"Religious people" and politics.

[Ordek Avci]

driveby - as for the quote by Franklin that you included, I agree wholeheartedly. As I said before, God is completely sovereign over all the earth. Every kingdom that comes to power, comes to power under the sovereignty of God. That includes America's democracy and Iran's Islamic dictatorship.

Also, I agree wholeheartedly that we should vote for the men and women that represent our beliefs. We have that right, gauranteed by the Constitution, and we should make the most of it. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

The main purpose of my original post was to put things into perspective.

There is a lot, however, the government needs from the church.

This is a statement that you made that I think speaks volumes. Religion wields power that no earthly government can and a lot of politicians want to tap into that fact. We have seen what happens when religion and government become intertwined, not only in Europe and England, but in what would be the good ole US of A (see Anne Hutchinson as the most well known example). Keeping church and state separate was something that the colonial church wanted because they had seen how it corrupts the true calling of the church.

For that reason, going back to the original post, having prayer and public reading/teaching of scripture taken out of schools is, in my opinion, in the best interest of the church. I, for one, don't want to trust the religious instruction of my children, if the Lord graces me with any, to the public school system. No disrespect to public school teachers, I think they are overworked and under-appreciated, but they are not the people I want instructing my children in the faith. That is a job that needs to be done in the home and in the church.

And as for something like gay marriage, I think this is a sticky situation. As a Christian, yes I am completely opposed to homosexuality. But at the same time to make a big deal over whether we call them "life partners" or "civil unions" or "married couples" seems to be a matter of semantics. Either way, I am against what they are doing. Changing the label doesn't make it any better or any worse. You want to protect the sanctity of marriage? So do I. So I ask, where is the outrage against divorce? This is a far greater, wider reaching, and more destructive a practice to the sanctity of marriage than homosexuals seeking to be "married."

And as for abortion, there is no way I will ever support that. It is one of the most lamentable practices in our country today.

All I am saying, and all I have been trying to say, is that, as Christians, we should not be so greatly affected by who is elected. Do we have the right to voice our opinion and vote according to our beliefs? YES, and we should do just that. But we must also remember that we are in the minority, so it should not come as a surprise when this country's laws don't reflect our beliefs.

To think that the sky is falling and our country is doomed does not represent the hope we have in Christ. It may be that God is ready to humble us as a nation. So be it. We, as Christians, need to be beacons of light and hope in that situation. It may also be that God is ready to re-establish himself on the throne of the heart's of the people of this nation. But that is not going to happen through government. That will only happen when the church starts acting like the church. And, again, that is irrespective of who is elected.

I say again, that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I am just shocked and saddened by the reaction I've seen from a lot of my Christian brothers over this election. Neither candidate presented a purely Christian platform, yet some of the guys I am in small group with were seriously angry over the results. It feels like we as Christians have gotten wrapped up in this idea of the "religious right" to the point where a vote for a Democrat is somehow a vote against God himself. Jesus was quick to distance himself from every political party because he realized that their priorities were not God's priorities. I just hope we all realize that our calling is love God and love our neighbors. The only commandments we are given in respect to governments is to pray for and submit to them. We have the right to voice our opinion and vote to support men and women that reflect our beliefs and should take advantage of that. But the proper response to not having your voice heard should not be anger, but instead should be compassion, more prayer, and a renewed passion for spreading the Gopsel.

[driveby]

Ordek, I guess I'm just not wording things in the proper way. All I'm saying is we as christians need to speak out when our government doesn't go along with our beliefs. We have been silenced for far too long. Now don't get me wrong, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it but, opposing wrong is never wrong. I'm absolutely not advocating the government teaching my children about religion, that's my responsibility. However, I do not believe the government should be able to silence me or anyone else if we practice it in a public way. When do we as christians draw the line? Are many of our laws not based on moral principles? Where did those moral principles come from? Government will never be completely free from religious influence in one way or another. It is impossible. I think you and I are on the same page. We just don't know how to say it the same way.

[Ordek Avci]

I totally agree man. I have no doubt that you and I will be standing shoulder to shoulder, taking up the cause of Christ, and trying to save the country we love.

God has blessed America. America, it's time to bless God. (to throw some good, cheesey, but truthful cliches out there)

[Meeka]

Hencutter got it right, as well as Ordek - he reason for the concept of separation of church and state is rooted in ENGLISH history, not US history. The concept is one of the very reasons our ancestors sailed this way.

[Caller1]

Wonder if Obama, or the ACLU, will remove the tradition of Christmas Tree in the White House anytime soon.

Remember the part in Revelation 'bout the false prophet declaring the new messiah. Minister Farrakhan says Obama is the messiah!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77539

[rustypjr]

He ain't the anitchrist but he sure is paving the way for him. HA AH A HA

[Deep Woods]

"It is impossible to govern the world without the Bible." --George Washington

"But for this Book we could not know right from wrong." --Abraham Lincoln

"In this little Book, The Bible, will be found the solution to all the problems of the world." -- Calvin Coolidge

[Deep Woods]

Scripture to meditate on.

1Samuel 15:16 Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.
1Sameul 15:17 And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel?
1Samuel 15:18 And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.
1Samuel 15:19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?
1Samuel 15:20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
1Samuel 15:21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.
1Samuel 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
1Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
1Samuel 15:24 ¶ And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
1Samuel 15:25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.
1Samuel 15:26 And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.

Samuel lays before Saul the plainness of the orders he was to execute (1Sa 15:18): The Lord sent thee on a journey; so easy was the service, and so certain the success, that it was rather to be called a journey than a war. The work was honourable, to destroy the sworn enemies of God and Israel; and had he denied himself, and set aside the consideration of his own profit so far as to have destroyed all that belonged to Amalek, he would have been no loser by it at last, nor have gone this warfare on his own charges. God would no doubt have made it up to him, so that he should have no need of spoil. And therefore,

(3.) He shows him how inexcusable he was in aiming to make a profit of this expedition, and to enrich himself by it (1Sa 15:19):

"Wherefore then didst thou fly upon the spoil, and convert that to thy own use which was to have been destroyed for God's honour?"

See what evil the love of money is the root of; but see what is the sinfulness of sin, and that in it which above any thing else makes it evil in the sight of the Lord. It is disobedience: Thou didst not obey the voice of the Lord.

5. Saul repeats his vindication of himself, as that which, in defiance of conviction, he resolved to abide by, 1Sa 15:20-21. He denies the charge (1Sa 15:20):

"Yea, I have obeyed, I have done all I should do;"

for he had done all which he thought he needed to do, so much wiser was he in his own eyes than God himself. God bade him kill all, and yet he puts in among the instances of his obedience that he brought Agag alive, which he thought was as good as if he had killed him. Thus carnal deceitful hearts think to excuse themselves from God's commandments with their own equivalents. He insists upon it that he has utterly destroyed the Amalekites themselves, which was the main thing intended; but, as to the spoil, he owns it should have been utterly destroyed; so that he knew his Lord's will, and was under no mistake about the command. But he thought that would be wilful waste; the cattle of the Midianites was taken for a prey in Moses's time (Nu 31:32, &c.), and why not the cattle of the Amalekites now? Better it should be prey to the Israelites than to the fowls of the air and the wild beasts; and therefore he connived at the people's carrying it away. But it was their doing and not his; and, besides, it was for sacrifice to the Lord here at Gilgal, whither they were now bringing them. See what a hard thing it is to convince the children of disobedience of their sin and to strip them of their fig-leaves.

It is not the rebellion of the people against their prince, but of a prince against God, that this text speaks of. (Does this ring a bell? there is direct, blatant rejection of God in the politics of today.)

Those are unfit and unworthy to rule over men, who are not willing that God should rule over them.


The Word of Jesus Christ from the Gospel of Luke........

Luke 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luke 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
Luke 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 12:54 ¶ And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
Luke 12:55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
Luke 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
{With the political storm arising out of conflict with Rome impending over them, and with the spiritual storm which the teaching of Christ was bringing upon them, about to burst, they stood still in ignorant indifference, and made no provision for the times of trouble. }

[PossumBob]

Fellas, I sure don't mean to stir up the hornet's nest anymore than it already is, but all the stuff attributed to the Founding Fathers needs to be looked at a bit deeper. Don't just a google "quote ben franklin religion" but read their letters, their essays, their writings When you read the Founding Fathers, and the documents that created our country, I think you see very clear evidence that while Christianity was an influencing factor, they did not intend or desire to make America a Christian nation. And when you look at the documents, where do we see the Christian nation being formed? We don’t. Adams, who did not believe in the Trinity, also found justification by faith alone to be "detestable" and "hurtful." He referred to the Atonement on the Cross as mystery covering for absurdity. If you read him, you'll find lots of quotes about the Christian religion, but when you read them in the context of the whole passage you see the actual intent. For example, a Founding Father already quoted on this forum also said in regards to Jesus, "I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity.” He also stated, "I believe there is one Supreme most perfect Being, Author and Father of the Gods themselves.” Father of the Gods? What? Would we consider a person who doesn't believe the divinity of Christ to be a Christian? By the way, this is Ben Franklin.
What about important documents, other than the Declaration of Independence ( remember Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.), and the Constitution which doesn’t mention Christianity but only a separation of Church and State? We can say if we weren’t a Christian Nation someone should have told us a long time ago, but in fact they did. Let’s look at the Treaty of Tripoli, dealing with the first military action taken by America on foreign soil. It states, “The government of the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion.” Penned under Washington’s presidency and signed by Adams during his presidency. What? How could they allow such to be included if it was untrue?
I'm not trying to convince anyone one way or the other. I just wanted to try to say what the Founding Fathers were about.

[mudsucker]

Good read and good points, PossumBob!