how does devout christians justify voting Democrat?

[Kersh]

What are rep for that are immoral?...dems are ok for abortion, same same marriage and lgb community...

I don't know that that it is so much about what each party is expressly for or against, but about the proper role of government. It's interesting to me that the focus of your disagreement with the Democratic party is gay rights and abortion, while your signature proclaims "Jesus did not call people to embrace a set of religious rules or a code of moral ethics. He called people to put their trust in him- a person, a spirit, the God." The irony is that you rightly acknowledge that biblical Christianity is not about following a set of prescribed rules, but you seem to believe that the government should impose, by force of law, some of the very rules that we as believers are not called to follow. That said, I agree with you that these are issues about which Christians should naturally want to live in the biblical manner, but this is a result of God's grace on our lives, rather than obedience to rules for the sake of following rules. But, if our God is not demanding that we follow rules for the sake of the rules, why should believers expect their government to do so?

 

[greenguzzi]

It is absolutely true that nothing in the New Testament imagines that the followers of Christ will ever have the ability to control the policy of a nation. The only NT biblical instruction that Christians have concerns how to live righteously withing an essentially sinful nation.

This fact is what made medieval Europe so terrible. They tried to construct various flavors of a "christian nation" and all failed miserably (in retrospect).

True, but the discussion is about who to vote for, not whether we should try to construct a Christian nation on Earth. Besides Christians do try to control policy all the time, and sometimes they succeed. The problem is that many Christians are unknowingly selective when deciding on what policies are important.

 

[greenguzzi]

Ah, what does an ambassador do when he has an opportunity to speak to the king of the nation to which he's deployed?

He speaks directly in behalf of nation and of his fellow countrymen also in the host nation.

Look at the examples of Joseph, Mordechai, Esther, Nehemiah, and Ezra. The entire point of their being positioned was so they could protect their own people.

They never tried to change the culture of the host nation--that's not the role of an ambassador.

Encouraging the host's citizens to defect is also not a role of an ambassador. If an ambassador behaved like that in real life he would get returned home quick-smart. I think you push the metaphor too far. But I respect your consistency.

 

[greenguzzi]

That's called "mission creep," and the enemy loves to encourage mission creep.

It's not mission creep if the mission involves a battle of justice with one's host nation.

 

[RDKirk]

Encouraging the host's citizens to defect is also not a role of an ambassador. If an ambassador behaved like that in real life he would get returned home quick-smart.

Actually it is their role, and when they get caught being too brazen about it, they do get sent home.

But that's why when people do defect, the alien embassy is where they go for asylum.

 

[RDKirk]

It's not mission creep if the mission involves a battle of justice with one's host nation.

It is mission creep when it's not what the commander told you to do.

The overall mission might be to, say, land an invasion force on Normandy Beach. If your unit is assigned to strike at a particular location, it is not your option to decide to divide your forces and strike that other likely looking location as well.

A. The commander may not have any infantry assigned to strike that location because he's called in an air strike to that location. You will be standing there right about the time the bombs come down....

B. The commander may know the enemy is too strong for you in that location and can easily be bypassed.

C. The commander may have some other unit attacking that area and you could wind up shooting each other--"friendly fire."

But the point is: It's not what the commander told you to do. That's not obedience--that's exactly why Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden: They wanted to decide for themselves what was right or wrong to do.

Toughest thing in the world, especially for Americans: Follow directions. Do what you're told.

No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather works to please his commanding officer. -- 2 Timothy 2:4

 

[greenguzzi]

It is mission creep when it's not what the commander told you to do.

The overall mission might be to, say, land an invasion force on Normandy Beach. If your unit is assigned to strike at a particular location, it is not your option to decide to divide your forces and strike that other likely looking location as well.

A. The commander may not have any infantry assigned to strike that location because he's called in an air strike to that location. You will be standing there right about the time the bombs come down....

B. The commander may know the enemy is too strong for you in that location and can easily be bypassed.

C. The commander may have some other unit attacking that area and you could wind up shooting each other--"friendly fire."

But the point is: It's not what the commander told you to do. That's not obedience--that's exactly why Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden: They wanted to decide for themselves what was right or wrong to do.

Toughest thing in the world, especially for Americans: Follow directions. Do what you're told.

No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather works to please his commanding officer. -- 2 Timothy 2:4

That is a very sound argument. I can't disagree with that. I'll have to think through the details and see if any other questions or objection arise for me. Thanks.

 

[greenguzzi]

Actually it is their role, and when they get caught being too brazen about it, they do get sent home.

But that's why when people do defect, the alien embassy is where they go for asylum.

Well it makes sense that asylum might be available to the host country's citizens. But I wouldn't have thought that it would be the role of the ambassador to encourage it, but I don't actually know one way or the other.
(In my country all the effort and money is being used to keep asylum seekers OUT of the country.)

 

[Caretaker]

Ah, what does an ambassador do when he has an opportunity to speak to the king of the nation to which he's deployed?

He speaks directly in behalf of nation and of his fellow countrymen also in the host nation.

Look at the examples of Joseph, Mordechai, Esther, Nehemiah, and Ezra. The entire point of their being positioned was so they could protect their own people.

They never tried to change the culture of the host nation--that's not the role of an ambassador.

"They never tried to change the culture of the host nation--that's not the role of an ambassador." -- RDKirk

Whoaa, there! The implication being that it's not the role of a Christian to try to show the lost in this world the way to Christ???

What about this:

"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." -- Matthew 28:18-20a

And what about Jesus' parable of the tenants (Luke 20:9-19)?

And what of Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin (Acts 7)?

And why was John the Baptist beheaded?

And why were the Old Testament prophets killed?

And why were the more than 3,000 martyrs whose stories are told in The Martyr's Mirror martyred?

 

[greenguzzi]

C. The commander may have some other unit attacking that area and you could wind up shooting each other--"friendly fire."

That was kinda my point. I'm suggesting that maybe I'm part of the unit that God is using to attack that area. (That's not meant to sound self-important, I'm just trying to make a point. If He is directing my unit to attack anything it's probably a minuscule target.)

Yesterday I was discussing @RDKirk 's ideas with our senior pastor (who also happens to be a lecturer in Bible, Ministry, and Theology at Morling Baptist College in Sydney). His views are similar to mine inasmuch as we are called into the Kingdom, but are then sent back into the world for diverse ministries; some of which might involve lobbying government (for example).

However he thought that the value in your approach is that we shouldn't put our hope in these things. He said that by all means vote, lobby, or even stand for political office. But never put one's hope in these things. If we do these things, then we do them out of obedience. But our hope must always be in God, because only God can do what needs to be done.

 

[tulc]

Since dems are ok with several things that are against bible

I'm still a little unclear on why a Christian even needs to justify voting Democrat?
tulc(is just sayn')

 

[greenguzzi]

I'm still a little unclear on why a Christian even needs to justify voting Democrat?
tulc(is just sayn')

I don't think they we saying anyone needs to justify it. They were just being curious. Curiosity is a good thing, it's how we learn. I'm thankful that someone would want to learn the merits of a US Christian voting Democrat.

 

[RDKirk]

Well it makes sense that asylum might be available to the host country's citizens. But I wouldn't have thought that it would be the role of the ambassador to encourage it, but I don't actually know one way or the other.
(In my country all the effort and money is being used to keep asylum seekers OUT of the country.)

A human ambassador of a worldly country is by nature selective of the asylum-seekers it permits...usually based on his own nation's current political initiatives.

So, for instance, back in the old Cold War days, a prominent Russian or Chinese dissident could find asylum at the American embassy. The defecting Soviet FOXBAT pilot Viktor Belenko could find asylum in the US. Edward Snowden was offered asylum in four South American countries, but accepted the asylum offered by Russia. As human ambassadors play the game, it's all a matter of the benefit to their home nations.

But then, maybe that's not different from how the Kingdom of Heaven plays the game:

"This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." -- 1 Timothy 2

But where human governments play to gain wealth and power, God plays to gain souls.

 

[RDKirk]

"They never tried to change the culture of the host nation--that's not the role of an ambassador." -- RDKirk

Whoaa, there! The implication being that it's not the role of a Christian to try to show the lost in this world the way to Christ???

Nope. But there is a distinction between using the human weapons of political power to force unbelievers by the king's sword or the sheriff's pistol to act like Christians and using the gospel to bring people into belief and thus into the Body of Christ. The first is explicitly denied to the Body of Christ, the second is explicitly its mission.

What about this:

"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." -- Matthew 28:18-20a

And what about Jesus' parable of the tenants (Luke 20:9-19)?

And what of Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin (Acts 7)?

And why was John the Baptist beheaded?

And why were the Old Testament prophets killed?

And why were the more than 3,000 martyrs whose stories are told in The Martyr's Mirror martyred?

And where do any of those imply that Christians are to use the human weapons of political power to force unbelievers by the king's sword or the sheriff's pistol to act like Christians instead of using the gospel to bring people into belief and thus into the Body of Christ.

To be sure, a person who is operating in the interest of the Kingdom of Heaven--encouraging defectors into the Lord's Kingdom--is obviously going to be opposed by the human nations from which those people are defecting.

I learned speaking to Christians in Japan that when it became known that one of them had become a Christian, he ceases to be "Japanese" in the eyes of both the people and the government. As a result, opportunities for good jobs, good education, et cetera, become as difficult as for Koreans and other non-Japanese nationalities living in Japan. I'm told that a Christian in Japan (who had once been Japanese, but has become a Christian) might just "disappear" if arrested by the police on some trivial matter.

This is the human government opposition to people who join the Body of Christ.

 

[RDKirk]

That was kinda my point. I'm suggesting that maybe I'm part of the unit that God is using to attack that area. (That's not meant to sound self-important, I'm just trying to make a point. If He is directing my unit to attack anything it's probably a minuscule target.)

Yesterday I was discussing @RDKirk 's ideas with our senior pastor (who also happens to be a lecturer in Bible, Ministry, and Theology at Morling Baptist College in Sydney). His views are similar to mine inasmuch as we are called into the Kingdom, but are then sent back into the world for diverse ministries; some of which might involve lobbying government (for example).

However he thought that the value in your approach is that we shouldn't put our hope in these things. He said that by all means vote, lobby, or even stand for political office. But never put one's hope in these things. If we do these things, then we do them out of obedience. But our hope must always be in God, because only God can do what needs to be done.

Why would one do something that one had no hope in?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. -- Hebrews 11

If it's not an act of hope, it's not an act in faith.

...everything that does not come from faith is sin. -- Romans 14

This is really just a matter of pursuing the explicit mission God has given the Body of Christ in this world, rather than Christians in America or any other of these temporary little human political divisions doing what they each personally think is right within that little bit of territory.

 

[greenguzzi]

Why would one do something that one had no hope in?

Because my commander told me to. The hope is in the commander, not in the thing done.

 

[RDKirk]

However he thought that the value in your approach is that we shouldn't put our hope in these things. He said that by all means vote, lobby, or even stand for political office. But never put one's hope in these things..

Because my commander told me to. The hope is in the commander, not in the thing done.

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. -- John 15

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. -- Matthew 28.

I'm having trouble finding the scripture where the Body of Christ is commanded to use the human weapons of political power to force unbelievers by the king's sword or the sheriff's pistol to act like Christians instead of using the gospel to bring people into belief and thus into the Body of Christ.

When Joseph or Ezra or Mordechai had the ear of the king and could ask anything they want, they did not ask for a law prohibiting the pagan natives from worshiping multiple gods. They did not ask for a law prohibiting the pagans from infanticide or abortion. They asked for their own people to be free to be Jews as their covenant required.

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.-- 1 Timothy 2

 

[greenguzzi]

I'm having trouble finding the scripture where the Body of Christ is commanded to use the human weapons of political power to force unbelievers by the king's sword or the sheriff's pistol to act like Christians instead of using the gospel to bring people into belief and thus into the Body of Christ.

Hey, you're the one who brought it up when you said: "The commander may have some other unit attacking that area and you could wind up shooting each other." If there's another unit working in another area, then I could be in it following the Lords commands. Up until now you held to the metaphor with an iron grip, and I respect that. But you now seem to be loosing that grip a little. Also, there is more to God's work than bringing people into belief.

I'm a biomed engineer and a motorcyclist. I don't find those in scripture either, but I believe that God is leading me there, and using me in those areas of my life. Or do you believe that all believers should only be professional ministers, or theologians, or evangelists etc.
God is more than the Bible. He's the living God of the here and now. If I didn't believe that He is more than the Bible, or that He doesn't direct our lives into engineering or politics or whatever, then I'd become Amish or similar; shunning all things that aren't mentioned in the Bible. (No disrespect to the Amish intended.)

 

[RDKirk]

Hey, you're the one who brought it up when you said: "The commander may have some other unit attacking that area and you could wind up shooting each other." If there's another unit working in another area, then I could be in it following the Lords commands. Up until now you held to the metaphor with an iron grip, and I respect that. But you now seem to be loosing that grip a little. Also, there is more to God's work than bringing people into belief.

I have not loosened that grip at all. I guess it wasn't clear. Nowhere has scripture identified that Christ commands the Body of Christ to use the king's sword to force pagans to act like Christians. So, no, the commander did not command anyone to attack that other hill. No, that person is not following the Lord's commands.

I'm a biomed engineer and a motorcyclist. I don't find those in scripture either, but I believe that God is leading me there, and using me in those areas of my life. Or do you believe that all believers should only be professional ministers, or theologians, or evangelists etc.
God is more than the Bible. He's the living God of the here and now. If I didn't believe that He is more than the Bible, or that He doesn't direct our lives into engineering or politics or whatever, then I'd become Amish or similar; shunning all things that aren't mentioned in the Bible. (No disrespect to the Amish intended.)

We're not talking about whether the Lord allowed Paul to be a tentmaker on the side to make money to pay for his evangelism (as you would have a side job as well to finance your efforts in the Lord's mission). We're talking about the specific idea that using the king's sword to force pagans to act like Christians is the mission.

It's not. It is not in any way part of the mission of the Body of Christ to use the king's sword to force pagans to act like Christians.

 

[AionPhanes]

Don't misunderstand my last two posts as being pro democratic party though. Overall Democratic leadership has been just as violent and destructive in terms of war and foreign policy as the Republican party has. Many of the bloodiest and most unnecessary wars have been started by liberal Democrats. Obama has implemented a bloody regime of drone strikes that regularly kill civilians and children. Clinton supported the war against Iraq and the murderous sanctions against Iraq that lead to mass starvation. Her Democratic friend and supporter Madeleine Albright, when confronted with the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children starved as result of said sanctions, responded by saying "the price was worth it**!"

Democrats tend to be butchers too they merely mouth statements about peace now and then.

**Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?​

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.

—60 Minutes (5/12/96)​