Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Brother Rick

Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Recommended Posts





Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

My citizenship is in heaven, not this world.

1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Even God’s Word lets everyone know its OK to have a house, food, clothing, yet some ignore this, & use it as an attack.

Try again.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

And

1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Oh, you will never change a heart with politics, only make it harder, yet someone that heart the Gospel, might under go a heart change.

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

That my friend, is what every saved person is ordained to do by Jesus. His kingdom is not of this world, & the work He has given His people to do, is not of this world.


In the verses you gave, where does it mention having a house?? I see food and clothing, but not a house. It does say to be content with what you have. Does that mean it is wrong for the homeless man to want a home, but fine for the millionare to have one??? I guess I am confused. All I know is Jesus (our example) did not have one, and those who were close to him in the book of Acts sold theirs. Can you give me a verse that says it is okay for us to have homes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



In the verses you gave, where does it mention having a house?? I see food and clothing, but not a house. It does say to be content with what you have. Does that mean it is wrong for the homeless man to want a home, but fine for the millionare to have one??? I guess I am confused. All I know is Jesus (our example) did not have one, and those who were close to him in the book of Acts sold theirs. Can you give me a verse that says it is okay for us to have homes?

Jesus had a home, his earthly parents home, until He departed for full-time ministry and no longer needed a home. Not everyone in the book of Acts sold their homes. Those who had excess holdings sold them in order to help lift up their fellow believers. Throughout Acts and other books of the New Testament we read of Christians in their homes and sometimes of believers gathering in a Christians home for "church".

The point for Christians is that this world is not our home, we are pilgrims in this world. There are things we need for survival, and God promises to supply those needs. What we don't need is excess or extravagance. If a 50,000 dollar home would do our family very well, why buy a 300,000 dollar home? If two cars will serve our family well, why buy 5? If we can buy our clothes from a place like Wal-mart why go to another store that charges 3 or more times the price for basically the same thing?

The point is, we should be seeking the kingdom of God, working to expand His kingdom, not build a tiny one of our own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Jesus had a home, his earthly parents home, until He departed for full-time ministry and no longer needed a home. Not everyone in the book of Acts sold their homes. Those who had excess holdings sold them in order to help lift up their fellow believers. Throughout Acts and other books of the New Testament we read of Christians in their homes and sometimes of believers gathering in a Christians home for "church".

The point for Christians is that this world is not our home, we are pilgrims in this world. There are things we need for survival, and God promises to supply those needs. What we don't need is excess or extravagance. If a 50,000 dollar home would do our family very well, why buy a 300,000 dollar home? If two cars will serve our family well, why buy 5? If we can buy our clothes from a place like Wal-mart why go to another store that charges 3 or more times the price for basically the same thing?

The point is, we should be seeking the kingdom of God, working to expand His kingdom, not build a tiny one of our own.


Jesus parents home I do not see counting. Their sins were not counted as his, so if having a home were a sin them having one would not make him sinful. As to the book of Acts, we read
Act 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
Act 4:35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Act 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Act 4:37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Note that in verse 34 we read as many as were possessors. It does not say abundant houses, or extra it says possessors. Now you can define that as extra if you desire, but it does not say that it was extra. Those who did have homes and churches meeting there are just historic facts and do not negate the fact that Jesus tells us he did not have a place to lay his head (home) and the fact the book of acts points out that when the church drew close to God the members sold their homes. They were no longer tied to this world by "owning" a part of it. They looked only to the things of God!!!

Now I will say that I own my home (or that God has given me the ability to posses the property that belongs to Him), and do not believe this to be a sin. My point is that the argument that Christ did not participat in politics is proof we should not is a bad argument. Their are many things that we are allowed to participate in that Jesus either could not (they were not invented) or did not participate in, yet they are not sinful in and of themselves. We can participate in them and work for him at the same time. Politics is one of these. Now I will admit readily that the majority of politicians today and throughout history have had sin in their lives. But at the same time I will tell you the majority of "preachers" have had some great sin in their lives. This in and of itself does not make it evil. Noah was declared in 2 Peter a preacher of righteousness, yet we find him getting drunk after getting off the ark. This is but one example of the fact that when we look at the life of any man through a magnifiing glass we will find sin. Does this make it right? No. But We are in this world. To totaly stay away from that fact we would have to go out of this world (1 Corinthians 5:10) and that is not God's plan. He has differant Jobs for each of us IN THIS WORLD. Mine is to teach young people in the church as I build homes in the world. Yours I am sure is differant. Anothers may be to show the world a man can stand for Christ while leading this nation back to God. Do I see this coming? No, I admit I do not. But when we look at the OT could the people have seen some of the times God used a single man to turn the nation back to himself (Gideon comes to mind). Are we fully putting our trust in God by saying no christian should try to turn our country back to God? Or would we be fully putting our trust in God by praying he send a Godly man that our nation would choose to follow. I feel it would be the latter. Is voting for the lesser of two evils right or wrong? Lets look at some more examples. Abraham the great patriarc. Who would not be willing to support a man like Abraham. Of course there is that thing of having a son out of wedlock with his wifes servant and then sending the woman and child away. I guess that Ideal man is out. I have already mentioned David and Solomon. How about a man like Good king Josiah. He did turn the nation back to God. Oh but wait, God ended his life early for fighting against a nation God was behind. So I guess knowing he lead against the wrong army, we had better not vote for him. The list could go on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Jesus parents home I do not see counting. Their sins were not counted as his, so if having a home were a sin them having one would not make him sinful. As to the book of Acts, we read

Note that in verse 34 we read as many as were possessors. It does not say abundant houses, or extra it says possessors. Now you can define that as extra if you desire, but it does not say that it was extra. Those who did have homes and churches meeting there are just historic facts and do not negate the fact that Jesus tells us he did not have a place to lay his head (home) and the fact the book of acts points out that when the church drew close to God the members sold their homes. They were no longer tied to this world by "owning" a part of it. They looked only to the things of God!!!

Now I will say that I own my home (or that God has given me the ability to posses the property that belongs to Him), and do not believe this to be a sin. My point is that the argument that Christ did not participat in politics is proof we should not is a bad argument. Their are many things that we are allowed to participate in that Jesus either could not (they were not invented) or did not participate in, yet they are not sinful in and of themselves. We can participate in them and work for him at the same time. Politics is one of these. Now I will admit readily that the majority of politicians today and throughout history have had sin in their lives. But at the same time I will tell you the majority of "preachers" have had some great sin in their lives. This in and of itself does not make it evil. Noah was declared in 2 Peter a preacher of righteousness, yet we find him getting drunk after getting off the ark. This is but one example of the fact that when we look at the life of any man through a magnifiing glass we will find sin. Does this make it right? No. But We are in this world. To totaly stay away from that fact we would have to go out of this world (1 Corinthians 5:10) and that is not God's plan. He has differant Jobs for each of us IN THIS WORLD. Mine is to teach young people in the church as I build homes in the world. Yours I am sure is differant. Anothers may be to show the world a man can stand for Christ while leading this nation back to God. Do I see this coming? No, I admit I do not. But when we look at the OT could the people have seen some of the times God used a single man to turn the nation back to himself (Gideon comes to mind). Are we fully putting our trust in God by saying no christian should try to turn our country back to God? Or would we be fully putting our trust in God by praying he send a Godly man that our nation would choose to follow. I feel it would be the latter. Is voting for the lesser of two evils right or wrong? Lets look at some more examples. Abraham the great patriarc. Who would not be willing to support a man like Abraham. Of course there is that thing of having a son out of wedlock with his wifes servant and then sending the woman and child away. I guess that Ideal man is out. I have already mentioned David and Solomon. How about a man like Good king Josiah. He did turn the nation back to God. Oh but wait, God ended his life early for fighting against a nation God was behind. So I guess knowing he lead against the wrong army, we had better not vote for him. The list could go on and on.

It is no sin to own a home. I understand that you were attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion but it's not helpful in this case and not all people understand such an argument.

As to the specific case of Jesus, He never needed a home. In that society a man would get a home when he struck out on his own to begin a family. Jesus never went from home to establish a life for Himself. Jesus went directly from home into what would be akin to a missionary/evangelist ministry and no home was needed.

The main factor with regards to Jesus and politics is that Jesus put the kingdom of God first and placed the winning of the lost as the means of transforming society one person at a time.

God can use a particular person to do amazing things, but the OT examples regarding Israel were specific to them. God selected Gideon. Has a political leader come forth here that can honestly make that claim? Even if we look to Gideon his example was flawed and we see the people turned to evil quickly. Why? Because their hearts were not changed.

If we want true change in our nation (in any nation) the model given for Christians to follow is prayer for those in leadership, walking in the Spirit (not in the flesh) so others may see the light of Christ in us, and making disciples.

That doesn't mean we can't vote but we must recognize the fact that worldly politics is not the answer to any nations problems and will not turn a nation to Christ.

If one studies some of the effects of the Great Awakening, the preaching of Billy Sunday and others, it becomes clear that when a movment of the Holy Ghost goes forth and many are born again, then there is real change in a nation, a State, a city, a locality.

In many towns, for instance, where Billy Sunday preached and many were born again, the change in the hearts of the people brought an end to saloons, houses of prostitution, sincere church attendance, etc. The very things we need today. At the same time, in many towns Sunday preached in, mayors and other prominent citizens were also born again and from that point on they lead and served as followers of Christ. This is the change we need, this is the change God calls us to work toward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It is no sin to own a home. I understand that you were attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion but it's not helpful in this case and not all people understand such an argument.

As to the specific case of Jesus, He never needed a home. In that society a man would get a home when he struck out on his own to begin a family. Jesus never went from home to establish a life for Himself. Jesus went directly from home into what would be akin to a missionary/evangelist ministry and no home was needed.

The main factor with regards to Jesus and politics is that Jesus put the kingdom of God first and placed the winning of the lost as the means of transforming society one person at a time.

God can use a particular person to do amazing things, but the OT examples regarding Israel were specific to them. God selected Gideon. Has a political leader come forth here that can honestly make that claim? Even if we look to Gideon his example was flawed and we see the people turned to evil quickly. Why? Because their hearts were not changed.

If we want true change in our nation (in any nation) the model given for Christians to follow is prayer for those in leadership, walking in the Spirit (not in the flesh) so others may see the light of Christ in us, and making disciples.

That doesn't mean we can't vote but we must recognize the fact that worldly politics is not the answer to any nations problems and will not turn a nation to Christ.

If one studies some of the effects of the Great Awakening, the preaching of Billy Sunday and others, it becomes clear that when a movment of the Holy Ghost goes forth and many are born again, then there is real change in a nation, a State, a city, a locality.

In many towns, for instance, where Billy Sunday preached and many were born again, the change in the hearts of the people brought an end to saloons, houses of prostitution, sincere church attendance, etc. The very things we need today. At the same time, in many towns Sunday preached in, mayors and other prominent citizens were also born again and from that point on they lead and served as followers of Christ. This is the change we need, this is the change God calls us to work toward.


AMEN!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



In the verses you gave, where does it mention having a house?? I see food and clothing, but not a house. It does say to be content with what you have. Does that mean it is wrong for the homeless man to want a home, but fine for the millionare to have one??? I guess I am confused. All I know is Jesus (our example) did not have one, and those who were close to him in the book of Acts sold theirs. Can you give me a verse that says it is okay for us to have homes?


I've given it to you rancher, yet it seems you cannot comprehend. And as John stated, Your attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It is no sin to own a home. I understand that you were attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion but it's not helpful in this case and not all people understand such an argument.

As to the specific case of Jesus, He never needed a home. In that society a man would get a home when he struck out on his own to begin a family. Jesus never went from home to establish a life for Himself. Jesus went directly from home into what would be akin to a missionary/evangelist ministry and no home was needed.

The main factor with regards to Jesus and politics is that Jesus put the kingdom of God first and placed the winning of the lost as the means of transforming society one person at a time.

God can use a particular person to do amazing things, but the OT examples regarding Israel were specific to them. God selected Gideon. Has a political leader come forth here that can honestly make that claim? Even if we look to Gideon his example was flawed and we see the people turned to evil quickly. Why? Because their hearts were not changed.

If we want true change in our nation (in any nation) the model given for Christians to follow is prayer for those in leadership, walking in the Spirit (not in the flesh) so others may see the light of Christ in us, and making disciples.

That doesn't mean we can't vote but we must recognize the fact that worldly politics is not the answer to any nations problems and will not turn a nation to Christ.

If one studies some of the effects of the Great Awakening, the preaching of Billy Sunday and others, it becomes clear that when a movment of the Holy Ghost goes forth and many are born again, then there is real change in a nation, a State, a city, a locality.

In many towns, for instance, where Billy Sunday preached and many were born again, the change in the hearts of the people brought an end to saloons, houses of prostitution, sincere church attendance, etc. The very things we need today. At the same time, in many towns Sunday preached in, mayors and other prominent citizens were also born again and from that point on they lead and served as followers of Christ. This is the change we need, this is the change God calls us to work toward.

I agree with most of what you are saying John. Even if a nation has a Godly leader they will not be Godly until they give their hearts to the God of that leader. And your correct we cannot put our full faith in the politics of this world. Neither can we put our full faith in the faith of any other man, political or religious. But we are allowed to live in this world, therefore we should be doing what we can (putting feet to our prayers) to keep the freedoms to worship through the legal means we are given. And as I have pointed out, if we do not vote for the lessor of evils, we could not even vote for the men we think were Godly men of the Bible. They each would fall way short of the qualifications we would call the perfect man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I've given it to you rancher, yet it seems you cannot comprehend. And as John stated, Your attempting to take your argument to the absurd conclusion.

No Jerry, I am taking "your argument" to the logical conclusion. Stating things are sinful because Jesus did not do them is a very dangerous statement. As I have said, Jesus points out he had no home. By your argument that would mean we should have no homes. Jesus did not own a piece of this wicked world. I mean how can you be more entangled with something than owning a piece of it?? But there is no sin in owning a home. Jesus mission just had no need of it. He came as a servant, not a master. Your statement
We can’t, we cannot please Him who has saved us while entangled in worldly affairs, for it chokes out the word of God. And politics is the affairs of this life, an not the affairs of our Savior.
says it is a sin to be into politics (yes I am ready for you to tell me not to make it you saying something you did not, but that is what you said). But it is not a sin to be in politics any more than being a carpenter, truck driver, or any other occupation. Let me explain. As a carpenter, my dad was once asked about helping (this was the contractor he worked for talking) on remodeling a bar if the contractor got the job. My dad said he would not help with it. If he had, he would have been putting his job before God. The contractor did not even try to get the job, and all was well. Now most carpenters would have had no problem with the thought of working on a bar. Does that make it sinful to be in carpentry? No!! Or with truck drivers, most would not mind hauling liquer. Many if not most do not mind fixing the books so to get more miles. Does that make it sinful to drive a truck? No!! Not if a man is not willing to comprimise his faith in God. Daniel was in politics. He obeyed all the laws of his govt that he realy did not want to be a part of until one came that would comprimise his faith. He then stood to the point of death. There can still be Godly men in politics today.
And again I ask you where do these verses
1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Even God’s Word lets everyone know its OK to have a house, food, clothing, yet some ignore this, & use it as an attack.
say anything about a house? They actualy would more defend no house for it says to be content with food and raiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you are saying John. Even if a nation has a Godly leader they will not be Godly until they give their hearts to the God of that leader. And your correct we cannot put our full faith in the politics of this world. Neither can we put our full faith in the faith of any other man, political or religious. But we are allowed to live in this world, therefore we should be doing what we can (putting feet to our prayers) to keep the freedoms to worship through the legal means we are given. And as I have pointed out, if we do not vote for the lessor of evils, we could not even vote for the men we think were Godly men of the Bible. They each would fall way short of the qualifications we would call the perfect man.

It's not about finding someone "perfect", as we know they don't exist. The questions we should be asking is whether or not any of those seeking our vote are men of charactor, integrity, honour. Can they be trusted or are they liars.

If there is a man of charactor we could vote for, that one would be considered "evil". If we have a dozen men running for a particular office and none of them are men of charactor, then they could all be viewed as "evil" so if we vote for any one of them we would be voting for an evil person.

One thing many forget is that we are not forced to vote for anyone. If there is not a person of charactor to vote for in a particular category, we don't have to vote in that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add that I have not seen anyone here saying that politicians are THE answer to Americas problems. I think we would all agree the only true answer is God. But there is no sin in trying to guide our country toward freedom through voting so that we can continue to preach openly. Yes I know that many revivals have came through persecution, but I would rather pray that we would open our eyes enough that the churches would start preaching strong and loud through freedom, than to see my children taken from me and murdered because I was caught teaching them about Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It's not about finding someone "perfect", as we know they don't exist. The questions we should be asking is whether or not any of those seeking our vote are men of charactor, integrity, honour. Can they be trusted or are they liars.

If there is a man of charactor we could vote for, that one would be considered "evil". If we have a dozen men running for a particular office and none of them are men of charactor, then they could all be viewed as "evil" so if we vote for any one of them we would be voting for an evil person.

One thing many forget is that we are not forced to vote for anyone. If there is not a person of charactor to vote for in a particular category, we don't have to vote in that category.

But John, as I have tried to point out, even Abraham, David, and Solomon would fall short of us saying they were men of charactor. Every one of the three would fall when the question of one woman man came up!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add that I have not seen anyone here saying that politicians are THE answer to Americas problems. I think we would all agree the only true answer is God. But there is no sin in trying to guide our country toward freedom through voting so that we can continue to preach openly. Yes I know that many revivals have came through persecution, but I would rather pray that we would open our eyes enough that the churches would start preaching strong and loud through freedom, than to see my children taken from me and murdered because I was caught teaching them about Christ.

Scripture does tell us to pray for our leaders that we may be able to live for Christ, and thereby also spread the Gospel and make disciples. Prayer for peace and the freedom to live for Christ is always valid and valuable.

While they may not be on this board, there are many professing Christians in America who have become so caught up in politics that they look for what amounts to a "Republican saviour" rather than looking to God and being about the Lord's business to effect real change in America.

The problem America faces is what George Washington warned against. We have two political parties that control the election process and they promote their own agendas over what is actually best for America and over what is constitutional.

Romney, Gingrich and Obama are all big government politicians. Any of them as president will continue America in that direction. None of them care a wit for restoring the government to its proper constitutional bounds and none of them will keep the oath of office to abide by the Constitution. None of these men are Godly men so we certainly can't expect much in that area either.

Biblical history shows time and again how God turns over a wicked people to their own wickedness as punishment. Part of that involves a wicked people being governed by wicked leaders.

How can we (Christians) counter such? The same as we see in Scripture and examples from history. We pursue personal holiness, letting the light of Christ shine through us for all to see, we spread the Gospel, making disciples, we spend earnest time in fasting and prayer for revival, in prayer for our pastors, evangelists, each of us, the political leaders (national, state, county and city). We do all this continually, not as part of a "Sunday revival" or "revival week" gathering, but continually, earnestly, fervently. We endeavor to bring more and more of our brothers and sisters in Christ into this. We edify and encourage one another in the Lord.

If God's people get serious about such we will see the Holy Ghost do mighty things in our land!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But John, as I have tried to point out, even Abraham, David, and Solomon would fall short of us saying they were men of charactor. Every one of the three would fall when the question of one woman man came up!!!!!

The analogies here can only be taken so far. All three of these men lived in a vastly different time from ours in a culture very different and in a very different political climate.

Abraham, as far as we can tell from Scripture, would not have took the handmaid to bed if his wife hadn't convinced him that was the only way to fulfill the Lord's promise. Now, that doesn't make what he did right, but in his culture that was common practice. In America such isn't common practice and therefore Sarah likely wouldn't have made such a suggestion and Abraham wouldn't either.

We could go into similar with regards to David and Solomon.

We, as Christians, in a nation that was once governed and dominated mostly by Christian principles, live in a different culture. Even among the lost, most know it's not right to cheat on your spouse, it's horrible to cheat on a spouse who is gravely ill and divorcing such a spouse is disgusting.

We know that if a wife can't trust her own husband, then he has some serious charactor flaws.

We also know if a man continually says one thing but does another that he's a liar and cannot be trusted.

There is a vast difference between a man who lives a life of moral corruption and the man who stumbles on occasion, or maybe even has a fall in his life, yet repents and strives to walk in integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all sinners; so are politicians. But some candidates are much worse than others. I personally believe that wicked Bill Clinton probably wouldn't have gotten elected if all those folks hadn't voted for Ross Perot. So we got a little taste of what a police state will be like, Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, Elian Gonzales, Janet Reno, Hillary, scandal, impeachment etc. etc.............

Do what you want, but I'm not voting for one who doesn't have a chance if I can do my part to help keep a more wicked man out. Might as well vote for my good Uncle Fred as to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The analogies here can only be taken so far. All three of these men lived in a vastly different time from ours in a culture very different and in a very different political climate.

Abraham, as far as we can tell from Scripture, would not have took the handmaid to bed if his wife hadn't convinced him that was the only way to fulfill the Lord's promise. Now, that doesn't make what he did right, but in his culture that was common practice. In America such isn't common practice and therefore Sarah likely wouldn't have made such a suggestion and Abraham wouldn't either.

We could go into similar with regards to David and Solomon.

We, as Christians, in a nation that was once governed and dominated mostly by Christian principles, live in a different culture. Even among the lost, most know it's not right to cheat on your spouse, it's horrible to cheat on a spouse who is gravely ill and divorcing such a spouse is disgusting.

We know that if a wife can't trust her own husband, then he has some serious charactor flaws.

We also know if a man continually says one thing but does another that he's a liar and cannot be trusted.

There is a vast difference between a man who lives a life of moral corruption and the man who stumbles on occasion, or maybe even has a fall in his life, yet repents and strives to walk in integrity.


Cultural?? Okay, lets look at David. Israel was simular to America in that they had little laws that the King could make, yet a supreme law that he could not. America also has a supreme law (the constitution), but ours can be altered if the votes are there. Israels supreme law could not be altered, as it was (and is) the very law of God. Every culture obeys their laws, or else they would not be the laws. Now let's look at David and Bathsheba. David looks out and lusts after her. He then enquires and finds out she is another mans wife.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

He then sends for her and takes her as if his wife.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

He then has Uriah killed.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Now I admit a king can send men to their death in battle without violating the commandment, but when a king singles out a man to send so he can take what is his, that is a differant story.
Now you can say it was culturaly correct for him to have done these things even though they broke the supreme law, yet it is culturaly acceptable for the govt to stomp on the constitution as the have done for many years. Yet that is one of the things used to say one is evil is he will not bring us back to the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all sinners; so are politicians. But some candidates are much worse than others. I personally believe that wicked Bill Clinton probably wouldn't have gotten elected if all those folks hadn't voted for Ross Perot. So we got a little taste of what a police state will be like, Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, Elian Gonzales, Janet Reno, Hillary, scandal, impeachment etc. etc.............

Do what you want, but I'm not voting for one who doesn't have a chance if I can do my part to help keep a more wicked man out. Might as well vote for my good Uncle Fred as to do that.


Or if morre had voted for Ross Perot nd he had been elected, you would not have had clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all sinners; so are politicians. But some candidates are much worse than others. I personally believe that wicked Bill Clinton probably wouldn't have gotten elected if all those folks hadn't voted for Ross Perot. So we got a little taste of what a police state will be like, Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, Elian Gonzales, Janet Reno, Hillary, scandal, impeachment etc. etc.............

Do what you want, but I'm not voting for one who doesn't have a chance if I can do my part to help keep a more wicked man out. Might as well vote for my good Uncle Fred as to do that.

How do we know who doesn't have a chance? They said Reagan didn't have a chance! Until it got closer to election time they said Clinton didn't have a chance.

If people didn't spend so much time trying to be psychics and predicting who can or can't win, and instead actually supported the best candidate from start to finish, then we might have some worthy leaders. As it is, it really doesn't make that much difference if a Dem is elected to drive America 100 miles per hour over the cliff or if a Repub is elected to drive America 98 miles per hour over the cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Or if morre had voted for Ross Perot nd he had been elected, you would not have had clinton.

True, and if the Republicans had dumped wishy-washy Bush the First and nominated Buchanan there is a good chance we wouldn't have had Clinton either.

Christians won't demand solid candidates so very few are put forth. The politcal parties know they can put forth party players who will continue to steer America the wrong direction and they will get the votes. So, regardless whether the president is a Dem or Repub we keep getting one big government president after another. Then the next election cycle comes around and the vast majority of voters fall for it all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we know who doesn't have a chance? They said Reagan didn't have a chance! Until it got closer to election time they said Clinton didn't have a chance.

If people didn't spend so much time trying to be psychics and predicting who can or can't win, and instead actually supported the best candidate from start to finish, then we might have some worthy leaders. As it is, it really doesn't make that much difference if a Dem is elected to drive America 100 miles per hour over the cliff or if a Repub is elected to drive America 98 miles per hour over the cliff.


Amen, amen, amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know these people and I doubt any of you do either. If they have been a legislator, as most of them have, I look at their voting record. And the voting record, if nothing else, shows that most Democrats are pro abortion for starters. (Obama is too BTW). I will not vote for anyone who is pro-bortion or "pro-choice" as these deceievers like to call it. I will not vote for anyone who wants to take away our guns either. Look at what the Democrats stand for, then look at what the Communist party stands for.....No, Republicans aren't angels, but then your average IFB preacher isn't completely flawless either. ....I would vote for my Godly PawPaw who would make a great Pres. But he don't have a chance. Use some common sense people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Amen, amen, amen.

Guys, let's be consistent. If X candidate is to be the POTUS, then our sovereign God will cause him to win in the primary. No "psychics" (as you call them) can thwart God's will, right? In the meantime, "electability" will continue to figure into my vote for the Republican candidate. (See my previous comments for the proper context of that remark.)

And I do agree with the cliff part, John. None of the Republican candidates--no politicians or Presidents--have the power to turn our country around. We are headed over the cliff no matter what, apart from all of that...because the problems with America are spiritual, not political. None of the candidates have the power to turn our country around politically, either, IMO. The state of Washington is such that any positive changes would be slow in coming and easily overturned by future leadership. Yep, we're headed over the cliff no matter what. Good thing my home's not on this earth! Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know these people and I doubt any of you do either. If they have been a legislator, as most of them have, I look at their voting record. And the voting record, if nothing else, shows that most Democrats are pro abortion for starters. (Obama is too BTW). I will not vote for anyone who is pro-bortion or "pro-choice" as these deceievers like to call it. I will not vote for anyone who wants to take away our guns either. Look at what the Democrats stand for, then look at what the Communist party stands for.....No, Republicans aren't angels, but then your average IFB preacher isn't completely flawless either. ....I would vote for my Godly PawPaw who would make a great Pres. But he don't have a chance. Use some common sense people.

Since Roe v Wade legalized the murder of babies America has had several Republican presidents, some Republican controlled congress' and even a Republican president with a Republican controlled congress. In those four decades has abortion been ended?

You may want to take a closer look at the Republicans and Republican appointed judges who have helped make and keep abortion legal and who have been a part of the stripping of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say ALL Republicans were good guys; I said that I check men's voting record. For example; we had a "Republican" governeor down here in Florida by the name of Charley Crist. I checked his track record and he certainly didn't get my vote. Some of the things he did AIDED abortion. As to Roe vs Wade: when we had the Republican president and congess you mentioned, who controlled the Supreme Court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pending Supreme Court nominations pointed out in another thread is the primary reason I would vote for Bachman...oops, that's out but; it is the fundamental reason I would never vote for obomanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the Republican Supreme Court Justices who have supported abortion and other liberal things.

Some seem to forget that the Courts are not to make law and the congress has balance check power over the Supreme Court. Congress could have passed a law at any time since Roe v Wade which outlawed abortion and stripped the courts of review power over that law. That's one of the powers of congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 133 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...