Candidates and Religion

[Gustaf]

Jmfcst,

I am not a Christian, so I would like you to clarify something for me.  If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?  I would like to hear your answer.

I wouldn't say it makes one a "bad" Christian.  They've simply allowed themselves to be deceived.   Not to mention that they are contradicting their own faith....if their faith is not defined by the bible, then what defines it?  Did they invent their own religion?

Taking a purely logical point of view, contradicting one's own faith is contradicting one's self.

Do you really believe that the bible should be followed to the letter, every single word or point? Even those about different crops and stuff?

[© tweed]

Please explain to me how fornication costs the country hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  That's alot of money.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Jmfcst,

I am not a Christian, so I would like you to clarify something for me.  If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?  I would like to hear your answer.

I wouldn't say it makes one a "bad" Christian.  They've simply allowed themselves to be deceived.   Not to mention that they are contradicting their own faith....if their faith is not defined by the bible, then what defines it?  Did they invent their own religion?

Taking a purely logical point of view, contradicting one's own faith is contradicting one's self.

Do you really believe that the bible should be followed to the letter, every single word or point? Even those about different crops and stuff?

It can't be... translations differ a lot...

[Gustaf]

Jmfcst,

I am not a Christian, so I would like you to clarify something for me.  If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?  I would like to hear your answer.

I wouldn't say it makes one a "bad" Christian.  They've simply allowed themselves to be deceived.   Not to mention that they are contradicting their own faith....if their faith is not defined by the bible, then what defines it?  Did they invent their own religion?

Taking a purely logical point of view, contradicting one's own faith is contradicting one's self.

Do you really believe that the bible should be followed to the letter, every single word or point? Even those about different crops and stuff?

It can't be... translations differ a lot...

Hah, hah. Lol.

[bullmoose88]

hmm...then many children in America need to be afraid, very afraid...

the next time they talk back to their parents, they'll get a good stoning!

Hmm...somehow I'm reminded of Monty Python and the Life of Brian.

[Deltabgjim]

Jmfcst,

I am not a Christian, so I would like you to clarify something for me.  If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?  I would like to hear your answer.

I wouldn't say it makes one a "bad" Christian.  They've simply allowed themselves to be deceived.   Not to mention that they are contradicting their own faith....if their faith is not defined by the bible, then what defines it?  Did they invent their own religion?

Taking a purely logical point of view, contradicting one's own faith is contradicting one's self.

As a Presbyterian, I know I am already condemned by many evangelicals to a fiery afterlife by the fact that I was baptized as an infant and have a woman pastor. Yes, having a woman as pastor, wearing clothing of mixed material, not keeping strict kosher, eating shellfish and pork, working on the Sabbath (ah, the life of an airline employee), not making animal sacrifices to the Almighty, and being gay are all against scripture and all apply to me. On the other hand, I try to love the Lord with all my heart, soul and strength; and to love my neighbor as myself. Those were the important things given to us.
A lot of mainstream Christians get tired of evangelicals saying they're "not really Christian". This patronizing, "are you saved?" approach to religion will ultimately turn off a lot of mainstream Protestants and Catholics to the Republican party. It's already started in the North and Midwest, and I wouldn't be surprised if that same feeling started working southward into the cities and coasts of the deep South.

[Deltabgjim]

I don't care what religion you are unless it changes your views on the issues.

I would agree with that. Still, someone who can be thinking and open-minded, while having a strong faith (like Tony Blair) would get my respect and admiration.

You mean also like Jimmy Carter?

ABSOLUTELY! The Atlanta Journal-Constitution did a very good piece about a year or two ago contrasting Carter's religion (he's a Baptist, but a member of a very liberal congregation in Atlanta) to Bush's (an odd hyperconservative Methodist). Carter's is a much more quiet, humble Christianity that seeks to walk the walk more than just buying books by James Dobson. Compare and contrast Habitat for Humanity with Faith-Based Initiatives.

[Michael Z]

Christopher Michael: <<My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:...every society embracing homosexuality has been destroyed...The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women....How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, etc...>>

I don't understand the connection with drunkards and peace, but today's feminist agenda is certainly immoral.

Concerning the part about every country embracing homosexuality going down in flames...there are also a lot of countries that have gone done in flames without the homosexuality factor.

It was actually me who said that, not Christopher.

I wasn't so much addressing Robertson's personal stance on issues like homosexuality or feminism, but rather the paranoid and apocalyptic tone in which he addressed them. I'd feel very, well, shall we say uneasy about a man like that running the most powerful nation on Earth. In that context, it's quite important that a candidate's religious views are known to the electorate.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Christopher Michael: <<My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:...every society embracing homosexuality has been destroyed...The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women....How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, etc...>>

I don't understand the connection with drunkards and peace, but today's feminist agenda is certainly immoral.

Concerning the part about every country embracing homosexuality going down in flames...there are also a lot of countries that have gone done in flames without the homosexuality factor.

It was actually me who said that, not Christopher.

I wasn't so much addressing Robertson's personal stance on issues like homosexuality or feminism, but rather the paranoid and apocalyptic tone in which he addressed them. I'd feel very, well, shall we say uneasy about a man like that running the most powerful nation on Earth. In that context, it's quite important that a candidate's religious views are known to the electorate.

Candidates can have views like that and not be of a Religious nature.

[Michael Z]

Candidates can have views like that and not be of a Religious nature.

That's a good point actually.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Candidates can have views like that and not be of a Religious nature.

That's a good point actually.

Thanks. Once in a while I get it right.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

hyperconservative Methodist  

Yes... that is rather weird...

[M]

Dean is not serious about G-d. But the bigger issue discussed here- does religion matter- is an old and constantly changing idea. Today, I would say that a person's faith is not important, because it is incredible how accepting the American people have become of religions. However, what people will pay attention to is how religius a candidate is- some voters are turned off by religion, others by secularism. I myself am a religious person, but believe it should have no bearing in politics, nd prefer political secularism. When Buah says things like no one is saved who doesn't except Christ, I feel uncomfortable. I still plan to vote for him next year in my first election where I will be 18.

[12th Doctor]

Dean is just pandering to try to get votes in the south.

This is no different from how George Bush has used religion to gain political momentum.

Hey guys.  It's been a while but I am back.  As for this quote, it is different because Bush made his faith a part of what he was about in the begining.  Dean siad that he was tired of elections in the South being about "God, Guns and Gays".  Dean is clearly pandering.  If his faith is important to him, why only talk about it in the South?  Why not talk about it else where?  When Bush talks about faith, it's any time, anywhere and for whatever reason.  It is a part of him, so its beleivible.  I just think its halarious how you people (by all means not all Democrats) continue to support the guy inspite of the fact that he makes outragous statments all of the time and then refuses to stick by them when he is called on them.  The man cannot make-up his mind, one way or the other.  When Dean makes a statement that religion will not be a part of his campaign and then goes back on it 2 weeks later, what does that say about him?  What does that say about his supporters?
It says that you guys are motivated by pure rage and that the Democrat base, deep down, just wants a candidate that is the most anti-Bush.  If this wasn't the case than Liebermann or Edwards or even Gephart would be the big name.  Not Dean.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<having a woman as pastor, wearing clothing of mixed material, not keeping strict kosher, eating shellfish and pork, working on the Sabbath (ah, the life of an airline employee), not making animal sacrifices to the Almighty, and being gay are all against scripture and all apply to me.>>

Your "logic" is to justify not obeying the laws of the NT by mocking the OT laws and mixing NT & OT law together.

Having a woman as pastor is explicitly against the teachings of the NT as it was against OT law, and against the OT first references prior to the Law of Moses...the bible is uniform in this requirement.

Wearing clothing of mixed material is only mentioned in the Law of Moses, the regulation is NOT mentioned in the NT nor is it mentioned in the first references prior to the Law of Moses.

---

<<not keeping strict kosher, eating shellfish and pork, working on the Sabbath>>

Again, only mentioned in the Law of Moses, the regulation is NOT mentioned in the NT nor is it mentioned in the first references prior to the Law of Moses.

In fact, eating unclean meat is explicitly allowed in the NT.

---

<<not making animal sacrifices to the Almighty>>

Even someone being as intentionally dense as you knows that Christ's one and only sacrifice replaced animal sacrifices that were simply prefiguring Christ’s death.

---

<<and being gay>>

Homosexuality is against the pattern established in the Garden of Eve (predating the Law of Moses) when the context of sex was given in a marriage between one man and one woman.  This context excludes fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bigamy, and bestiality.  Homosexuality is also against the Law of Moses and the writings of the NT….the bible is uniform on this matter.  

---

<<On the other hand, I try to love the Lord with all my heart, soul and strength; and to love my neighbor as myself. Those were the important things given to us.>>

Actually, love towards God is defined, by God himself, as obedience to him:

John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command."

[Gustaf]

Shouldnt the election be on the issues rather then religion

Well, that is what some of us think, anyway...

[migrendel]

I have to take issue with this pattern established in the Garden of Eden theory, jmfcst. Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes. Would wearing clothes be against the pattern of the Bible? I suppose a simpler way of saying it, and please keep in mind I don't wish to ask you this question in a hostile fashion, is, would doing things not specifically approved of or practiced by the holy men and women be against Biblical teaching?

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I have to take issue with this pattern established in the Garden of Eden theory, jmfcst. Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes. Would wearing clothes be against the pattern of the Bible? I suppose a simpler way of saying it, and please keep in mind I don't wish to ask you this question in a hostile fashion, is, would doing things not specifically approved of or practiced by the holy men and women be against Biblical teaching?

[I have to weigh in on your comments] Ah, Homosexuality is specifically mentioned in the Bible. It is against Biblical teaching to practice Homosexuality, READ: ROMANS, CHAPTER ONE, Pretty much the whole chapter deals with Homosexuality, Adultery and other issues. But it specifically mentions Homosexuality. So, no, it's not just because holy men and women of GOD don't do those things. I belong to the AFLC [Association of Free Lutheran Congregations] they had an esteemed President for many years. He ministered often in my Church, his job was to run the whole AFLC with the Board of Directors, and travel from member congregation to member congregation. He 'came out' at the very convention that was going to overwhelmingly re-elect him. He admitted he was leading a double life and that he had AIDS, he gave his wife AIDS, she was a well loved teacher at our Bible School near Minneapolis, where the AFLC headquarters are. She died. Then a few years later, he died. It was a shock that still resounds today. He apparently was a holy man of GOD. He was a wonderful Pastor and great speaker and leader, but just couln't live with his own  lies anymore, since the disease was changing his appearance.  He was booted fom his positions of couse, but we [AFLC] saw to it that he was taken care of. He went from the pinnacle to the lowest valley, he became a groundskeeper for the AFLC. He served many years at the helm, during the period of our greatest growth as an Association of Churches. So, don't say that holy men and women of GOD don't do those things.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

migrendel,

<<I have to take issue with this pattern established in the Garden of Eden theory, jmfcst.>>

First, let’s establish the fact that it is ok of Christians to use Adam and Eve as a pattern (so no one thinks I’m simply making up a method of establishing doctrine):

Mat 19:3-6 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

1Tim 2:12-14  I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

---

<<Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes. Would wearing clothes be against the pattern of the Bible?>>

Adam and Eve didn’t wear clothes while they were sinless.  Once they sinned, then they needed a covering.  This first reference of clothes symbolizes the need for our sins to be covered with the blood of Christ.  Those that have received the Holy Spirit have been clothed in Christ.

But it certainly wouldn’t be beyond the teachings of the bible to state that nakedness (and sex) in a marriage is how it was meant to be.

---

<<would doing things not specifically approved of or practiced by the holy men and women be against Biblical teaching?>>

Sin is defined as a transgression of God’s law: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” (1John 3:4).  Since Christians believe that the bible was inspired by God so that the bible basically defines God’s will, it would be illogical for a Christian to argue that God has given them the right to ignore what the bible commands.

But, I have perfect liberty to engage in acts not covered in the law.  For instance, I can play sports with a clear conscience because I know such actions are not forbidden by the bible.  In other words, I don’t need the bible’s permission to engage in acts not covered by scripture: “Where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:14)

---

Your questions are always thoughtful and logical.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What version of the Bible are you using jmfst?

I only quoted one verse (John 14:15) in the post to which you replied.  I do my search/cut&paste from biblegateway.com.  I believe the default setting is NIV, but there are a least a dozen or so versions to chose from on the site.

Why do you ask?

[dazzleman]

I think that a candidate's religious views are important in so far as they reflect on his/her personal moral code, which is important.

I don't think we should demand that our presidents be choir boys, but they should have some moral standards.  And their SINCERE religious views are a refection of their moral standards.

With respect to Dean, I don't think it's going to work for him to suddenly say that he is going to talk about religion, when he originally said he wasn't going to talk about religion, and only in the south.  It is patently insincere.

Religion is nothing more than a person's philosophy of life and the best way to live it.  In that sense, secularism is a religion, and I think that secularists should stop effectively demanding special treatment by saying that their belief system should be enshrined in public life, while other belief systems are suppressed.

The fact is that our public discourse will always reflect a certain belief system.  The question is which one.  I think that secularists are using their "no religion" and "separation of church and state" mantras to effectively force their "religion" onto people who may not want it, and delegitimitize other religions, most particularly Christianity.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What version of the Bible are you using jmfst?

I only quoted one verse (John 14:15) in the post to which you replied.  I do my search/cut&paste from biblegateway.com.  I believe the default setting is NIV, but there are a least a dozen or so versions to chose from on the site.

Why do you ask?

I just didn't notice a difference until now, I read from the KJV, and John 14:15 says "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

The NIV reads "If you love me, you will obey what I command."...I see no difference except I prefer the KJV because it is more concise:

"The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" (Ecc 6:11)

Also, the KJV is cool in that it italicizes words the translators added for clarity, so that you know what was added and what wasn’t.  But I also like the paragraph form of the NIV.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I think that a candidate's religious views are important in so far as they reflect on his/her personal moral code, which is important.

I don't think we should demand that our presidents be choir boys, but they should have some moral standards.  And their SINCERE religious views are a refection of their moral standards.

With respect to Dean, I don't think it's going to work for him to suddenly say that he is going to talk about religion, when he originally said he wasn't going to talk about religion, and only in the south.  It is patently insincere.

Religion is nothing more than a person's philosophy of life and the best way to live it.  In that sense, secularism is a religion, and I think that secularists should stop effectively demanding special treatment by saying that their belief system should be enshrined in public life, while other belief systems are suppressed.

The fact is that our public discourse will always reflect a certain belief system.  The question is which one.  I think that secularists are using their "no religion" and "separation of church and state" mantras to effectively force their "religion" onto people who may not want it, and delegitimitize other religions, most particularly Christianity.

I firmly agree with the statements regarding the spread of secularism/humanism. They are trying to suppress the Religious doctrine of others and also, Could you tell me where in the Constitution does it say "Separation of Church and State?"  I argue that it doesn't even exist. What the Founding Fathers were inferring was that we were not going to be like England where there is a State Anlican Church, headed by the Monarch. That's what it meant, "no state sanctioned religion." It also did not mean that people didn't have to follow a Religion, or Anti-Religious. The Founding Fathers should have expressed themselves more clearly. However, the language of the day and lifestyles change. But GOD'S WORD shall never perish.

[Demrepdan]

Shouldnt the election be on the issues rather then religion

Well, that is what some of us think, anyway...

Yes, and it should be about other issues. Anyone who is STUPID enough to mix politics and religion, and vote for someone based on the candidates relgion, should go to church and not the voting booths. I had a preacher tell me this before: "God doesn't care about politics. God is not a Democrat or Republican. No political party is more holy or righteous than the other."

Jesus doesn't vote Democratic....



....and he doesn't vote Republican either.

[Gustaf]

I have grown up in a country where the church is socialist, brinking on communism, but that's my world.