A Plea to Evangelicals from an Evangelical

[middletree]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080114/cm_usatoday/apleatoevangelicals8212fr omanevangelical
(Yes, this is directly related to the election)


"... they are married to the Republican Party and have therefore compromised the political independence of Christianity and the church. This is a huge mistake...

One obvious sign of this was the assumption in the Christian Right that its leaders would endorse a Republican presidential candidate — that it was just a matter of which of those GOP gentlemen was the best Christian choice. Endorsing a Democrat was and is inconceivable.

Once any group of Christians gives itself away so completely to a political party, it ceases to be the church. The church becomes a branch office of the group's political party of choice — The First Republican Church in America."

[mat1583]

Very, VERY good article. I have written about this before in another thread:
http://www.thirdday.com/boards/showthread.php?t=92429&page=8&highlight=politics

I like this quote:

"The fundamental task of a religious organization is to serve God, not win in secular politics."

-washboard

[sandyandporter]

Ahhh, a breath of fresh air in the polluted atmosphere of politics. What is it about the discussion of politics that makes most people FORGET they are Christians FIRST? Brotherly love, tolerance, patience, kindness..... all thrown out the window once politics is the topic! And folks I'm here to tell you that that debates I've read on this CHRISTIAN website are far worse than the arguments I hear around me on a daily basis. Just nastiness. I've bit my tongue on numerous occassions and just left a thread rather than type what I'm really thinking.

I am doing my due diligence in researching candidates to cast my one vote for President come November. I will pray about it, listen for God's voice and vote accordingly. If the person you vote for and the person I vote for are not the same..... well folks.... that's America. Thank God we live in a country where we get to choose.

[mat1583]

Ahhh, a breath of fresh air in the polluted atmosphere of politics. What is it about the discussion of politics that makes most people FORGET they are Christians FIRST? Brotherly love, tolerance, patience, kindness..... all thrown out the window once politics is the topic! And folks I'm here to tell you that that debates I've read on this CHRISTIAN website are far worse than the arguments I hear around me on a daily basis. Just nastiness. I've bit my tongue on numerous occassions and just left a thread rather than type what I'm really thinking.


Where has there been "nastiness"? There aren't really any threads in particular that have jumped out to me as being nasty or mean spirited. And if any comments like that were made, I have seen apologies and compromises.

-washboard

[middletree]

And folks I'm here to tell you that that debates I've read on this CHRISTIAN website are far worse than the arguments I hear around me on a daily basis. Just nastiness.

Off the subject, but I want to interject here that I have not seen much in the way of nastiness. I do know that a lot of people have felt they were being attacked when they were being disagreed with.

[rossid]

The first paragraph:

"Conservative evangelicals are bringing a version of Christian values into the public arena where every American has to deal with it, like it or not. A recent example of this is the way grass-roots "Bible-believing Christians" in the Republican Party are boosting the candidacy of Mike Huckabee, and quite possibly sinking the campaign of Mitt Romney, mainly because Romney is a Mormon — yet another misunderstanding of the way faith is relevant to politics."

Posted by someone who caucused by Huckabee and also continues to gain respect for Christians who are not republicans.

[middletree]

Posted by someone who caucused by Huckabee and also continues to gain respect for Christians who are not republicans.

I don't understand this sentence.

[Valpo]

I wouldn't vote for Romney because he is a creep, not because he's Mormon.

[rossid]

I don't understand this sentence.

I boosted Huckabee in Iowa just like the article points out.

I would probably vote for Romney unlike some Christians.

I need to be more loving to all Christians. Historically I have been one of those "you can't be a democrat and a Christian" type of people.

[Jesuslove]

I boosted Huckabee in Iowa just like the article points out.

I would probably vote for Romney unlike some Christians.

I need to be more loving to all Christians. Historically I have been one of those "you can't be a democrat and a Christian" type of people.

I wouldn't vote for Romney cause he's a flip-flopper.

You absolutely CAN be Christian and be Democrat.

[middletree]

I wouldn't vote for Romney cause he's a flip-flopper.

You absolutely CAN be Christian and be Democrat.

You can be a flip-flopper and be a good President

[Jesuslove]

You can be a flip-flopper and be a good President

Possibly.... though I equate flip-flopping with pandering and dishonesty.

[Yippy]

Ahhh, a breath of fresh air in the polluted atmosphere of politics.
No kidding.:)

And folks I'm here to tell you that that debates I've read on this CHRISTIAN website are far worse than the arguments I hear around me on a daily basis.
You sound like you live in an extremely peaceful, isolated part of the country where everyone agrees. Come here for a visit, and you will find these boards extremely forgiving & patient. :cool:

[middletree]

Possibly.... though I equate flip-flopping with pandering and dishonesty.

Well, I have changed my positions on numerous topics since becoming eligible to vote. If a candidate does NOT change on anything over the years, then I question whether he's really thinking things through.

[mat1583]

Well, I have changed my positions on numerous topics since becoming eligible to vote. If a candidate does NOT change on anything over the years, then I question whether he's really thinking things through.

There's a big difference between a constituent changing views and a candidate who has changed views commonly in the past. It also depends on when the candidate changed views, circumstances behind the change, and the issue.

For instance, if a candidate promised to cut taxes yet has voted to raise taxes in the recent past (last two years or less), that would lead me to question their trustworthiness.

-washboard

[middletree]

Of course. That's why I was very specific in my definition of flip-flopping. But the problem is that I have seen the term used by candidates against other candidates very broadly, as if any change in positions is grounds for suspicion. I don't like that kind of campaigning.

[The Unknown Gomer]

You sound like you live in an extremely peaceful, isolated part of the country where everyone agrees. Come here for a visit, and you will find these boards extremely forgiving & patient. :cool:

I'm with Sandy on this one. I back out of a LOT of threads here, once I see what direction they're taking, rather than jump in and say what I think. It's better for my blood pressure that way. And I definitely don't live in an "isolated part of the country where everyone agrees" with everyone else (the editorial page of the local paper will vouch for that! ;) ).

Disagreements are one thing, all boards have those. It makes for interesting discussions. But it's possible have enough respect for someone (or to at least think before you hit that submit button) to be able to disagree with them without saying something that requires an apology and forgiveness afterwards. And there just seems to be a lot of stuff said here that requires apologies on a regular basis.

Oh well, I guess that's why they're called "Hot Topics", eh? ;)

[mat1583]

Of course. That's why I was very specific in my definition of flip-flopping. But the problem is that I have seen the term used by candidates against other candidates very broadly, as if any change in positions is grounds for suspicion. I don't like that kind of campaigning.

I feel like we've had this exact same conversation at a previous time... :)

-washboard

[middletree]

I feel like we've had this exact same conversation at a previous time... :)

-washboard

Yeah, we have. I just have become jaded after watching this many presidential elections, and I have observed that there are several tricks they all use, some cheaper than others. Al Gore's misleading statistic of "the richest 2% of people will get 50% of the tax break" is #1 on my list, but the flip-flopping accusation is pretty high up there.

[cheewiee]

For instance, if a candidate promised to cut taxes yet has voted to raise taxes in the recent past (last two years or less), that would lead me to question their trustworthiness.

-washboard

What taxes did he vote to raise, and what taxes is he promising to cut?

See, this is where politics gets dirty. Lets say you have Senator X running on a campain promise to cut payroll taxes, but he has voted for the past two years to raise Gas Taxes, and Corporate Taxes.... He can be painted to be a flip flopper.

So I am going to be bold here, and say, first and formost we are Christians. We should be Christians before we are Americans, and Republicans or Democrats.

I think like the frustration from the initial poster, that Republican and Christian have become almost interchangeable, and synomonyous. I don't understand how someone who would call themselves a Christian could hold a socially liberal world-view, but that is a limitation on me. I also don't know how someone who calls themselves a Christian could hold an almost social darwinistic economic worldview...

[mat1583]

Yeah, we have. I just have become jaded after watching this many presidential elections, and I have observed that there are several tricks they all use, some cheaper than others. Al Gore's misleading statistic of "the richest 2% of people will get 50% of the tax break" is #1 on my list, but the flip-flopping accusation is pretty high up there.

What if the candidates' voting record has shown them consistently going back and forth over one issue (such as taxes). In other words, they're not just changing their mind once and for all, but many times over a course of a few years about one specific issue? I would be concerned about something like that.

-washboard

[cheewiee]

What if the candidates' voting record has shown them consistently going back and forth over one issue (such as taxes). In other words, they're not just changing their mind once and for all, but many times over a course of a few years about one specific issue? I would be concerned about something like that.

-washboard

"Taxes" are not one issue. "Taxes" are many issues, that change over time.

Income Taxes
Estate Taxes
Import Tarrifs
Gas Tax
Corporate Taxes
Capital Gains Taxes

These are all different issues, and effect our economy in different ways, and so it makes sense that during certain times a politician may vote to raise, and lower them, without them being a "flip Flopper".

[mat1583]

"Taxes" are not one issue. "Taxes" are many issues, that change over time.

Income Taxes
Estate Taxes
Import Tarrifs
Gas Tax
Corporate Taxes
Capital Gains Taxes

These are all different issues, and effect our economy in different ways, and so it makes sense that during certain times a politician may vote to raise, and lower them, without them being a "flip Flopper".

Man I'm getting a headache. By taxes, a specific tax. Politician A runs in 2000 saying his goal is to lower the gas tax. After 2 years he actually votes to lower the gas tax. 2 years later he then votes to raise the gas tax. In 2004 he runs again, this time promising to lower taxes.

If I am a person who does not like the gas tax, and wants to vote for a candidate that will work to lower them, would I choose someone who has raised and lowered the taxes throughout his political career or someone who has constantly tried to lower them?

-washboard

[clemsontigers23]

What taxes did he vote to raise, and what taxes is he promising to cut?

See, this is where politics gets dirty. Lets say you have Senator X running on a campain promise to cut payroll taxes, but he has voted for the past two years to raise Gas Taxes, and Corporate Taxes.... He can be painted to be a flip flopper.

So I am going to be bold here, and say, first and formost we are Christians. We should be Christians before we are Americans, and Republicans or Democrats.

I think like the frustration from the initial poster, that Republican and Christian have become almost interchangeable, and synomonyous. I don't understand how someone who would call themselves a Christian could hold a socially liberal world-view, but that is a limitation on me. I also don't know how someone who calls themselves a Christian could hold an almost social darwinistic economic worldview...

I agree. The Republican party best reflects Christian values. It's hard to imagine how a Christian could vote for a socially liberal candidate, one who supports the murder of unborn children, the destruction of human embryos, the advancement of human cloning, and the legalization of a sinful lifestyle. The Democratic party's ideals are not consistent with Christian views, plain and simple. I don't vote Republican because of the word Republican; I vote Republican because they reflect my values and hold the same beliefs as I do. I would vote for a Democrat if the Democrat had views that reflected my own, but there isn't one. That's why I would have never voted for Rudy Giuliani even though he's a Republican. I disagreed with him on too many things. I also won't vote for Mitt Romney. He's too easily swayed and anyone who is a member of a cult shouldn't be leading our nation.

[Yippy]

Oh well, I guess that's why they're called "Hot Topics", eh? ;)

I guess that's what happens when you're dealing with "people." Not everyone - including Christians - gasp - is fully matured spiritually, emotionally & intellectually, which is why my expectations are not high when debating or conversing online. Every kind of person is participating not just the fully mature & respectful. So, like you, I opt out of many discussions that are not worth the anxiety. But to say that these Christian boards are far worse than what you hear on a daily basis leads me to believe that you don't get out much or you have selective hearing. On the other hand, what you hear on a daily basis involves actual physical presence, which keeps many people minding their manners. I believe many people are a whole lot braver while chatting online and wouldn't dare say what they do in person. All this to say, I wouldn't be too critical of even a "Christian" board. I've read far worse on other Christian boards and would declare these as quite tame IMHO. At least you find apologies & forgiveness here.:)
So I am going to be bold here, and say, first and formost we are Christians. We should be Christians before we are Americans, and Republicans or Democrats.

I think like the frustration from the initial poster, that Republican and Christian have become almost interchangeable, and synomonyous.
I have often said that I don't feel comfortable in either camp and have never understood a Christian closely identifying with any one in particular. I guess Republican & Christian have become almost interchangable, but in my neck of the woods, where there's a huge black & hispanic Christian contingency, Christian can be interchangable with Democrat. Either way, I think we as Christians, regardless of history or privilege, should be involved in the political process without putting our trust in it or so closely identifying with one party that we judge those who don't. Our identification is in Christ and He is our Rock.

I'm just thankful that we're all talking about it. It's been a long time comin.';)

[middletree]

What if the candidates' voting record has shown them consistently going back and forth over one issue (such as taxes). In other words, they're not just changing their mind once and for all, but many times over a course of a few years about one specific issue? I would be concerned about something like that.

-washboard
I agree with you. But the accusations of flipflopping I have seen have not always been about that scenario.

[mat1583]

I agree with you. But the accusations of flipflopping I have seen have not always been about that scenario.

Yeah. I agree with you on the general misuse of the term "flip-flopping".

-washboard

[sandyandporter]

Where has there been "nastiness"? There aren't really any threads in particular that have jumped out to me as being nasty or mean spirited. And if any comments like that were made, I have seen apologies and compromises.

-washboard

http://www.thirdday.com/boards/showthread.php?t=101392&page=2

Here's one for starters.

MOST of the people here can have a spirited discussion/debate without resorting to sarcasm and name calling. Some can't. I think it's a shame. Some folks have even agreed to start off the new year with a clean slate and here it is still January and they are name calling.

It's just a shame. Hey.... isn't that a Third Day song? ;)

[mat1583]

http://www.thirdday.com/boards/showthread.php?t=101392&page=2

Here's one for starters.

MOST of the people here can have a spirited discussion/debate without resorting to sarcasm and name calling. Some can't. I think it's a shame. Some folks have even agreed to start off the new year with a clean slate and here it is still January and they are name calling.

It's just a shame. Hey.... isn't that a Third Day song? ;)

I chose to stay out of that thread for a good reason, and I never really read it to begin with until now. What is being said in there is the exceptional case. Those reactions are very rare and are usually handled quite well by our community and by our moderators. I'm sure it will be handled just the same this time. That thread is still very tame compared to others I've seen on various other 'Christian' forums.

-washboard

[middletree]

http://www.thirdday.com/boards/showthread.php?t=101392&page=2

Here's one for starters.


I think that's a rare case. Still, it would be nice if stuff like that never happens.

[sandyandporter]

Unfortunately it's not as rare as you may think. It's not the 1st, 2nd or even 3rd time I've encountered this behavior. But.... I'm still hangin around! :D ;)

Just for the record Matt and James.... LOVE you guys! I have never seen anything inappropriate from you two and I always enjoy reading what you 2 have to say in all threads.

[in hiding]

Man I'm getting a headache. By taxes, a specific tax. Politician A runs in 2000 saying his goal is to lower the gas tax. After 2 years he actually votes to lower the gas tax. 2 years later he then votes to raise the gas tax. In 2004 he runs again, this time promising to lower taxes.



well, here is what they are trying to spend this year through elections promises...this money has to come from somewhere

* The eight candidates proposed a combined total of 189 items that would increase federal spending, 24 items that would decrease it, and 238 items whose budgetary impacts are unknown -- in addition to dozens of sub-items further detailing program components. The four respective frontrunners in the two parties (John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama), proposed overall fiscal policy agendas whose net effect would raise annual federal outlays between $6.9 billion and $287.0 billion.
* The top-tier GOP candidates often portrayed as "conservative" (Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee) actually called for significantly larger spending hikes ($19.5 billion and $54.2 billion, respectively), than the so-called "moderate conservative" (John McCain, $6.9 billion).
* Among Democrats, Barack Obama, often described as ideologically more "moderate" than Hillary Clinton, actually has the larger agenda of the two ($287.0 billion vs. $218.2 billion).
* Defense-related spending items received the highest proposed spending increases among Republican candidates. Huckabee and Romney, for example, offered $67.2 billion and $40.6 billion, respectively. Among Democrats, Clinton's biggest boost goes toward health care ($113.6 billion) and Obama's for economy, transportation, and infrastructure ($105.0 billion).
* Two of the eight candidates proposed sufficient spending cuts that more than offset their new spending plans: Rudy Giuliani (-$1.4 billion) and Ron Paul (-$150.1 billion).

national taxpayers union

[Yippy]

I think that's a rare case. Still, it would be nice if stuff like that never happens.

Just so everybody knows, that thread has been edited. It probably could use a little more hacking...:cool: Hopefully, it will get back on track.:cool:



Just for the record Matt and James.... LOVE you guys! I have never seen anything inappropriate from you two and I always enjoy reading what you 2 have to say in all threads.
I agree, and I appreciate your opinion as well.:)

[middletree]

Just so everybody knows, that thread has been edited.



Bummer. I was hoping to echo the negative comments about Toby Keith.;)

[sandyandporter]

Bummer. I was hoping to echo the negative comments about Toby Keith.;)

***reaches thru cyberspace and smacks James*** ;)

And here I said something NICE about you. I hope the mods edit THAT! jk

[lilmikey]

I hate it when the church gets to political, yet, I believe it is each and every Christians responsibility to vote and to uphold(or try to, in the hour we are living in) this nations Christian foundation.

I am a a Republican but I think its foolish and to stupid to label republicans as the Christian Right. Not every Republican is a Christian nor is everybody on the Left a godless diviant.(I am trying very hard to find a Christian on the Left though).

The issue is this the majority of the problems we have in this country are because we are a divided country. This is not an issue of right and wrong. This is an issue of basically not agreeing on anything.. There(as far as Im concerned) no common ground between the two parties.

I am a republican because a majority of the views that conservatives share are common moral Christain views.

I am not a democrat simply because most all liberal views are godless and humanistic.

[in hiding]

I am a republican because a majority of the views that conservatives share are common moral Christain views.

I am not a democrat simply because most all liberal views are godless and humanistic.

just to play devils advocate here: aside from some liberal social views (gay marriage and abortion/fetus stem cell research) which other views are godless and humanistic? Looking at their party platform from 2004 there aren't really a lot of views that I would call godless. I think they are kidding themselves with some of their claims and things they want to do but their views (aside from some social views) are no more godless than the republicans

I'd say I could make a case that in some situations the democrats have a more moral christian view than the right.

[Yippy]

Bummer. I was hoping to echo the negative comments about Toby Keith.;)

Go ahead. I only edited. Echo away. ;)

[mat1583]

I'd say I could make a case that in some situations the democrats have a more moral christian view than the right.

...except for the whole income tax, social welfare idea. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor, or stealing at all is not Christian by any stretch.

-washboard

[middletree]

(I am trying very hard to find a Christian on the Left though).

There are quite a few. Some are forum members here. And then there are great authors like Donald Miller.

I am a republican because a majority of the views that conservatives share are common moral Christain views.

Oh good grief!

I am not a democrat simply because most all liberal views are godless and humanistic.

See, that's what I am talking about.

I think I'm gonna stop there.

[in hiding]

...except for the whole income tax, social welfare idea. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor, or stealing at all is not Christian by any stretch.

-washboard

agreed, but that pretty much hoses both parties :)

[mat1583]

agreed, but that pretty much hoses both parties :)

My point :)

-washboard

[in hiding]

My point :)

-washboard

you are a clever one :)

[lilmikey]

Just for the record though I am not all that pleased with the Republican canidates either. God knows I cant stand Mccain. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing or to be more specific a liberal/democrat in republiacan clothing. He rejects everytjing the republican party stands for IMHO.

I am looking for three things in a cantidate
someone who has a strong immegration policy(this really gets me riled up)
someone who has a strong stance against abortion
and someone who will defend this country or is for homeland security

all the other crap is secondary

[clemsontigers23]

Unfortunately it's not as rare as you may think. It's not the 1st, 2nd or even 3rd time I've encountered this behavior. But.... I'm still hangin around! :D ;)

Just for the record Matt and James.... LOVE you guys! I have never seen anything inappropriate from you two and I always enjoy reading what you 2 have to say in all threads.

It would be better if those two would stop ganging up on me. Jesuslove brings up the same subject in every conversation, even places where it doesn't belong. I try to ignore it but when he said I was misguided I lost it. I'm a sinner, that's all I can say. I can't justify it or make excuses.

tree, you don't think conservative Republicans reflect many of our Christian values? Please tell me you're joking. Mike's on the right track with the humanistic talk, too. I haven't seen you try to prove otherwise. All I've seen is you scoffing at the notion.

[middletree]

Tree, you don't think conservative Republicans reflect many of our Christian values? Please tell me you're joking. Mike's on the right track with the humanistic talk, too. I haven't seen you try to prove otherwise. All I've seen is you scoffing at the notion.

I think that Republican/conservative values line up with most of my values, which are based on the bible, but which I must admit are also based very much on my opinion. I'm just being honest here.

I scoffed because I know that I choose which biblical values are most important to me, and I raise those higher on the list. However, there's a huge difference between saying that a party's values line up with mine, vs. saying that a party's values line up with God's values.

For simplicity's sake, let's say you have two typical Christians who are politically liberal: Bob is a white male, and Michelle is a black female.

Bob's reasoning is as follows:

1. He sees that the bible makes more mentions of feeding the poor than any other command. He reads it to mean that we are to feed them, clothe them, and not ask questions about why they are poor. He thinks that this if the govt's responsibility.
2. Regarding abortion, he says that while he's pro-life, he believes that Republicans are ineffective when they get into office when it comes to abortion. He points out that we had a Republican president and Congress in the early 2000's, and no significant laws were made to bring us closer to ending Roe vs. Wade.
3. He believes the US should not have invaded Iraq.
4. He believes more money should be spent on public schools, public housing, and healthcare.
5. Regarding gay marriage, he points out that our nation crossed a line 3 years ago when our Supreme Court struck down all state sodomy laws. The bible says that same-sex sex is sin, but never mentions same-sex marriage. Therefore, the effort put into laws against same-sex marriage is not helping our nation when it comes to losing some of God's blessing, because we already crossed that line when we allowed the actual sinful sexual behavior to be legal.
6. He is pro-gun-control.


Now, let's hear why Michelle votes Democrat:

1. She is in favor of affirmative action. She believes that blacks still have the deck stacked against them, and minorities need help in the way of laws.
2. She is against the death penalty.
3. She wants the rich to pay more taxes, and the poor to pay as little as possible.
4. She wants more government funding for public transportation, govt-assistance in housing, especially helping the working poor get their first home loans.
5. She believes that the War on Drugs is wrong and has resulted in putting a lot of people into jail who aren't a danger to society.


Now, if we are going by my opinion, I am against most of the above items. But here's the thing: I cannot say, with certainty, that the bible is 100% against all the issues listed above. And I don't think anyone can.

Don't get me wrong. You can say that you personally believe that the bible backs you up on the death penalty, taxes, and the other issues. But you cannot say with certainty that that is the case, that you are 100% sure that the only acceptable position for the follower of Jesus Christ is to be against Michelle and Bob on the list of items above.

For some people, it is very important to use public money to feed the poor. And you know what? If they are Christians, there's a good chance that God put that on their heart. If it is more important to them than abortion, I will personally disagree, but I dare not say that my pro-life stance is more Christian than their stance. The fact is that while we like to say that abortion is most important (and don't get me wrong: it's huge), we are crossing a line into arrogance if we say that that one issue must be at the top of the list for everyone else who's a Christian.


I'd like anyone who reads this to stop and read it twice, then wait an hour. It's so easy to look in this and find points about which to zing me. It's not about who can win a debate. Many here are much better debaters than me. But even if my ability to properly express myself falls short, I know I am right about this.

For every person on this forum who finds it unthinkable that any Christian could vote Democrat, there is another Christian who finds it unthinkable that a Christian could vote Republican.
For every Republican here who thinks Democrats are hedonistic party animals who want to smoke dope and hate rich people, there is a Democrat who is convinced that Republicans are warmongering, greedy, bloodthirsty, simpleminded white supremacists. Anyone who paints the other side in this way is dead wrong, IMO.

[sandyandporter]

It would be better if those two would stop ganging up on me. Jesuslove brings up the same subject in every conversation, even places where it doesn't belong. I try to ignore it but when he said I was misguided I lost it. I'm a sinner, that's all I can say. I can't justify it or make excuses.

tree, you don't think conservative Republicans reflect many of our Christian values? Please tell me you're joking. Mike's on the right track with the humanistic talk, too. I haven't seen you try to prove otherwise. All I've seen is you scoffing at the notion.

We are all misguided. People can't gang up on you if you don't let them. You kind of set yourself up sometimes. For example... you just did it again with James. What option have you left him but to blast you? He never said that conservative Rep don't reflect Christian values. They just don't hold the market on it! Mike's comments only reinforce what I've said about people just attacking. "God knows I can't stand McCain". Come on! What is Christian about THAT? What happened to love your neighbor as yourself?

There are some candidates I would prefer over others. I'm willing to say that IMHO none of the candidates are horrible people who want to destroy the United States. I would probably find them all very warm and charming over a cup of coffee. They all have passions that they believe in. Just because I don't agree with some of their positions doesn't make them bad people, it doesn't even make them wrong! I'm willing to admit that in many cases, I just might be the one who is wrong!

A Christian will look at the positions the candidate holds on subjects that are important to them and align themselves accordingly. They will exercise their moral obligation to vote. Then they will pray for and accept whomever wins and becomes President.

[Jesuslove]

For every person on this forum who finds it unthinkable that any Christian could vote Democrat, there is another Christian who finds it unthinkable that a Christian could vote Republican.
For every Republican here who thinks Democrats are hedonistic party animals who want to smoke dope and hate rich people, there is a Democrat who is convinced that Republicans are warmongering, greedy, bloodthirsty, simpleminded white supremacists. Anyone who paints the other side in this way is dead wrong, IMO.

I think that sums it up. I agree with you. There are no absolutes when it comes to politics.

[SmileyFreak1981]

I feel that the Evangelical movement hurt itself and ministries and churches associated with it by being so gung-ho on this idea that the Republican party is "God's party." And preaching it from the pulpit. I don't agree with that, because I think who I vote for should be my choice as an individual, based upon my knowledge of candidates and how God is leading me personally. Encourage people to exercise their voting rights and become educated voters, and quit telling them how to vote. Political candidate campaigning doesn't belong in the church, IMO.

I identify myself as conservative, but none of the candidates appeal to me at all. I have no idea who will get my vote in November. And I know of several other people who identify themselves as moderate or conservative that don't know either. To be honest, I don't trust either party or their candidates...both parties have proven to be full of beans when it comes to what they say campaigning to be elected versus what actually happens once they get the job.

[lilmikey]

Perhaps when I said I cant stand Mccain that was too harsh and Im sorryfor that. What I should have said is that personally John Mccain is probably a great guy. But his claiming to be a conservative is a lie. If he is a conservative let him be a conservative if he is a lib let him be a lib. His faught is that he claims to be something he is not. I cant stand his politics. Mccains politics are bad but on a personal level he is, like I said a maybe a great guy.

I have some friends who are libs and moderates. I dont hate my lib friends, life is more than politics. I truley hate liberalism but not the people who have those ideas. Just like with homosexualaity(sp) I absolutly dispise it but yet I have a friend who is a homosexual and I hate the sin but not him.

There are some I truley dispies and ihose are the Clinton Crime Family. But I ask the Lord daily to take the hatred out of my heart.

[clemsontigers23]

I think that Republican/conservative values line up with most of my values, which are based on the bible, but which I must admit are also based very much on my opinion. I'm just being honest here.

I scoffed because I know that I choose which biblical values are most important to me, and I raise those higher on the list. However, there's a huge difference between saying that a party's values line up with mine, vs. saying that a party's values line up with God's values.

For simplicity's sake, let's say you have two typical Christians who are politically liberal: Bob is a white male, and Michelle is a black female.

Bob's reasoning is as follows:

1. He sees that the bible makes more mentions of feeding the poor than any other command. He reads it to mean that we are to feed them, clothe them, and not ask questions about why they are poor. He thinks that this if the govt's responsibility.
2. Regarding abortion, he says that while he's pro-life, he believes that Republicans are ineffective when they get into office when it comes to abortion. He points out that we had a Republican president and Congress in the early 2000's, and no significant laws were made to bring us closer to ending Roe vs. Wade.
3. He believes the US should not have invaded Iraq.
4. He believes more money should be spent on public schools, public housing, and healthcare.
5. Regarding gay marriage, he points out that our nation crossed a line 3 years ago when our Supreme Court struck down all state sodomy laws. The bible says that same-sex sex is sin, but never mentions same-sex marriage. Therefore, the effort put into laws against same-sex marriage is not helping our nation when it comes to losing some of God's blessing, because we already crossed that line when we allowed the actual sinful sexual behavior to be legal.
6. He is pro-gun-control.


Now, let's hear why Michelle votes Democrat:

1. She is in favor of affirmative action. She believes that blacks still have the deck stacked against them, and minorities need help in the way of laws.
2. She is against the death penalty.
3. She wants the rich to pay more taxes, and the poor to pay as little as possible.
4. She wants more government funding for public transportation, govt-assistance in housing, especially helping the working poor get their first home loans.
5. She believes that the War on Drugs is wrong and has resulted in putting a lot of people into jail who aren't a danger to society.


Now, if we are going by my opinion, I am against most of the above items. But here's the thing: I cannot say, with certainty, that the bible is 100% against all the issues listed above. And I don't think anyone can.

Don't get me wrong. You can say that you personally believe that the bible backs you up on the death penalty, taxes, and the other issues. But you cannot say with certainty that that is the case, that you are 100% sure that the only acceptable position for the follower of Jesus Christ is to be against Michelle and Bob on the list of items above.

For some people, it is very important to use public money to feed the poor. And you know what? If they are Christians, there's a good chance that God put that on their heart. If it is more important to them than abortion, I will personally disagree, but I dare not say that my pro-life stance is more Christian than their stance. The fact is that while we like to say that abortion is most important (and don't get me wrong: it's huge), we are crossing a line into arrogance if we say that that one issue must be at the top of the list for everyone else who's a Christian.


I'd like anyone who reads this to stop and read it twice, then wait an hour. It's so easy to look in this and find points about which to zing me. It's not about who can win a debate. Many here are much better debaters than me. But even if my ability to properly express myself falls short, I know I am right about this.

For every person on this forum who finds it unthinkable that any Christian could vote Democrat, there is another Christian who finds it unthinkable that a Christian could vote Republican.
For every Republican here who thinks Democrats are hedonistic party animals who want to smoke dope and hate rich people, there is a Democrat who is convinced that Republicans are warmongering, greedy, bloodthirsty, simpleminded white supremacists. Anyone who paints the other side in this way is dead wrong, IMO.

That was a great example, and I understand that, but I guess it's just my opinion that I find it hard to believe a Christian would vote for a Democrat with Democrats have become so secular and humanistic. Another thing I don't understand is how can liberals claim to be so open-minded yet when a conservative disagrees with them they immediately resort to attacks and are close-minded to other viewpoints. They give religions like Islam special treatment in public places, such as schools, but then they turn around and try to take "under God" out of the pledge and the Ten Commandments out of courthouses and the such. They succeeded in taking prayer out of schools, and they continually work towards taking all instances of Christianity out of the United States. I'm almost disgusted by the Democratic party. I can see why a Christian might vote Democrat, and I can see that better now that you've given those scenarios; I just don't agree with it. There are no absolutes, that is true. I don't believe the GOP is God's Own Party, that's for sure.

[middletree]

I find it hard to believe a Christian would vote for a Democrat with Democrats have become so secular and humanistic.
I think we tend to focus on the ones we disagree with, and they end up being the loudest ones. Just as Jesse Jackson doesn't really represent the views of black Americans, the humanists don't really represent all Democrats. But those are the ones who get the most attention. That's why I tried to draw attention to Donald Miller, Tony Campolo, Rod Bell, and others. They are out there. Politically liberal Christians are out there.

[Les_Is_More]

Possibly.... though I equate flip-flopping with pandering and dishonesty.

Hmmm... I guess you are condemning your own slicky Bill Clinton with that comment.

[hochspeyer]

We need to get over the labels- democrat, republican, conservative, liberal. If you believe that acertain candidate is best based upon you own criteria, then vote for that candidate. My first choice in the primaries is no longer in the running, so I have selected my #2 candidate.

We live in a human society- we wil never get a perfect candidate, or perfect president, for that matter.

[sandyandporter]

We need to get over the labels- democrat, republican, conservative, liberal. If you believe that acertain candidate is best based upon you own criteria, then vote for that candidate. My first choice in the primaries is no longer in the running, so I have selected my #2 candidate.

We live in a human society- we wil never get a perfect candidate, or perfect president, for that matter.

Amen brother, Amen!

[Yippy]

We live in a human society- we wil never get a perfect candidate, or perfect president, for that matter.
Some are just a lot more scary than others...:)

[Jesuslove]

Hmmm... I guess you are condemning your own slicky Bill Clinton with that comment.

My own? At least the Clintons remained married, unlike the McCain's.

[Jesuslove]

It would be better if those two would stop ganging up on me. Jesuslove brings up the same subject in every conversation, even places where it doesn't belong. I try to ignore it but when he said I was misguided I lost it. I'm a sinner, that's all I can say. I can't justify it or make excuses.

tree, you don't think conservative Republicans reflect many of our Christian values? Please tell me you're joking. Mike's on the right track with the humanistic talk, too. I haven't seen you try to prove otherwise. All I've seen is you scoffing at the notion.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You've condemned people but won't look at your own family. All I say is don't judge, lest those close to you may be judged by the same standard. We are all sinners. We should pray that God forgives us all. Instead of throwing daggars all the time, turn the other cheek like Christ taught us. I will do the same.

[Jason]

My own? At least the Clintons remained married, unlike the McCain's.

He doesn't like McCain anyway.

[middletree]

He doesn't like McCain anyway.

Jesuslove makes a good point. When it's convenient for Christian conservatives to make a Democrat politico look bad because of his immorality (Edward Kennedy, Clinton), they will use that as a reason (not the only reason, but a reason) to discourage anyone from voting for that person. But the same group of folks, for the most part, don't point out the same issue when it comes to Republican candidates. McCain, Newt, and Rudy have all admitted to infidelity. Anyone who mentions it as one of the reasons to not vote for Clinton should not vote for those three, yet, if one of them becomes the nominee, most of those people will vote for him because he's a Republican.

[Jesuslove]

One other point that is key to this election: The War. Many Democrats believe this war is immoral, and the blood of hundreds of thousands of people is on our hands. Although many Republicans support this war, many Republicans do not.

I do not understand how McCain, in a general election, will try and sell the notion that we should remain in Iraq for 100 years, when the majority of Americans no longer support the war.

[mat1583]

I do not understand how McCain, in a general election, will try and sell the notion that we should remain in Iraq for 100 years, when the majority of Americans no longer support the war.

This is why a republican will not win this November. A majority of Americans do not support the war, yet every republican except for Ron Paul insists on continuing it for as long as it takes. I know we can't get out of there immediately, but to not have a plan for withdrawal in the next 2-4 years is a fatal mistake (metaphorically speaking).

-washboard

[Jesuslove]

This is why a republican will not win this November. A majority of Americans do not support the war, yet every republican except for Ron Paul insists on continuing it for as long as it takes. I know we can't get out of there immediately, but to not have a plan for withdrawal in the next 2-4 years is a fatal mistake (metaphorically speaking).

-washboard

I totally agree. It also amazes me that the other Republican candidates make Ron Paul out to be a kook, as if his impressions are out of line with most Americans. Frankly, I think Paul is the only one on the Republican side speaking the truth.

[mat1583]

Jesuslove makes a good point. When it's convenient for Christian conservatives to make a Democrat politico look bad because of his immorality (Edward Kennedy, Clinton), they will use that as a reason (not the only reason, but a reason) to discourage anyone from voting for that person.

I heard a great example of this this morning. I don't usually listen to much radio, but I caught just a small portion of John Boy & Billy this morning. Some woman called in so she could inform all Christians that, "Obama will not salute the flag, therefore how could any Christian vote for a Democrat." I yelled out, "Are you serious?!" Of course, she didn't hear me.

To give John Boy & Billy credit though, they did point out that Obama was only shown not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem once. It wasn't a common thing, and he has plenty of respect for the flag & such. I just thought it was ridiculous that a woman thought Christians shouldn't vote for a democrat because of one time the man didn't put his hand over his heart. Urgh!

-washboard

[lilmikey]

My own? At least the Clintons remained married, unlike the McCain's.

oh wow that makes all the difference:rolleyes:

[sandyandporter]

oh wow that makes all the difference:rolleyes:

Was that necessary? Really? How was that a Christian response?

[in hiding]

I totally agree. It also amazes me that the other Republican candidates make Ron Paul out to be a kook, as if his impressions are out of line with most Americans. Frankly, I think Paul is the only one on the Republican side speaking the truth.

I think a majority of the republicans can't connect with people on a personal level; they almost have this air of, you have to vote for me b/c I know more than you do. I agree Paul is the only one who's a legitimate straight shooter in the bunch whether it makes people happy or upset. But since people also like to vote for a winner people prob won't vote for him; which is sad b/c i've heard people say "i'd vote for him but there's no way he can win so I'll prob vote for someone else". That's whats sad. I wish they had the primaries all on one day that way people wouldn't be swayed by any past results.

[lilmikey]

Was that necessary? Really? How was that a Christian response?

It's no different than some of the other sarcastic remarks I see on here if I may borrow some Napolean Dynamite GOSHHHHH

[middletree]

It's no different than some of the other sarcastic remarks I see on here if I may borrow some Napolean Dynamite GOSHHHHH

The post to which you were replying, about the Democrats being committed to their marriages, is important in light of the fact that we Republicans tend to play the family values card so much.

[sandyandporter]

It's no different than some of the other sarcastic remarks I see on here if I may borrow some Napolean Dynamite GOSHHHHH

That doesn't make it ok. Let's all just try being nice to each other. :cool:

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I think a majority of the republicans can't connect with people on a personal level; they almost have this air of, you have to vote for me b/c I know more than you do. I agree Paul is the only one who's a legitimate straight shooter in the bunch whether it makes people happy or upset. But since people also like to vote for a winner people prob won't vote for him; which is sad b/c i've heard people say "i'd vote for him but there's no way he can win so I'll prob vote for someone else". That's whats sad. I wish they had the primaries all on one day that way people wouldn't be swayed by any past results.

It's a popularity contest. In the realm of social survival, things don't change much when you graduate high school.

[mat1583]

I agree Paul is the only one who's a legitimate straight shooter in the bunch whether it makes people happy or upset. But since people also like to vote for a winner people prob won't vote for him; which is sad b/c i've heard people say "i'd vote for him but there's no way he can win so I'll prob vote for someone else". That's whats sad. I wish they had the primaries all on one day that way people wouldn't be swayed by any past results.

I was just talking to a coworker today about the primaries. She's undecided, but voiced a few opinions on the issues...primarily no amnesty for illegals, and against the war. She seemed to have a few other conservative views, so I mentioned Ron Paul. Her reply: "Yeah, I really like Ron Paul. But it doesn't look like he is going to win, so I probably won't vote for him."

Why do people compromise their values to vote for a candidate just because they are popular? I don't understand it. It makes you sound like a drone of the government, controlled by the media, that will do whatever you are told.

Have I ever mentioned that V for Vendetta is one of my most favorite movies? I can see the United States being exactly like that in the next 15 years if someone like Ron Paul doesn't get into office.

-washboard

[Jesuslove]

I wish they had the primaries all on one day that way people wouldn't be swayed by any past results.

I totally agree. There should be one day of primaries. New Hampshire and Iowa shouldn't hold so much political clout. I was fortunate enough to vote this morning in New Jersey. If New Jersey held their primary the same day as they did last time, New Jersey voters wouldn't have made a bit of difference. This time, our voice is heard.

[in hiding]

I was just talking to a coworker today about the primaries. She's undecided, but voiced a few opinions on the issues...primarily no amnesty for illegals, and against the war. She seemed to have a few other conservative views, so I mentioned Ron Paul. Her reply: "Yeah, I really like Ron Paul. But it doesn't look like he is going to win, so I probably won't vote for him."

Why do people compromise their values to vote for a candidate just because they are popular? I don't understand it. It makes you sound like a drone of the government, controlled by the media, that will do whatever you are told.
People like to vote for winners, plain and simple b/c that's what they've been able to boil politics down to winning and losing; it's no longer about what is best for the country...it's about having your party win regardless so you can say you're better than the other party.


Have I ever mentioned that V for Vendetta is one of my most favorite movies? I can see the United States being exactly like that in the next 15 years if someone like Ron Paul doesn't get into office.

-washboard

V for Vendetta is a great movie and it very well could be representative of the US in the future.

[in hiding]

I totally agree. There should be one day of primaries. New Hampshire and Iowa shouldn't hold so much political clout. I was fortunate enough to vote this morning in New Jersey. If New Jersey held their primary the same day as they did last time, New Jersey voters wouldn't have made a bit of difference. This time, our voice is heard.

to continue with the media conspiracy theory though, the way the system is now "the powers that be" can control the information and elevate or diminish someone they don't like and justify b/c of results. It would be interesting to see how people would really vote if they voted their conscience.

[clemsontigers23]

Was that necessary? Really? How was that a Christian response?

When did you become the morality police? lilmikee can express himself however he pleases. Jesuslove made a ridiculous statement so he got a ridiculous response. The suggestion that McCain getting a divorce makes him a bad person is asinine.

[Jesuslove]

When did you become the morality police? lilmikee can express himself however he pleases. Jesuslove made a ridiculous statement so he got a ridiculous response. The suggestion that McCain getting a divorce makes him a bad person is asinine.

Nobody said McCain was a bad person.

[sandyandporter]

When did you become the morality police? lilmikee can express himself however he pleases. Jesuslove made a ridiculous statement so he got a ridiculous response. The suggestion that McCain getting a divorce makes him a bad person is asinine.

Christians are to hold each other accountable for their behavior which makes ALL of us the "morality police" so to say. I would expect you to do the same for me. I have made similar comments to lilmikee before and to Jesuslove. I would be happy to find those posts if I need to.

I'm as sensitive about the divorce issue as you are. We both know this is where it all stems from. Being divorced myself, I don't have the same views as Jesuslove. That's ok. I don't discuss it with him. He's not going to change my mind and I won't change his.

And for those who think this should have been a PM, I already did that and it was ignored. David, I happen to like you. It may not feel like it but I enjoy reading alot of what you have to say.

So I sincerely apologize if I offended you. I'm not being sarcastic (hard to tell when being typed).

God bless you, Sandy

[middletree]

The suggestion that McCain getting a divorce makes him a bad person is asinine.
It's not his divorce. It's his admitted adultery when his wife was in a wheelchair. It's about Rudy's admitted adultery, openly dating a woman when his divorce wasn't even filed yet. Newt cheating on his wife while at the same time slamming Clinton publicly.

My problem, which I posted and which led to Jesuslove's comment, was not that Christians don't screw up, but that conservatives are the ones making all the fuss about the immoraliity of liberals, when we don't call out our own leaders when they do the same thing.

[Jesuslove]

Christians are to hold each other accountable for their behavior which makes ALL of us the "morality police" so to say. I would expect you to do the same for me. I have made similar comments to lilmikee before and to Jesuslove. I would be happy to find those posts if I need to.

I'm as sensitive about the divorce issue as you are. We both know this is where it all stems from. Being divorced myself, I don't have the same views as Jesuslove. That's ok. I don't discuss it with him. He's not going to change my mind and I won't change his.

And for those who think this should have been a PM, I already did that and it was ignored. David, I happen to like you. It may not feel like it but I enjoy reading alot of what you have to say.

So I sincerely apologize if I offended you. I'm not being sarcastic (hard to tell when being typed).

God bless you, Sandy
I think you have mistaken my opinion. I have nothing against divorce. I have nothing against anyone who has been divorced. Everybody has to live with their actions in life, and I am no judge. Everyone has an issue with being judged by others. David has repeatedly judged members of my family without knowing them or circumstances. Therefore, I have responded in kind. I can only take getting bashed so much. I have turned the other cheek often. God doesn't expect me to be a doormat, I assure you.
Certain topics are toxic to certain individuals. My reference to divorce in this thread had nothing to do with David, or you, or anyone. My comment was referring to the Clintons. Many conservatives have been critical of Bill's infidelity, which I'm not justifying. I was simply pointing out that despite many challenges, Bill has been able to keep his marital bond, for better or worse. McCain has not been able to be faithful, and having heard him speak on the issue, I believe he has made his peace with his ex-and with God. It just seems hypocritical for some to trash the Clinton's relationship, when half of American's marriages fail, for better or for worse. If I offended Sandy ever, I apologize. If David took my comments as a dig at him or his family, I apologize....it wasn't intended to be a slam against anyone.
Peace,
Steve

[Jesuslove]

It's not his divorce. It's his admitted adultery when his wife was in a wheelchair. It's about Rudy's admitted adultery, openly dating a woman when his divorce wasn't even filed yet. Newt cheating on his wife while at the same time slamming Clinton publicly.

My problem, which I posted and which led to Jesuslove's comment, was not that Christians don't screw up, but that conservatives are the ones making all the fuss about the immoraliity of liberals, when we don't call out our own leaders when they do the same thing.

I totally agree with your comment. What you wrote is what I intended to say. My issue is with conservatives (such as Rush Limbaugh for example) who trash the Clintons, yet they are unable to stay married. I just don't understand how someone like Rush, who has three failed marriages, can discuss the sanctity of marriage, and condemn other's relationships.

[sandyandporter]

Steve, thanks for expounding. I wasn't referring to anything you said in this thread. I agree completely with what you and James have said regarding infidelity and divorce. I would write more but I'm sick as a dog (what exactly does that mean?) and just don't have the focus or strength!

Much love! Sandy

[clemsontigers23]

I think you have mistaken my opinion. I have nothing against divorce. I have nothing against anyone who has been divorced. Everybody has to live with their actions in life, and I am no judge. Everyone has an issue with being judged by others. David has repeatedly judged members of my family without knowing them or circumstances. Therefore, I have responded in kind. I can only take getting bashed so much. I have turned the other cheek often. God doesn't expect me to be a doormat, I assure you.
Certain topics are toxic to certain individuals. My reference to divorce in this thread had nothing to do with David, or you, or anyone. My comment was referring to the Clintons. Many conservatives have been critical of Bill's infidelity, which I'm not justifying. I was simply pointing out that despite many challenges, Bill has been able to keep his marital bond, for better or worse. McCain has not been able to be faithful, and having heard him speak on the issue, I believe he has made his peace with his ex-and with God. It just seems hypocritical for some to trash the Clinton's relationship, when half of American's marriages fail, for better or for worse. If I offended Sandy ever, I apologize. If David took my comments as a dig at him or his family, I apologize....it wasn't intended to be a slam against anyone.
Peace,
Steve

I never insulted your family members. But if they are gay, then they are living in sin. We all have lost and unsaved loved ones. You are no different. I accept your apology, for now, but if you start bringing the discussion into places where it doesn't belong, then we will be back where we started. It's already happened once before.

Sandy, I know what you mean, but I just don't see anything wrong with a lot of the responses. Jesus was honest about everything. He didn't sugarcoat anything, and He went as far as to knocking over tables and making a whip. I would like it if we were able to talk without fear of offending somebody and just be honest about things, but I know that's not going to be the case. Either way, I'm going to keep calling it like I see it. If people don't like that, then they'll have to deal with it. People didn't like a lot of things Jesus said, either. They crucified Him for it.

[sandyandporter]

I never insulted your family members. But if they are gay, then they are living in sin. We all have lost and unsaved loved ones. You are no different. I accept your apology, for now, but if you start bringing the discussion into places where it doesn't belong, then we will be back where we started. It's already happened once before.

Sandy, I know what you mean, but I just don't see anything wrong with a lot of the responses. Jesus was honest about everything. He didn't sugarcoat anything, and He went as far as to knocking over tables and making a whip. I would like it if we were able to talk without fear of offending somebody and just be honest about things, but I know that's not going to be the case. Either way, I'm going to keep calling it like I see it. If people don't like that, then they'll have to deal with it. People didn't like a lot of things Jesus said, either. They crucified Him for it.

You can be honest, speak your mind and still act like a Christian. As for comparing any human behavior to the actions of Jesus Christ.... (*steps away and looks for lightning*) I for one would never take the actions of Jesus to condone my own bad behavior.

So do what you have to do. I've said my piece so I'll retire as the "morality police" where you're concerned.

[clemsontigers23]

You can be honest, speak your mind and still act like a Christian. As for comparing any human behavior to the actions of Jesus Christ.... (*steps away and looks for lightning*) I for one would never take the actions of Jesus to condone my own bad behavior.

So do what you have to do. I've said my piece so I'll retire as the "morality police" where you're concerned.

See, there you go again. This time you accuse me of blaspheming Christ by putting words into my mouth. I never said I was like Christ...far from it, actually. But I do try to be honest, as Christ was honest as well. Therefore, I'm trying to be Christ-like, which is what we should be doing anyways. By the way, Christ was human, but He is perfect. That's why we should strive to be like Him, because He is the model of what a perfect human should be.

I still don't see the bad behavior, but whatever. You can try to tell me I'm not a Christian as many times as you want, but thanks to Christ I am one of His followers and disciples.

[sandyandporter]

See, there you go again. This time you accuse me of blaspheming Christ by putting words into my mouth. I never said I was like Christ...far from it, actually. But I do try to be honest, as Christ was honest as well. Therefore, I'm trying to be Christ-like, which is what we should be doing anyways. By the way, Christ was human, but He is perfect. That's why we should strive to be like Him, because He is the model of what a perfect human should be.

I still don't see the bad behavior, but whatever. You can try to tell me I'm not a Christian as many times as you want, but thanks to Christ I am one of His followers and disciples.

Never said you weren't a Christian... never. Go in peace.

Your sister in Christ, Sandy