Should the Vice President Recuse himself on January 3rd?

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, most Conservative politicians are these days...it's standard Conservative operating procedure to act & legislate in ways that are antithetical to Jesus' commands in Matt 25.
Such is why I'm a radical centrist.
Meaning promoting private charity versus government welfare? Some gov, provision is Biblical, but not the welfare system we have4 today, and the victim-entitlement mentality that fosters it is right from Hell. Meanwhile, from what i have seen, it is evangelical ministries who provide the most humanitarian aid among religious groups.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But what it does not mean is just what I said, that God's omniscient use of the sinful choices of men to accomplish His purposes simply does not translate into sanction of the former, nor our being complicit in knowingly facilitating it.

What does the Bible say the strength of Sin is?
Where does sin get it's power to condemn?


The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Some gov, provision is Biblical

Can you provide examples of this Biblical Gov't provision?

Meaning promoting private charity versus government welfare?

Where is the scriptural admonition against a group of people freely banding together and democratically arriving at a framework that creates a system where everyone pitches in a little (so the burden is spread out) to keep the less fortunate among them from succumbing to disease or injury, starving or freezing to death, where people who don't want to take part in that framework are free to leave the organization and give up all it's benefits if they so choose?

I've looked for such an admonition, but have yet to find it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, most Conservative politicians are these days...it's standard Conservative operating procedure to act & legislate in ways that are antithetical to Jesus' commands in Matt 25.

Such is why I'm a radical centrist.
I don’t know of any Conservatives who are Christians who support abortion.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where is the scriptural admonition against a group of people freely banding together and democratically arriving at a framework that creates a system where everyone pitches in a little (so the burden is spread out) to keep the less fortunate among them from succumbing to disease or injury, starving or freezing to death, where people who don't want to take part in that framework are free to leave the organization and give up all it's benefits if they so choose?
Are you talking about churches and missionaries?
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you talking about churches and missionaries?
Does it matter what organization it is?

What if it's the local hardware store Employees banding together?
What if it's A Church group?
What if it's a City?
A State?
A Country?
A Multi-National Corporation?
Does it matter?
Again, Where is the Biblical admonition against it??

And where are your examples of Government Provision that you believe, as stated, is Biblical?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don’t know of any Conservatives who are Christians who support abortion.

He Fell short in His Bid for the Oregon Governors' seat this week, but Republican Knute Buehler is one I know of.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does it matter what organization it is?

What if it's the local hardware store Employees banding together?
What if it's A Church group?
What if it's a City?
A State?
A Country?
A Multi-National Corporation?
Does it matter?
Again, Where is the Biblical admonition against it??

And where are your examples of Government Provision that you believe, as stated, is Biblical?
I asked because what you wrote is what Christians do through their church ministries and missionaries.
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,648
6,107
Massachusetts
✟583,317.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I would not expect a Muslim to hold a Bible for me. And I think there are Muslims who would not want a non-Muslim to hold their Qur'an. I think a serious Muslim would want an imam to hold it and take the Muslim's oath, if the Muslim really means it. I am curious if they might feel released from the oath if an imam was not taking it from them.

When taking an oath to tell the truth in a court of law, would it matter to you if the person holding the Bible was a believer or not?
For me, it would not matter who held the Bible; I would consider myself obligated to my oath.

But this does not guarantee that a Muslim would feel the same way, in taking an oath with someone who is not a Muslim. I am pretty sure that there are Muslims who do not consider non-Muslim courts to be legitimate; and so they might not consider a promise to non-Muslims to be obligatory. And it is pretty clear that their writings include releases from guilt for lying. So, actually, I would not even be sure a Muslim is telling me the truth about how he or she sees this. Plus, I know people are capable of lying under oath, Muslims or not. So, I trust God to guide me to know how to relate with and trust each individual > He knows.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Can you provide examples of this Biblical Gov't provision?
  • not harvesting the corners of the field, (Lv. 19:10; 23:22) and also;

  • letting the land rest the 7th year with the poor being the harvesters (meaning work: Exodus 30 23:11). As well as leaving that which dies of itself for the poor. (Deuteronomy 14:21) And;

  • at the end of every seven years making a release of every creditor of his neighbour, or of his brother, excluding foreigners. (Deuteronomy 15:1-3) And;

  • giving to every family per tribes a portion of the conquered land by lot for an inheritance forever. (Numbers 33:53,54)

  • ever fiftieth year proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants to return every man unto his possession (in case they sold it, such as out of need), and every man unto his family. (Leviticus 25:10)

  • And personal charity to brethren who waxed poor, and with loans having no interest, (Leviticus 25:35,36; Deuteronomy 15:7,8; cf. 1 Timothy 6:17,18; 1 John 3:16,17) and;

  • not keeping overnight what he placed down as collateral/pledge (Deuteronomy 24:12) and;

  • paying workers daily. (Deuteronomy 24:15) And with;

  • the same tax (an half shekel) for rich and poor for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. (Exodus 30:15,16)?

  • A yearly tithe of produce, dough, etc. for the Levites to do the service of the Tabernacle (Numbers 18:20,21; Leviticus 27:30-31)

  • The yearly tithe of their increase of the field (being an agrarian-based society) for the feasts, to eat (or buy food if one came from far away, who could sell their increase) at the feast unto the Lord in the place which He would choose to place his name. (Deuteronomy 14:22-26)

  • The free-will offerings by inviolable vows, of persons, cattle, houses, or land, (Leviticus 27:2-25) according to administrative estimation based on value and ability.

  • The tithe of thine increase at the end of three years, thus, "the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest." (Deuteronomy 14:28,29)
In any case, while you might can support in principal for "redistributive social welfare tax," the devil is in the details, and if you want to use the theocracy of Israel for support and to make it applicable today, you need deal with it as part a whole system, which was opposed to,

  1. a welfare system which subsidizes having children due to rampant continued fornication. And fosters;

  2. absentee fathers, and;

  3. able persons/recipients who would not seek to be productive. And

  4. a vast penal system, and;

  5. redundant overlapping (federal and "tribal") programs providing $ignificant aid for a whole host of aspects, including education, housing, heat, power, health care, utility rates, and a multitude of adult health issues as well as children, and including,

  6. funding the cost of treatment for a disease primarily caused by a sinful activity the Scriptures only condemn,and even funding so that they may engage in it without becoming infected. And;

  7. with the support largely being an impersonal means in the mail or similar, And;

  8. administered by a vast bureaucracy largely staffed by supporters of said system;

  9. many of who are naive idealistic students of secular schools choosing this employment in order to obtain forgiveness of their remaining significant debt. And with political powers;

  10. fostering a victim-entitlement mentality, in which all those lack benefits others earned are told they are victims of injustice, and have the right to benefits others earned, and who are generally portrayed as oppressors who need to have more taken from them to provide what the victims are told is their right (thus working against the concept of mercy and grace and acts of gratitude), and by which Communist-type seduction said political powers obtain their power (in the end resulting in dictatorships and the most extreme economic discrepancy), all of which is

  11. funded by approx. just half the adult population, and;

  12. with certain benefits for the working poor effectively being a disincentive to work, since recipients quickly lose more benefits for each additional dollar they earn.
And i am sure the list could go on. If this is not what you are defending, then what hypothetical system is it that you condemn conservatives for opposing?
Where is the scriptural admonition against a group of people freely banding together and democratically arriving at a framework that creates a system where everyone pitches in a little (so the burden is spread out) to keep the less fortunate among them from succumbing to disease or injury, starving or freezing to death, where people who don't want to take part in that framework are free to leave the organization and give up all it's benefits if they so choose?
I've looked for such an admonition, but have yet to find it.
Sounds overall good to me, something evangelicals overall would favor, seeing as the movement engages in substantial humanitarian work.

Every week we receive news of evangelical type agencies providing humanitarian aid, along with spiritual help (and i check out some to see how they are using their funds), from such ministries as Persecution Project, Barnabas Fund | Hope and Aid for the Persecuted Church, Food for the Hungry, Samaritans Purse, Operation Blessing International, and others, which are just a few.

However, in contrast to what you describe is a system in which rather than people freely banding together to sacrificially to help actual victims in need, and share their blessings, is the system in which people are compelled to subsidize a system that fosters Godlessness, immorality, class and race warfare (including denying jobs to the best qualified because they are of the wrong race, and who are demonized), and that of attacking and penalizing those who earned greater benefits while fostering a generational culture of indolence, fatherless families, and or a political correct culture of oppression of any who dare express objections to it. Which is a support system for certain elitist proxy $ervants of the devil who, use actual injustice as well as invent a scenario of such in order to present themselves as saviors of the oppressed.

Whether it be Stalin or Venezuela, the end of this socialist paradise is that of the so-called saviors being ones sitting in "first class," while the rest who helped their mutiny realize an quality of poverty.

Obviously there are two extremes, but the political welfare system, of America is not the answer.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Newtheran
Upvote 0

St. Helens

I stand with Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
CF Staff Trainer
Supporter
Jul 24, 2007
59,012
9,666
Lower Slower Minnesota
✟1,216,573.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
MOD HAT ON
Flaming and Goading
Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed. This includes flaming Catholics as a 'cult'.
Disruptive Behavior
Please do not publicly discuss reported posts or staff actions taken on yourself or other members. If you are going to report a post don't announce it in the thread.

MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,538
658
Ohio
✟28,633.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Wrong, it can be. See post above.

Wrong again. Biblical law supersedes laws of men. And the items sworn upon when the oath is made are no more meaningless than using a picture of your mother in promising fidelity to your wife would be. Which you would not use to mop the floor with either, due to what it represents.


Nope we are not a Theocracy. If you can't do your job then resign.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
1) Should he be forced to do this?
Why would he have a problem with it?
2) Should he recuse himself?
If he has a serious problem with it.
3) If he does this willingly, is he willfully sinning against God?
I don't see how he would be.
4) If he does this willingly, does this demonstrate that he personally believes swearing an oath upon the Koran is equally binding to swearing an oath upon the Holy Bible?
This is a two-part answer.

1) It doesn't say that he believes one thing or another about the Koran, or Islam.
2) Given what Jesus taught about swearing oaths (Matthew 23:16-22, and Matthew 5:33-37) I'd say yes they are equally binding. What matters is the word of the person swearing the oath. An oath that isn't binding is a lie. What do the people swearing the oath consider to be binding? I want honesty from them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: No Swansong
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I asked because what you wrote is what Christians do through their church ministries and missionaries.
Ok, and presumably your ok with that.
So Why would you not be ok with a different group doing it?
Like in my examples?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Newtheran

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2018
783
571
South
✟26,789.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
C
Where is the scriptural admonition against a group of people freely banding together and democratically arriving at a framework that creates a system where everyone pitches in a little (so the burden is spread out) to keep the less fortunate among them from succumbing to disease or injury, starving or freezing to death, where people who don't want to take part in that framework are free to leave the organization and give up all it's benefits if they so choose?

I've looked for such an admonition, but have yet to find it.

...and of course, you understand that "freely banding together" would involve 100% agreement, not 51% agreeing to impose a system of socialism on 100% of society. Second, that still doesn't address the issue that Christian alms, properly given, glorify God while socialist redistribution glorifies government.

As far as Pence is concerned, I think the man has a lot of you all fooled. As a politician he is Bush 2.0. As governor of Indiana, he folded when given the opportunity to defend religious freedom. He is better versed with the dictionary of Christianity than Bush was, but is not the Samson we need in this hour.

He will show up to swear in a Muslim on a Koran, a Satanist on the Satanic Bible, or an Atheist on Meine Kampf. Whether he does or not isn't particularly my concern.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...and of course, you understand that "freely banding together" would involve 100% agreement,

Yes, if 100% of the people agreed that they wanted to belong to a group that makes decisions democratically, that would indeed involve 100% agreement. No one is forced to participate. All can FREELY leave the organization if they so choose.

not 51% agreeing to impose a system of socialism on 100% of society.

You mean like paved roads, police and fire departments, traffic signals, public schools etc...?

Are Those the kind socialist of impositions you are referring to? Or do you support socialism in those forms?

When you stop at a red light, do you silently curse the socialists that restricted your freedom of movement at that moment by putting up that socialist traffic control device that they likewise forced you to pitch in to pay for, without 100% agreement from all?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nope we are not a Theocracy. If you can't do your job then resign.
That is actually different than your charge that "Administering an oath to someone in the presence of their choice of holy book is not a sin." for it is one thing to quite your job because doing so would signify support for something immoral (like creating a cake for a KKK celebration), versus arguing that this cannot not be considered a sin for the person doing so.

As for your present argument, you are confusing the state upholding free speech, that of the right of an artist to decide what express moral expression he will morally support with his art or use his services for (versus the amoral/ racial nature of the persons themselves) with a Theocracy in which all must show assent to theological beliefs.

In reality though the state is not to officially promote a formal state religion, the state can require obedience to laws on morality, even which are to some degree based on moral theological beliefs (and can affirm faith in general, as the Founders in government abundantly did), but not requiring assent to theological faith beliefs.

However, if the state can effectually require signification of assent to ideological beliefs, then i agree that one should quit or not take a job that requires it if it conflicts with his conscience, but I do not agree that the state should always compel such.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0