Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Do You Have A Choice?


ThePilgrim

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I got four minutes in and gave up. First, the chap appeared to be trying to claim the fact of both main US parties being collectivist (or 'big government', as he later defined it) as some sort of revelation. How is that news? We know that neither party claims to be libertarian or anarchist, for example.

 

Secondly, he argued that two things can be said to be exactly or mostly the same so long as they have at least one thing in common. For example, he said that all the nations of World War Two "agreed on ideology". So apparently Roosevelt and Hitler, to pick just two people from different states, had no differences in belief. How so? Apparently they were both collectivists, and therefore, he asks "wherein lies the difference"?

 

That just sounds crazy to me. Almost all political parties hold some--usually foundational--beliefs in common, but that doesn't ergo mean they are the same on everything. Almost all political parties are statist (i.e. not anarchist). Almost all are anthropocentrist (people are more important than animals). Most are nationalist.

Well I will just pick on two things you said and let the rest of the mistakes pass. 

"Most are nationalist."  If you listen to what they say both Democrat and Republican, you could not possibly come to that conclusion.  The Bushes, the Clinton, OBama all have as their agenda the One World Order.  I realize just using those words immediately gets me labeled as a conspiracy theorist, but if you listen to all of them and their advisers, they all use the exact words themselves. Now if they are in favor of a new world order, how can they be nationalists? 

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Larry, if you only want to respond to two of my points, why not make them the only two main points I made? Those were, A] both the big US parties being big-government is not news, and, B] two people/parties/nations having one viewpoint in common doesn't necessarily mean there are no important diferences between their other ideas.

 

Whether or not the Republican party and the Democratic party in the US in particular are nationalist or not is so peripheral (and note that I didn't even say that they were, nor would I claim to know), that I'm happy to just take it on your say-so that those two parties aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

One thing I noticed clearly in the last sets of presidential debates between OBama and the Mormon, were that they both had the same goals and destinations, just different ways of getting there. So yeah, two sides of the same coin. To coin a phrase.

 

The fact that you can't get Rush or Hannity or any of the main-stream conservative talking heads to back the idea of the third-party candidate as haveing a chance to win, tells me clearly that they don't WANT anything different. Rush has a big enough audience that if he began to push for a good third party guy, there would truly be panic among the two parties in their comfort. But Rush is a party-player as is Hannity and all of them.

 

I follow the Ron Paul, Libertarian way of thinking, at least in many respects. For instance, tmany are against libertarians because they claim they are pro-homosexual marriage and marijuana use-however, that's not the case: they just believe, as the constitution demands, that these should be issues of state's rights to decide. Many states would stil be anti-homosexual, except the federal courts in those states trample the citizens' wills and declare that anti-homosexual marriage laws are unconstitutional, which of course, they aren't.  Its the feds causing the prOBlems. The states should be deciding most issues thermselves. And I suspect most would remain fairly conservative because most people want it that way. education, etc, should be state-lever, or local-level stuff. and the feds should be staying out ot them.  But even many conservatives think its the federal government's jOB to declare all these laws as binding on the states, but it just isn't so.

 

So, a Libertarian wants to drop decisions down to the states, and get the feds out of them, for the most part. Its not about being pro or anti, its about getting their hands off where they don't belong. Our constitution was written with intelligent, common-sense, polite people in mind, not for an over-reacing federal power running every aspect of life. If we could get a good constitutional president in, as well as senators and congressmen, maybe some changes could be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got four minutes in and gave up. First, the chap appeared to be trying to claim the fact of both main US parties being collectivist (or 'big government', as he later defined it) as some sort of revelation. How is that news? We know that neither party claims to be libertarian or anarchist, for example.

I saw this too...nothing a Bible believing, reading, praying, saved Holy Spirit indwelled Christian couldn't already see.

 

I can see that governments are pulled toward a collective end...it's the individuals we are compelled to go after in all nations. The answer isn't secular for America it's Christ alone.

 

I believe evil men will continue to wax worse and worse. However, we are still stewards of the government (Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution). So we must get out there and do the very utmost we can in that regard.

 

Edit...I have some notes from watching  I may have time later to post about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 A Muslim on one side and Mormon on the other not much of a difference, which one to vote for is a prOBlem when you're a christian ? are there enough Christians to start a third party whom will allow God to lead,  if so" Victory is ours''  and if not " Even so, Come, Lord Jesus "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are not enough born again Christians in America to win an election on their own. Not enough secular Christians, so-called conservatives or others would join together with born again Christians to support a third party that was truly Christian in standards.

 

Not voting for certain candidates or positions is a viable option. If one is facing a choice on a ballot between a really bad candidate and an even worse candidate, it's a viable option to vote for neither in that category and go on to the next section of the ballot.

 

The primaries is where Christians could have a strong voice. Even though the powers that be try to limit the choices even in primaries, there is at least usually some candidates who aren't totally sold out in the running. However, Christians, conservatives and others continually fail to take advantage of the primaries, which allows the party powerful to promote their own and the more "moderate" and liberal portions of the Party, with media support, to determine who the candidate will be.

 

If nothing else, the Ron Paul supporters showed how a small but determined group can effect big results. This even to the point where the Party machine used manipulation and outright tampering to curtail the positive impact such was having for the Ron Paul candidacy.

 

Meanwhile, Christians were fickle and without any sense of loyalty or purpose. They flocked first to Bachmann, then at the first sign of bad press dropped her for the next in line, until some bad press caused them to scatter like rats from a burning building to the next, then the cycle kept repeating itself until we ended up others choosing the candidate. Thus at the end of the last two presidential primaries we had left leaning, big time compromisers as the candidate.

 

What might happen if Christians were to engage in long term, concerted, consistent direct prayer regarding candidates and coming elections years before the elections rather than just putting forth a general call for prayer at the last minute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

To be honest, I would vote for an honest atheist who was a strict constitutionalist. When Jessie Ventura was governor, he personally is pretty anti-Christian, but from his place as governor, he upheld the constitution, knowing it wasn't his place to act just according to his likes or dislikes.

 

And I might have an issue with voting for an outspoken Christian, because most of those in politics are Romneys and Palins, one a mormon, the other a pentecostal, both with a bit of dominionist in them. See, most of the political Christian types think it is our jOB to rule by the Bible, which in some aspects of course, is a good thing, meaning, lead through OBedience to the laws of the land, and keep yourself personally unspotted by the world. But many would try to , make biblical laws, and with the exception of the OT laws, there really aren't any, save some already on the books, ie, murder, kidnapping, theft, etc.  Honestly, I would be afraid of what a 'Christian' by today's standards, President would do. Could be worse than what's been done up till now. 

 

But someone who honestly believes in the tenents of the constitution, who believes that the things written therein are the absolute law of the land, regardless of their personal feelings, I would trust.

 

This is not a perfect idea, by the way. I am sure that there could be good, godly Christians who would hold tenaciously to the constitution, as well as the Bible in their personal life, but none of the "Christian" candidates we have seen to date are not that. No Pat ROBertsons or Mitt Romneys or Sarah Palins, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

That's not always true, swath.  There are many atheists who are libertarians - quite vocal about supporting the Constitution.  

 

I think it's interesting to note that Roger Williams, one of the first notable Baptists here in America (and persecuted for his "free-thinking" ways by Puritan and Pilgrim alike) said that this country needs a guiding document that even an atheist, if elected, would be constrained to follow and thus protect the religious liberties we are given by God.  This was quite a while before our Constitution, indeed, even long before the War for Independence.  And he was right.  The founders wrote a document that, if followed, would restrict the government from becoming lords and masters. However, too many Americans - and notably Christians - are lazy when it comes to the issues and who is running, and have allowed this mess to come to pass. Pretty excuses are always given, but an excuse is simply a lie wrapped in the skin of a reason... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 A Muslim on one side and Mormon on the other not much of a difference, which one to vote for is a prOBlem when you're a christian ? are there enough Christians to start a third party whom will allow God to lead,  if so" Victory is ours''  and if not " Even so, Come, Lord Jesus "

Both lost, yes. Then it boils down to which one will provide for and allow for my God given rights. I'll continue to stick to my position...voting for a loser is just another way of promoting the one who works hardest for the devil. However, God gives us what we deserve...anybody for an ice cold OBama kool aid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When troubles have surrounded me I get on on my knees, looking up I pray,  our Nation is in this very same condition today, Yet fails to get on it's knees, and fails to look up and pray.

Yes indeed God gives us what we deserve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...