Can a Christian be a Liberal Voter?

I don't believe they know what voting is all about.

I think they might actually believe this,  but

I don't believe at all that it is all about this

(neither the method,  who is trusted,  what is accomplished,  nothing at all seems to be in line with Biblical directions,  and nothing about believing in voting has resulted in anything Righteous, Holy, or Biblical been brought about )  rather,  a lot of evil is concealed and perpetrated by convincing people that their vote counts or/and that their voting gets things done...   >>

    On 8/20/2020 at 5:20 AM, E Morales said:

    The bible also says give to Cesar, what is of Cesar, and to the Lord the things of the Lord. We paid taxes, we paid our tithes and offerings. We vote for a new pastor, we vote for our new president. We lead people to the gospel for salvation, we lead the people to vote, to vote for those that will support the faith, and Israel.

[Click and drag to move]

Yes, but in my opinion only if they have no idea what the Dems of today represent or they have no idea what the bible teaches outside of a few Sermon on the Mount verses. Many people, particularly older folks, still think the Democrat party is the party of FDR or John Kennedy. Those days are long gone.

2 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

It is strange how people say they accept the teachings of Jesus, but when people want to implement his teachings they are called socialist or liberal. 

The GOP certainly is not the party it was before Nixon. When Nixon instituted his Southern Polity they became the bigoted, racist party we see today. It is interesting how the parties switched after Johnson's civil rights bill passed. The old "solid South" which was Democratic became the new "solid South," but Republican. 

My guess is that many on the board are not old enough to remember before Nixon. 

I don't remember reading where Jesus taught any of the principles of socialism or those common to liberalism. 

I do remember the Bibles teaching about if a man does not work he should not eat?

and about how murdering children is wrong.

I also never see where Jesus calls for censorship of viewpoints one disagrees with.

nor do I see Jesus ever advocating forced redistribution of wealth by the government. 

Socialism is absolutely not what Jesus taught.

6 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

That is the 'easy' out people always take forgetting that people make up the government. So, what Jesus told people to do is directly related to what government does. The is simply a way of attempting to avoid personal responsibility IMHO. And, are these not commands the church should follow?

Read the verses in King James or any other translation, they still support what people consider liberal or socialist in political philosophy.

KJV

Matthew 21:19 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Proverbs 22:16 He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.

Matthew 

³² And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

³³ And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

³⁴ Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

³⁵ For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

³⁶ Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Read the others in KJ. They support the ideas. 

 

You clearly don’t understand the role of government. If we followed your logic, should the government also preach the Gospel? After all individual believers are commanded to preach the Gospel.

Do you think the government should take peoples tax dollars and pay ministers to preach the Gospel? If you say no then your thinking process is contradictory. 

You don’t seem to understand that God has different commands and requirements for individuals and for different institutions such as the Church, the Home, and Civil Government. 

3 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

That is the 'easy' out people always take forgetting that people make up the government. So, what Jesus told people to do is directly related to what government does. The is simply a way of attempting to avoid personal responsibility IMHO. And, are these not commands the church should follow?

Actually, Biblical Liberality, as I have presented above, is the position that EMPHASIZES PERSONAL responsibility, because it emphasizes my own responsibility to take out of my own pocket in order to give from my own heart of my own material possession unto another in need.  Indeed, the Biblical command of Biblical Liberality is so PERSONAL that if I do not personally give of my own personal possession to help those in need, I personally commit a sin in the sight of the Lord my God, and will personally be held accountable by Him.  Governmental liberalism, however, removes personal responsibility by forcibly removing an individual's material possession through taxes (so that the individual does not need to have any personal heart of compassion whatsoever at all), and by governmentally redistributing that material possession unto those whom the government deemed "worthy" (so that the individual does not have personal say in those to whom it is given, or any personal connection with those to whom it is given).

In fact, in every passage or context that you have presented, the PERSONAL aspect of giving is precisely what is emphasized; whereas the governmental and its authority is completely absent.

Matthew 19:21 -- "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell [personally] that thou hast, and give [personally] to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Note: There is NO reference whatsoever at all unto governmental authority or programs in this command.)

Proverbs 22:16 -- "He [personally] that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he [personally] that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want."  (Note: Again there is NO reference whatsoever at all unto governmental authority or programs in this warning.  On the other hand, if you feel that governmental authority or programs is implied within this warning, do you also feel that if the government takes your material wealth through taxes and gives it to the rich, that you yourself with then "come to want"?  You do realize that many liberal politicians in DC are rich, right?  Making a goodly bit more than my own $30,000 per year.)

Matthew 25:31-46 -- "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, and ye [personally] gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye [personally] gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye [personally] took me in: naked, and ye [personally] clothed me: I was sick, and ye [personally] visited me: I was in prison, and ye [personally] came unto me.  Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye [personally] have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren [note that the specific recipients here are not just any poor and needy, but are specifically the Lord's own BRETHREN], ye have done it unto me.  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.  Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?  Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."  (Note: Yet again there is NO reference whatsoever at all unto governmental authority or programs in this account.)

Thus I repeat:

6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Our Lord Jesus Christ and God's Holy Word command Biblical Liberality, but do NOT support governmental liberalism.  Those who use the commands of Biblical Liberality as a defense for governmental liberalism demonstrate their Biblical and spiritual ignorance.

2 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

People make up governments and institutions. How can they divorce God from part of their life?

No ones divorcing God we're divorcing a group of socialist-Marxist God hating politicians.

First of all, I would point out, the Biblical meaning of the word "liberal" is actually good. But the World has perverted it and uses it for evil. Be that as it may; a real Christian does not "follow a multitude to do evil". A real Christian does not use his votes to promote things like sodomy and the wholesale slaughter of children.

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Actually, Biblical Liberality, as I have presented above, is the position that EMPHASIZES PERSONAL responsibility, because it emphasizes my own responsibility to take out of my own pocket in order to give from my own heart of my own material possession unto another in need.  Indeed, the Biblical command of Biblical Liberality is so PERSONAL that if I do not personally give of my own personal possession to help those in need, I personally commit a sin in the sight of the Lord my God, and will personally be held accountable by Him.  

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Governmental liberalism, however, removes personal responsibility by forcibly removing an individual's material possession through taxes (so that the individual does not need to have any personal heart of compassion whatsoever at all), and by governmentally redistributing that material possession unto those whom the government deemed "worthy" (so that the individual does not have personal say in those to whom it is given, or any personal connection with those to whom it is given).

20 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

There is nothing in the Bible saying that help through the government should not be done. To say the Bible does not say it is all right to do so is not a valid argument as it does not say it is not all right either.

To oppose helping others through our own efforts or through the efforts of the government are both un-Biblical IMHO. Of course Jesus was speaking about individuals as the last judgement is about the judgement of individuals. That can not logically be said that this negates government programs. 

You are correct.  Nothing in God's Word directly prohibits a government program from engaging in charitable giving unto the poor and needy, neither does anything in God's Word command the employment of such a government program.  As such, it would indeed be wrong for me to oppose a government program of charity (depending on how it was administered); just as it would be wrong for you to condemn me if I did not give through that government program of charity.  Thus IF governmental liberalism was simply a government program of charity, I would not express direct opposition against it (depending on how and to whom it was administered), any more than I express direct opposition against other charitable organizations.  Indeed, IF governmental liberalism was a government program to which we might WILLINGLY give of our material wealth, such that the government agency, having a larger distribution scope, would then distribute that freely given help unto those in genuine need, I would not oppose it so firmly and fiercely.  In fact, such a government program of charity would be structured upon the two foundational points of Biblical Liberality:

1.  The individual gives willingly out of a personal heart of compassion for the poor and needy.
2.  The individual gives liberally out of their own material possession to help the poor and needy.

HOWEVER, governmental liberalism is NOT structured simply as a government program of charity.  Governmental liberalism is structured as a FORCED system wherein the government FORCIBLY TAKES an individual's material wealth away through taxes, and then gives unto the "poor" that FORCIBLY TAKEN wealth, which is not actually the government's own material wealth, but was actually someone else's material wealth.  Even so, governmental liberalism does NOT fulfill either of the two foundational points of Biblical Liberality.  First, it is NOT structured for the individual to give willingly out of his or her personal heart of compassion, since it FORCIBLY TAKES through governmental mandate.  Furthermore, it is NOT structured for the individual to give out of his or her OWN wealth, since the government (the individual persons that make up the government) is not giving out of its own wealth, but is giving wealth that it has taken from others.

Thus I repeat yet again:

On 8/30/2020 at 7:31 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Our Lord Jesus Christ and God's Holy Word command Biblical Liberality, but do NOT support governmental liberalism.  Those who use the commands of Biblical Liberality as a defense for governmental liberalism demonstrate their Biblical and spiritual ignorance.

 _____________________________________________

20 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Of course Jesus was speaking about individuals as the last judgement is about the judgement of individuals. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle) That can not logically be said that this negates government programs. 

If churches and individuals were doing what they should there would be no need for government programs. 

You do know, I am sure, that the world 'you' or 'ye' can be either singular or plural. Jesus was speaking to an entire group when he said 'ye' and that is plural. Jesus praised those who gave and condemned those who gave little or gave for the wrong reason.

Actually, I am aware that in the King James translation specifically, whenever the 2nd person pronouns "you" and "ye" are found, they are ALWAYS plural.  Even so, our Lord Jesus Christ was indeed speaking to a plural group of people in the judgment of Matthew 25:31-46.  However, as you yourself have recognized above, when our Lord Jesus Christ judges at the last judgment, He judges them personally according to their individual and personal behavior.  Thus the commendation and condemnation of Matthew 25:31-46 contextually retains its PERSONAL emphasis.  Furthermore, within this context in Matthew 25:40 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically defined the recipients of this giving as HIS OWN BRETHREN (which would either mean His Jewish brethren or His Christian brethren).  (Note: I myself believe that in this context we should view this as His Jewish brethren.)

________________________________________________

20 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

People make up governments and institutions. How can they divorce God from part of their life?

Indeed, individual people DO make up governments and institutions; and they most certainly should NOT "divorce God" from ANY part of their lives (although the great majority have done just that, for "there is no fear of God before their eyes").  (Note: Actually, in many ways the governmental liberalism of America is trying to governmentally compel and force genuine believers to "divorce God" from much of their public lives.)  However, when the people that make up the government give away wealth that is not their own, but is that which they have forcibly taken from others, they are NOT actually following God's Word, will, or way.  IF they were following God's Word, will, and way, they would be taking of their OWN wealth to give unto the poor; and they would be distributing the wealth of others that those others had willingly and freely entrusted to their administration.

(Note: Throughout the historical record the pursuits of governmental socialism in its various forms has been ANTI-GOD, ANTI-CHRIST, and ANTI-Biblical morality.)

The government was specifically designated by God "for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well." We could also extrapolate a responsibility for national security in that. Anything beyond that is out of scope.

1. Christians are told to support the poor and needy. (This is an individual responsibility, and not given to the government.)
2. "If a man does not work, neither shall he eat." (this implies that programs that give money to those who WON'T work, rather than CAN'T work, are in violation of God's principles).

I feel like conservative government aid programs, that focus on private charity and demanding responsibility on the part of the recipients, are a better representation of Biblical principles than socialist ones. 
 

18 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

No ones divorcing God we're divorcing a group of socialist-Marxist God hating politicians.

58 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

You are changing the subject. How can a Christian who says they believe in Christ's teachings on how we should treat people not support those same values in government?

Please don't go down blind, illogical rabbit tracks. Thanks. 

Hmmm. I believe that Brother 1Timothy115's comment is indeed within the scope of this thread discussion's original question as posted by Brother Morales -- "I believed, that all christians that do vote, we're all voting conservative. For there is no more in the middle, when it comes to voting. My question is, do christians really know what it is to be a liberal voter, and what it stands for, or supports?"

Furthermore, I believe that Brother 1Timothy115's comment is indeed within the scope of your (Bouncing Bill's) OWN first posting in this thread discussion, as per the following: 

On 8/29/2020 at 3:50 PM, Bouncing Bill said:

It is strange how people say they accept the teachings of Jesus, but when people want to implement his teachings they are called socialist or liberal. 

The GOP certainly is not the party it was before Nixon. When Nixon instituted his Southern Polity they became the bigoted, racist party we see today. It is interesting how the parties switched after Johnson's civil rights bill passed. The old "solid South" which was Democratic became the new "solid South," but Republican. 

My guess is that many on the board are not old enough to remember before Nixon. 

Bouncing Bill, your own original posting in this thread discussion included, not only the matter of Biblical liberality and charitable giving, but also the matter of ungodly racism in government.  If you yourself can deliver such broad political comments in the discussion, then I see no reason why others should be restricted from doing so also.  As for myself, I will not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to deliver such restrictions.

4 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

As a traditional Baptist I do not accept anyone having any authority to stand between me and God. I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say in your last sentence. Please enlighten me. Thanks. 

I was saying that I do not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to reprove Brother 1Timothy115 in the following manner:

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

You are changing the subject. How can a Christian who says they believe in Christ's teachings on how we should treat people not support those same values in government?

Please don't go down blind, illogical rabbit tracks. Thanks. 

Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement was within the scope of this thread's original question.  Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement was within the scope of your own original posting in this thread discussion.  Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement served as a direct response toward your own statement about "divorcing God" from the lives of those in governmental roles.  Thus I do not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to instruct him not to "go down blind, illogical rabbit tracks."

________________________________________

By the way --

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

How can a Christian who says they believe in Christ's teachings on how we should treat people not support those same values in government?

I myself would indeed support Biblical values in governmental liberalism IF they actually existed in governmental liberalism.  However, as a whole governmental system, governmental liberalism is anti-God and anti-Biblical morality.  Indeed, taking up the scope of this thread's original question -- I most certainly would not and will not vote for the movement of governmental liberalism in this country.  When I vote, I begin with the principles of Biblical morality in order to discern the direction of my voting options.  The movement of governmental liberalism in this country does NOT find a place therein.

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

What 'liberal' values would you support? 

Are you asking what values of governmental liberalism would I support?

Or are you asking what values of doctrinal liberalism would I support?

Or are you asking what values of Biblical liberality would I support?

Or are you asking what values of something "liberal" that I have not listed would I support?

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Are you asking what values of governmental liberalism would I support?

Or are you asking what values of doctrinal liberalism would I support?

Or are you asking what values of Biblical liberality would I support?

Or are you asking what values of something "liberal" that I have not listed would I support?

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

All of the above. 

There is probably not very much among the values of governmental liberalism that I would support.  However, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: I am not talking about the values that they promote only with their "words," but about the values that they actually drive with their agenda.)

There is probably even less among the values of doctrinal liberalism that I would support.  However again, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: Since I would stand against the majority of the values among both governmental liberalism and doctrinal liberalism, I would not support or join with either of them as whole movements.  Rather, I would stand in public opposition against those movements.)

I would stand in total agreement with the values of Biblically defined liberality, although I may not always walk in perfect obedience to those values.  (Note: I am talking about that which is truly defined from Biblical truth, not that which claims to be Biblical truth, but is actually the distortion of Biblical teaching.)

In the fourth case above, since I did not list it, I am not presently aware of it or considering it.  If you have something that might fit in this question, then you would need to specify it in order that I might place my consideration upon it.

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

What is your definition of Biblical liberalism?

You might want to read again, for I never used the phrase "Biblical liberalism."  Rather, I purposefully used the phrase "Biblical liberality." 

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Are you asking what values of governmental liberalism would I support?

Or are you asking what values of doctrinal liberalism would I support?

Or are you asking what values of Biblical liberality would I support?

Or are you asking what values of something "liberal" that I have not listed would I support?

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

There is probably not very much among the values of governmental liberalism that I would support.  However, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: I am not talking about the values that they promote only with their "words," but about the values that they actually drive with their agenda.)

There is probably even less among the values of doctrinal liberalism that I would support.  However again, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: Since I would stand against the majority of the values among both governmental liberalism and doctrinal liberalism, I would not support or join with either of them as whole movements.  Rather, I would stand in public opposition against those movements.)

I would stand in total agreement with the values of Biblically defined liberality, although I may not always walk in perfect obedience to those values.  (Note: I am talking about that which is truly defined from Biblical truth, not that which claims to be Biblical truth, but is actually the distortion of Biblical teaching.)

In the fourth case above, since I did not list it, I am not presently aware of it or considering it.  If you have something that might fit in this question, then you would need to specify it in order that I might place my consideration upon it.

 

The "ism" at the end of "liberalism" indicates that it is a system and movement of set beliefs.  Whereas the word "liberality" simply indicates a particular activity of generous giving.