal to him). He would rather it be called a civil union than marriage as he believes the word marriage is a religious term.
Now both my pastor and dad are strong Christians, however one is a democrat and the other is a republican. I think I've shared this story before....
Back in spring '07 I met Obama when he came to my church. He had just announced his candidacy. I had little doubt he would win the democratic nomination let alone the presidency. Anyways, my dad had a conversation with him and asked specifically about gay marriage. Obama told my dad he was fine with it except, he couldn't run on that stance if he wanted to be elected. My dad told him "Brother, I can't vote for you".
So, I know Obama didn't just "evolve". He's simply a politician who says what he needs to get votes. Unlike my pastor, my dad was a military man. He thinks Obama has made our military weak, because he isn't a strong leader. He doesn't believe other countries respect us. When it comes to foreign policy both my pastor and dad think we need to have the Israelis back, due to religious reasons.
All this being said, I'm with natural about Christians staying out of politics. They can/should vote. However there have been politicians to speak at my church before (including Obama). I think this practice is wrong, unless you afford opportunity for candidates from other parties as well. If not, they should lose their tax exempt status.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Why not?
Personally, the only time I consider "religion" in an election is when a candidate makes a claim he or she is a "Christian" or uses religion as a prop as a candidate..
religion is used too much in today's society and its use generally results in lying and murder.
Personally, the only time I consider "religion" in an election is when a candidate makes a claim he or she is a "Christian" or uses religion as a prop as a candidate..
religion is used too much in today's society and its use generally results in lying and murder.
The problem is that government has enabled poor choices by people, leading to further decay of family. Too many sperm donors, not enough fathers, and too many whores crapping out kids for us to feed.Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
It's hard for me to imagine Jesus objecting to governments feeding the poor and caring for the sick. Or even preferring churches doing it. So while I don't begrudge you having your own preference, I see no basis for thinking that was Jesus's preference.Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:
"Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's, and unto God, what is God's." That leads me to believe taxes are not stolen money, but it is my believe it should be the church who feeds the hungry and cares for the sick.Originally posted by shank hawk:
No. For Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers."
On the plus side, nor can they support the Clintons, the Bushes, or any other republican or democrat because they are all, right down the line, war mongers.
@ natural, Obama feeds the hungry and cares for the sick but he does it with money stolen from others. It is not Christian to steal, so that is another strike against him. Sorry bud.
In a democratic society like ours - or like ours is supposed to be, if you want to quibble - the money the government gets is the money we agree to give to it. We agree to follow the laws and rules that are established by representatives chosen by majority vote. We agree to go along even with the rules we don't like until the next election, because we recognize that this is a preferable way to structure government (as opposed to military dictatorship or theocracy or monarchy or chaos). And, at the end of this sequence of what we agree to do, is that we agree to let the state use force to ensure compliance.
In other words, your highlighted comment is a serious misrepresentation of how things work (or should work, as the case may be).
Nor is it entirely true that churches use monies that are voluntary. First, many donate for fear of Hell. Others under pressure of social ostracism from within the religious community. And many do it - or donate more - for the tax breaks that are imposed on all of us through the the same threat of law you complain about (but which I argue that we have agreed to abide by). Moreover, when you donate more, you are causing the the state to force others to make up the loss in tax revenues needed to pay the bills that we agreed to pay.
I would argue that the dichotomy you pose is a false one. You hear it a lot from cons and libertarians, but it's a serious distortion.
It is not a serious distortion.
I would stipulate to the "I agree" portion that is bolded. But, in addition to that I can also give of my own free will to charities/churches/organizations of my choice either dollars, or human capital. I don't even need to believe in God to do that. I can be atheist and do that. It's just that churches and other faith based organizations excel at this and it is not entirely out of fear of damnation.
So I am agree to the compelling piece of my responsibility, but that is never where it should end.
I think that you are placing too much finality on taxes. "The Invisible Hand of Government" is not enough to take care of a society. Merely paying taxes to the government general fund will never be enough to take care of our neighbors in our communities.
The two monies are not close to being equal from a morality and common good stand point.
Perhaps you are trying to forgive yourself of an incomplete effort to help your fellow man.
You will never be doing your part if you view taxation like a Ronco Product. "Set it and forget it" or, in this case "pay it and forget it."
I'm not even slightly opposed to voluntary donations, religious or otherwise. I strongly approve of many charitable religious activities and have even contributed to some despite being an atheist. More a matter of wanting to be sure my money is going to the aid and not to the religion.
I was mainly pushing back against the idea that some express more strongly than you that taxes are outright theft. I will certainly agree that they are an outright mess. Plus, I was pushing back against the idea that religious donations are totally voluntary. They can be, but often aren't - in the several ways I outlined.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "The two monies are not close to being equal from a morality and common good stand point." Could you explain more? I'm inclined to disagree but maybe I wouldn't if I understood your point better.
I disagree that we cannot handle all these sorts of needs through taxation. We just have to be willing to take them on, and pay the bills. So far, as a nation, we have not been willing to do either of those things. We borrow rather than pay the bills and we still don't cover many of the basics that Jesus taught about. But I do not oppose voluntary contributions that are not subsidized by my taxes.
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor." (St. Augustine, Book 4, Chapter 4 of The City of God.)
From the excellent, though lengthy Jesus is an Anarchist.
Whether it be a Bush or a Clinton, none deserve our support as Christians because none of them live by Christ's order to "love one another as I have loved you." Government IS force and coercion, with love and justice having no place in it. When you vote, you consent to the government doing to your neighbor that which would be a crime for you to do to your neighbor. Definitely not very Christian.
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
From the excellent, though lengthy Jesus is an Anarchist.
Whether it be a Bush or a Clinton, none deserve our support as Christians because none of them live by Christ's order to "love one another as I have loved you." Government IS force and coercion, with love and justice having no place in it. When you vote, you consent to the government doing to your neighbor that which would be a crime for you to do to your neighbor. Definitely not very Christian.
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
Every dollar I give, or hour I donate to a social program, is one less that is needed to be provided by the government.(your and my taxes) I would much rather give that voluntarily then have sales tax(etc.) raised another percentage point. I don't know how anyone can complain about the size of government that doesn't volunteer heavily.
I would say that human capital given is far and away greater to the common good than tax dollars. Not only does it keep the tax base lower by staving off yet another government position and pension to support, but it makes you get closer to the issues through volunteerism.
I'm not talking the fluffy stuff like, bingo in church basements, fish fry's, or bake sales.
I am talking about true civic outreach into the most needed parts of the community. It educates you on the true social issues that plague our communities today. It makes you a more responsible voter on important issues and it connects you with your fellow man who maybe hasn't had the benefits that allowed you to ascend to your place in life.
Personal contributions are just that; personal. A meaningful transaction between two, or more individuals that benefits all involved.(I could get spiritual, but I will leave that to Lute)
I don't feel anything meaningful when April 15th comes and goes.
Have you read some of the names you call people who dare disagree You have also said people who do not believe in GW should be jailed or shot. As a con and person of faith, I have problems with either side using Jesus in an argument to bolster their opinion. Like most Christians my faith does inform my opinion but to be quite honest my biases do also. I guess my biases(not in the pejorative sense) do guide much of my political thought also. I would rather have churches and individuals and groups do most of the feeding, clothing, I believe they do a better job at a lower cost and in a much more personal way, etc In addition, when Jesus spoke those words he was not speaking to the government, he was speaking to his followers.(todays church) But I know many people still fall thorough the cracks. We still need Government but I believe generally speaking, the government closet to the people governs best. There are things that have to national(defense, air and water quality, etc) We should do more government along with the money to the states to fund most things.Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
It's hard for me to imagine Jesus objecting to governments feeding the poor and caring for the sick. Or even preferring churches doing it. So while I don't begrudge you having your own preference, I see no basis for thinking that was Jesus's preference.Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:
"Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's, and unto God, what is God's." That leads me to believe taxes are not stolen money, but it is my believe it should be the church who feeds the hungry and cares for the sick.Originally posted by shank hawk:
No. For Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers."
On the plus side, nor can they support the Clintons, the Bushes, or any other republican or democrat because they are all, right down the line, war mongers.
@ natural, Obama feeds the hungry and cares for the sick but he does it with money stolen from others. It is not Christian to steal, so that is another strike against him. Sorry bud.
