jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (46 posts)

Do Christians, blacks in particular, vote economics over values?

  1. tjmatel3 profile image78
    tjmatel3posted 4 years ago via iphone

    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?

    1. 0
      screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. tjmatel3 profile image78
        tjmatel3posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. tjmatel3 profile image78
            tjmatel3posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I called you names? When?

              Believe me, if i wanted to call you names, i wouldnt hold back.

            2. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. 0
                screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Become bigots or try to become God and judge others...Interesting religion here!

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          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.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. 0
        screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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

        1. 0
          screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Brenda,
          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

        2. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          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.

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    roll

  3. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    Maybe people should look to themselves for economic survival.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't that why schools exists? lol

  4. BrianMI6 profile image61
    BrianMI6posted 4 years ago

    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?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        His argument is perfectly consistent: violence is sometimes necessary in the face of violence, and violence against the unborn is immoral.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But violence against the born is moral?

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Violence as an act of self-defence is moral.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Two things,

              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.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

                  2. habee profile image89
                    habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

              2. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. 0
                  screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  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!

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not with a gun. The less people with guns the less people get shot.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You can always choose not to have a gun. No one is forcing you to own one.

              2. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Interesting statement. The less people with guns, the more tyrannical government can be. Much less worry about other people getting shot.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So you need a gun to keep your government in line?

              3. Shanna11 profile image91
                Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                2. Mmargie1966 profile image90
                  Mmargie1966posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  This is the best thing I've read all day!  We may as well get rid of automobiles too.  The less cars, the less amount of deaths in auto accidents!

      2. Repairguy47 profile image59
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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.

  5. mischeviousme profile image59
    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago

    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.

  6. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago

    P.S.

    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.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Utter BS because America was already divided on purpose upon creation/inception.

    2. 0
      screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Brenda,

      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.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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.

 
working