Now that President Obama supports gay marriage, which goes against Christian teaching and values, will Christians, especially minorities, vote against their values and look to the president for economic survival?
Or, will Christians on a whole take a united stand for Biblical teaching and vote against Obama, looking to God as their source of economic provisions? What say you?
I say as a Christian to love thy fellow man as I would love thyself. And let God decide later if gay marriage is against his teachings and values. I'm not familiar with his teaching telling me to be judge and jury for something I disagree with.
To be Christian is to love others. However, our life is values-based, dictated by the Bible. We must love all, but also must take a stand for Christian values.
The Bible clearly states that a gay relationship goes against Godly values. There's no need to wait until later to hear what God says. It's already been said.
Read Romans 1.
God says to love others, yet be a bigot? And you want to worship someone like that? That says quite a bit about your morals. Or the lack thereof.
It is always easy to call people who disagree with us names.
God loves all people equally, but has standards by which we live. Think about your country. The government works to keep you safe and make certain provisions for your benefit.
However, the country also has rules by which we live. If we break any of these rules, we're held responsible and must suffer the consequences.
I called you names? When?
Believe me, if i wanted to call you names, i wouldnt hold back.
Thank you for proving your G/god loves and wants you to be a bigot. It's a pleasure to meet someone who is willing to admit their G/god loves and wants them to produce actions which say "do as I say, not as I do".
You see, that's the problem with religion. It's followers become bigots and they voluntarily admit to not seeing it. It's followers are supposedly to be taught to "LEAD BY EXAMPLE", but in the end they end up bigots.
You as an individual, I certainly hope you're not proud of this fact?
Yes, in dense areas. It even governs the not so dense areas too, but in a different manner. It's called, being a Nation.
Yes, there are rules(laws). However, to a person who is responsible about understanding their own life, will have no need for any such laws/rules or even governing.
Every action has a consequence and a reaction. External authorities hand out punishment, as a consequence, when social laws have been broken. Society deals out the reaction.
So what are you worried about. Don't marry a man and you'll be fine. People of other faiths and some of your own think differently and THAT is what government is for. If we used the bible as a policing policy we would be stoning people for adultery.
I can't say what others will do. But I can say what they should do, as Christians; they should make sure Obama is defeated.
The color of skin shouldn't figure into the equation at all! Are you saying that Christians whose skin happens to be black may vote for Obama just because his skin is black? I sure hope not!
Christians have an opportunity to defeat Obama by voting for the Republican nominee. Even though the current one (Romney I assume) may not be Christian, he IS a Republican, and the Republican Party's stated Platform stands on conservative & Christian values. Citizens therefore have an actual opportunity to hold any Republican Party candidate/elected Official, TO those Platform values.
They do not have that opportunity with Obama nor any Democratic Official (unless they wanna prosecute them for wrong conduct and remove them, which is actually what should've happened already!) because that Party's Platform claims no lawful adherence to the major moral values and issues from the get-go. And since any difference between the Democrat Party and the "Progressive" Party or whatever idiotic name it is, is very hard to tell these days, the Democrat Party is becoming totally invalid/illegal as an American Party anyway.
What I'm saying is that Obama isn't even a Democrat anyway. I'm not sure if the Democrat Platform has been changed or not, but the Party itself (by even nominating Obama in the first place) has veered from it's tradition of even being a Party that upholds the laws of America. At his worst, he's a Communist tyrant; at his best, he's still a fence-sitter depending on whim, convenience, and how close the next Election is.
lmao...too much fox news for sure. To claim that all Republicans are Christians is comical! And to go further and imply Democrats aren't Christians is ridiculous! lol And to say Democrats don't uphold the laws of America is laughable! And to call the elected President of the United States a Communist tyrant is un-American. Give me a break! lmao
You call yourself a Christian who loves God, family, other people, and this country? Yet you judge others and attack them with nasty labels? If that's being a Christian, I'd rather be an Atheist! lol
Who said all Republicans are Christians? Or that all Democrats aren't Christians? Nobody including me.
And you can read 'n' weep if you wanna read the Republican Party Platform and the Democrat Party Platform (if the Democrats have one that's definite). It's not my fault if you can't or won't actually read my posts nor the rules of the American political Parties. If you're an American citizen, you might wanna brush up on those.
Maybe people should look to themselves for economic survival.
I always vote values. In fact, I pretty much base my vote on two things, abortion and gun rights. Abortion is murder and so I take that seriously. Whichever candidates are going to do the most (even if it's very little) to rub out this scourage of /infanticide in our land will usually get my vote. The only reason he won't is if he's the type of person that would try to take away my guns. The 2nd Amendment was put in place by the Founding Fathers so that if the internal safeguards built into the constitution failed, the people could take their land back by force.
Any candidate that would take guns from the people is suspicious in my mind. If they know why the 2nd Amendment was made and they go against it, how do you know they don't want to dominate the people?
That was an interesting comment. In the same breath you stand against the killing of the unborn and you make sure you have a gun in hand, just incase someone steals you property. Of course you could take the thief to court, but perhaps shooting them first is a better idea. Your not in favour of someone killing the unborn (as am I), but God forbid someone steals a lawn chair of your property get the gun out. Wait perhaps it was his chair in the first place and he was just taking it back. Let the courts deal with this or kill him before he leaves the property. Perhaps it's time to change that Amendment and take some guns off the street. Just a thought.
His argument is perfectly consistent: violence is sometimes necessary in the face of violence, and violence against the unborn is immoral.
Violence as an act of self-defence is moral.
Didn't Jesus teach to turn the other cheek?
Is it moral to kill someone when they are unarmed. One can only use the same force being used against him. I believe there is a case in the courts about this. Guy with gun shoot a suspicious looking kid dead.
I don't everyone carrying a gun is what Jesus had in mind.
Sure it can be moral to kill someone whos unarmed. It depends on the situation. Are they crazed on crack? Are they twice your size and bent on killing you or your family? It totally depends on the situation.
Does that happen often to you? I'm 48 and haven't had use for a gun yet. Think I should get a gun and go look for shady characters in nice areas? Should have a look at the states between countries and their gun control. It's interesting.
Not often, just once. Im happy foryou that youve never been raped and left for dead by a man much larger and stronger than you were. I would have easily shot the bastard in the head to protect myself if id had one.
It has happened to me. I didn't have to shoot the perps, though. I fired over their heads, and they ran away. The men were trying to break in on me and my 3 small children in the middle of the night. YES, I'm glad I had a gun.
Jesus doesn't really factor into my views on this. It is not morally consistent to say that the government and the military can have weapons but the common man can not.
Problem is many with guns don't have them locked up and you read about the accidents, usually involving kids. I don't consider under the bed, in a nightstand, or top shelf of a closet locked up. And many with guns, end up having them used on themselves. Leave policing to the police!
Well equally think of the thousands of accidents every year in police raids where they destroy property, kill dogs and even people. Guns are dangerous, so to grant one group of people exclusive rights over them is redundant and morally inconsistent.
To allow all people to own guns would lead to mass killings.lol
There is no evidence to support that. Canada has equally liberal gun laws but has a lower shooting death rate. Crime is a result of a societal problem of some sort, and nothing to do with the method of killing.
Not with a gun. The less people with guns the less people get shot.
You can always choose not to have a gun. No one is forcing you to own one.
Interesting statement. The less people with guns, the more tyrannical government can be. Much less worry about other people getting shot.
The less people with spoons and forks, the less people get fat!
People will always find ways to kill one another if they want to. A gun is not the only vehicle of death, just as a spoon/fork is not the only vehicle for obesity.
Here are a couple of reasons not to take things to court.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- … er-ground/
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ … 560994.php
The twits that make up juries very seldom give us justice.
Come and get my lawn chair and see what happens.
Is that a loaded question? I'm not sure how to answer this, without sounding racist. Here goes...
People tend to follw those that they agree with, not just on political issues but also on personal and cultural similarities.
As far as economics....Obama's "socialist" advocacy isn't even the issue as far as the effort to help the elderly, disabled, and helpless citizens; it's his agenda to create an overblown caricature of it and force it upon people and create class warfare that's the problem. We already HAD a good form of that "socialism" where the poor and helpless were helped, if ya wanna call it socialism. The Bible even advocated a form of that, but it was a scenario among Christians, not among all people; God's people were to put all their assets into the common till and then the Christians were supposed to help the poor, etc. There's nothing wrong with having Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps and other forms of needed welfare!
The problem is that Obama wanted universal health care for supposedly-all people, even if some of the people are able to work and provide for themselves and their families, and it's intent is to kill capitalism in favor of a twisted version of "fairness"; a twisted form of Robin Hoodism, AND actually he wants it to favor certain groups of people based on the political agenda of those groups which are liberal activists for the most part. All of that includes the job market; people are divided by race, background, and even AGE these days, at the push of Obama and his/his cronies' manipulations about how youngsters know more than their parents/grandparents, etc. Obama is a great Divider, not a leader who brings people together the sake of common humanity.
Utter BS because America was already divided on purpose upon creation/inception.
You have no clue. Go out and shop individual insurance plans, they aren't affordable to the average American! Buying your healthcare THROUGH your EMPLOYER is not buying it on your own! It's subsibized by your Employer, or you probably wouldn't have health insurance either.
Indeed, I do "have a clue", so don't be so quick to judge me. I WAS quickly clued-in, believe me. I was turned down for insurance in 2010 right after I developed Rheumatoid Arthritis. We had had the whole plan in the works (not the best premiums, but we were intent on affording it) then I got sick and was honest with the insurance Co. about having to go to the emergency room and the subsequent diagnosis. They approved my husband's coverage, but turned me down flat, even though we were gonna pay their premiums, but referred me to Government insurance which I still couldn't afford, and another possibility which I just missed being eligible for because husband's income was just a little over the required mark. It took quite some time, but husband finally changed jobs to a Company that does have affordable group insurance; I was covered after 90 days, I think it was.
I don't get what meaning is, though. I did say we're supposed to help the poor and helpless. Just not those who have the ability to help themselves. And health insurance COULD BE made to be affordable! It's something called "reform" instead of Obama's radical "change". All the "great thinkers" would've had to do would've been to stop picking on the already-existing great things about the Social Security system and focus more on cutting out fraud in the SSA and Insurance Companies, etc., instead of ADDING specific groups into the mix because of race, gender, etc. Heck, what DO you think Obama's trying to do by adding homosexual partners to even our Military's eligibility for insurance plans?! He's trying to use even the ill-conceived notion of "gay rights" to force ALL of America to accept his "universal" health care plan. Didn't you see or remember some of the top Democrats (I think it was Pelosi, etc.) say that America WOULD have universal health care later, even though that idea was dismissed from the final plan temporarily because most Americans don't approve of it? Surely you don't watch much tv......
But I will tell you this-------Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their followers do not care one whit about individual Americans, nor even those groups that they claim to represent; they want one thing and one thing only----power. And so far they've gotten that by hook and by crook. Yet WE the PEOPLE are supposed to be the power. Not happening. Most of the power of the people has been ripped from our hands, in lieu of the liberal agenda.
by Michael Collins3 years ago
The tragic events that happened in Boston in a way proved the message that no amount of laws will prevent the will of a mad man. Crazy (whether in the name of his/her God or some other reason) follows no law, rhyme or...
by thirdmillenium2 months ago
Does Islam contain some doctrines that make it mandatory for all Muslims to kill/destroy/annihilate followers of other religions/atheists/agnostics? Some say it does. Some others say it was not originally in the...
by My Esoteric15 months ago
If you were King for a day, what elements of of the U.S. Constitution amd its Amendments would you want to see deleted, repealed, added, or mofified to make it fit more to the way the SIGNERS of the Constitution...
by WTucker7 years ago
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what...
by egiv6 years ago
There are too many guns in the United States. How many more shootings need to happen for people to realize that the second amendment is outdated. I'm not trying to say that nobody should be allowed to have one, I have...
by LiamBean4 years ago
First, this is not my idea. It was presented by an author on a web-site that concentrates on economics.The proposal is this. Do not attempt to curtail gun ownership rights. Rather levy a federal tax on all fire-arms and...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.