I Did It (I Mean, I Didn’t Do It)…

I have explained at length that I do not support John McCain or Barack Obama – primarily because I believe that neither espouse true Christian values, even though they profess Christianity with their mouths.

I did not come to this decision lightly – I stayed in serious prayer (and the Word of God), and I realized that I couldn’t trump my allegiance to God with my affinity for those who share my race. Since I have been open and honest about my take on this year’s major presidential candidates, I thought it was only fitting that I close the loop on my personal decision & formally conclude the matter.

I participated in Georgia’s early voting process several weeks ago.

I thought about my grandmother – who was the direct descendant of Tennessee slaves, and always lowered her head and called white folks “yessa” and “nossa” (no matter the age) until her death at age 92.

I though about my parents who fought to place me in a home in a comfortable middle class neighborhood after raising my older brothers and sisters in housing projects.

I thought about the racial slurs hurled at me and my buddies growing up in the city – in the late 70″s and early 80’s!

I thought about my own children who revel in their comfortable “middleclassness”, and who have benefited (along with me and my wife) from people who held tightly to their God-ordained convictions.

I voted for county commissioners, judges, senators, the district attorney for my county, school board members, and county initiatives and bond issues.

I did not vote for John McCain or Barack Obama.

I don’t say that flippantly or as a cast-away remark. It was one of the hardest things I had ever done (or not done, in this case). I can talk as big and bad as I want to, but when confronted with the opportunity to vote for a viable (in many eyes) black candidate – I prayed hard and with conviction…in the polling place!

As painful as it was to my flesh, the indwelling Holy Spirit comforted me as I stood firm in my godly convictions.

The only thing that I vehemently advocate on this blog is self study of the Word of God and the avoidance of false teachers of all persuasions. Vote for who you want to vote for, and don’t blame me for inflaming an already tense election cycle or promoting apathy.

Oh, and I’m thick skinned so continuing to call me a “sell-out nigger”, “Uncle Tom” or “Black Judas” in my email will only drive me closer to God. Besides, you’ve got to get in line with all of the hate mail and death threats I get from the pimp defenders anyway – and you’ll be at the end of a very long line.

Unlike many, I’m not trying to vote for the next “Jesus” (black or white, Republican or Democrat) – I’ll simply put my trust in the real One instead:

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.

When darkness seems to hide His face,
I rest on His unchanging grace.
In every high and stormy gale,
My anchor holds within the veil.

His oath, His covenant, His blood,
Support me in the whelming flood.
When all around my soul gives way,
He then is all my Hope and Stay.

When He shall come with trumpet sound,
Oh may I then in Him be found.
Dressed in His righteousness alone,
Faultless to stand before the throne.

On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.

About these ads

42 Responses to “I Did It (I Mean, I <em>Didn’t</em> Do It)…”


  1. 1 gcmwatch October 8, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    And let the people of God say…amen.

  2. 2 djenk23 October 8, 2008 at 8:05 pm

    amen….i guess not voting for Barry Obama makes me a black Judas too

  3. 3 Brother K October 8, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    ST, I’ve stayed quiet while watching you work this thing out in your numerous posts on this election cycle, and I can assure you that no one can legitimately accuse you of “promoting apathy.” Quite the opposite my dear brother; I would earnestly hope and pray that everyone follow the example that you’ve set down in these posts and examine themselves within the course of human events clinging solely to Word of God for true guidance and direction. Rather than behave as the hypocrites are preparing to do, “holding their noses” and voting for policies (and their adherent politicians) that stand counter to the very nature of God, you’ve presented an admirable and actionable counter.

    May God continue to bless you and yours with His wisdom.

  4. 4 Brian Foulks October 9, 2008 at 9:16 am

    Brother you know God is awesome. I just recently got rid of my gun because I was a true advocate of protecting my family. You have truly been an example of truth for me through this blog. Your words here pretty much some up how the “word of God has rocked my dome.”

    I was just thinking the morning about your replies to people and how it if focused upon building people wether you agreed or disagreed. Your stance has been an example for me and my god continue to empower you to stand bold on his truth.

  5. 5 Pastor Jim October 9, 2008 at 9:44 am

    A devoted and faithful man of God. May your tribe increase!

    And may God purify His Church to the degree that every race and tribe is reconciled one to another for His glory and fame!

  6. 6 speaking truth October 9, 2008 at 10:31 am

    Everyone

    Thanks for your kind words. It’s a shame that my brief story should even solicit such responses – particularly because it further illustrates how difficult it is to do (what I consider to be) the right thing…and that “the right thing” is the exception as opposed to the general rule.

    May the Lord strenghten us ALL for His tireless service.

    Amen!

  7. 7 Independent Conservative October 9, 2008 at 11:45 am

    ST, let me speak for all the deluded who take comfort in the politics of man by saying, because of this you will have total crop failure. Your mule will no longer tread the earth for you. Your wine press will go dry. Your oxen will take ill and die. Your fig tree will no longer bear fruit and you will pant for drink, because your brook will turn dry.
    :mrgreen: :D :lol:

    (And let me say in seriousness brother, when they ask us to take The Mark, may you and I starve together.)

  8. 8 speaking truth October 9, 2008 at 12:32 pm

    …because of this you will have total crop failure. Your mule will no longer tread the earth for you. Your wine press will go dry. Your oxen will take ill and die. Your fig tree will no longer bear fruit and you will pant for drink, because your brook will turn dry.

    :lol:

    All of that has already happened because I continue to “put my mouth on the mend and womend of Gawd”, IC. The new calamities will have to get in line with the other biblical plagues I’ve unleashed on ymself because of my allegiance to God and not man :roll:

  9. 9 Keith Tolbert October 9, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Speaking Truth,

    Amen brother. I voted on September 24th and not for Obama or McCain either. But I did vote for a black man. One who walks his Christian talk . . . Alan Keyes!

  10. 10 CiCi October 9, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    ST,

    Let me first say that I am truly sorry that you have been called names, insulted, and harassed because of the popsition you have taken regarding the presidential election. Although, I don’t agree with you, I have great respect for your thoughts and efforts to make the right decision for you as you felt led by the Holy Spirit.

    However, I think that certain points need to be made in this discussion. I will try to be brief as I know we all lead busy lives and have lots to do other than reading our favorite blog :-). One thing is that everyone that is enthusiastic and excited about this election is not looking to elect a “saviour”. Many of us are just excited about the candidate and some or all of his policies (which we really don’t need to debate nor will I debate with anyone on this board — that’s not the purpose of this post)and the direction that we believe our nation can go in under his leadership.
    Some of us are able to vote for someone in the political arena without requiring that they advocate that all of our Christian beliefs become legislation and the law of the land. There even might be some of us who have the same kinds of dilemnas that Christian candidates and politicians have when it comes to public policy — holding very strong personal beliefs, but yet weighing those against the will of all of the people and sound public policy in this great democracy that we live in. For example, condom distribution in the fight against HIV/AIDS, STDs, and unwanted pregnancy — while as Christians we know the only way to avoid all of these is abstinence unless married (and even that’s no guarantee these days), is that really good public policy given the empircal evidence?

    I think that this is a quandry that will exist as long as there are nations — personal religious convictions vs. pluralistic societies. I, for one, am grateful to live in a democracy where I can vote and there is public discourse and citizens try to come to a consensus on the core values that we believe should govern our land. I would hate to live in a nation where I didn’t have a say and my life was left up to someone’s interpretation of what they believed to be “God’s Word” — be it the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or anything that they wanted to make up. And for this right and privilege I feel a responsibility to vote and participate as best I can. Many probably don’t agree with me but, that’s fine. Dissension is a right we have here in the United States.

    And, finally, on a personal note let me say I will be proud to cast my vote for Barack Obama. My father had to pay a poll tax to vote, and I have an uncle that is still living who served his country in a segregated army. And for them to live to see the day when a man who could be their son has the chance to be elected the Preident of the United States of America is truly amazing. And I thank God that I am alive to see it.

  11. 11 speaking truth October 9, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    CiCi,

    Thanks (as usual) for your insight. Don’t feel sorry for me regarding my “interesting” mail – you’ve read many of my posts and you know how unhinged some people can be…comes with the territory.

    As you and I have discussed previously, we both fall on different sides of the Obama issue, but we simply agree to disagree. My personal quandry is no different that the feelings that many people are having (and expressing) all over the nation – but they will find a reason to overcome their personal objections.

    This was simply my transparency regarding my journey. If I may get a little nitpicky (it wouldn’t be an ST comment if I didn’t, right?) – we live in a democratic republic, not a true democracy. We elect officials to vote on our behalf (and Electors in the Electoral College to cast votes on our behalf for the Presidency). We hope that they will act in our best interest, but many times they cover their own butts and crawl back to us begging for another chance during election season.

    That said, I’m not a big fan of legislating theocracy of any sort (Christianity, Islamic, Hindu, etc.) – primarily because it diminishes God’s ultimate reign (or at least the perception of it). I still want to vote for people who earnestly share my values and strive to be Christ-like in every area of their lives. The beautiful thing about this country is that you and I can disagree on these core issues and no one will knock on either of our doors and drag us away in the middle of the night.

    I understand what you’re saying, and I hope that you understand what I’m saying as well…

  12. 12 anointedvessel October 10, 2008 at 3:22 am

    I stand behind you 100% IST I plan on going in the booth and writing on the ticket with a pen Jesus Christ and walking out. Or if Ron Paul appears on the ticket I’ll vote for him, but no way will McCain or Obamanation get my vote. One day we will have to give an account for what we do and I don’t want to have to explain to God why I chose an unrighteous king (biblically speaking). Forget pro-black and pro-health reform, what ever happened to pro-Christ? I love the verse you put up, “my hope is built on nothing less….. If Christians would just lean to God and not their own understanding, and look to the hills from which comes their help, they won’t have to wait for the government to take care of them. Healthcare reform is never going to work, it’s just going to further break an already broken down overcrowded system, full of understaffed overworked under payed people. Back in the day, people went to the priest and before the elders of the church when they got sick, now they go to the Doctor. with the plan the Obamites want you won’t be seeing your doctor you’ll be seeing uncle Sam and that is far far worse. You thought insurance companies were bad at denying claims, huh!!! people must have forgotten how hard it is to get workers comp. and social security disability. If you have stage 3 or 4 cancer, and your 60 or older they will probably just let you die to save money. Terri Schiavo was an ominous sign of times to come and now those times are here. The government refused to care for her anymore even when the family pleaded and get ready …they are going to start doing this on a far massive scale and believe me when I tell you…they will find a way to justify it. People should be careful what they ask for, the more the government controls the less say you have. Obama and McCain I have two words for you. SIT DOWN!!!!

  13. 13 speaking truth October 10, 2008 at 11:49 am

    Keith,

    You had to mention Alan Keyes? Things were just starting to die down over here – then you go and throw a potential grenade into the mix!

    Just kidding (sort of). I lost some repsect for AK when the Repubs shipped him off to a part-time appartment in the South suburbs of Chicago in order to run against Obama for his Senate seat. It was a stupid idea that failed miserably – and the Republicans unknowingly exposed their racial insensitivity (or bias, depends on who you talk to) in thinking that running a black man against another black man would somehow split the black vote.
    :roll:

    Anyway, I’ve lost faith in both major parties as a whole…

  14. 14 Independent Conservative October 10, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Keith Tolbert – Alan Keyes is a Roman Catholic, he’s an operative for the Pope. If he rejects Mary idolatry I’ll say he’s a brother on truth, but at the moment, his approval of Roman Catholic Cult of Mary doctrine leaves him in so-called brother status according to 1 Corinthians 5:11.

    I won’t be voting for Alan Keyes for President, because while he’s often expressed some good policy points, his campaign for President is nothing more than a money grab. (Alan Keyes is the Conservative version of Jesse Jackson and not known to cheat on his wife like his Liberal counterpart. But Keyes’ goal is the same as Jesse’s, stir up stuff and leave with more money than he came with.) And given the cult he’s with, he would cater to a bunch as President that I stay far away from. I would not vote for Pope Benedict to be President, so I won’t vote for his henchman Alan Keyes either.

    Alan Keyes as President, would leave the world with an even stronger view that Roman Catholicism is Christianity. I’m not voting for a man to be President who claims to be Christian, but promotes a cult! It makes a mockery of what I hold most important.

    However, I think Keyes going to IL to run against Obama WAS A GREAT THING! It really helped expose many of the core issues with Obama and I’ve noted some of that. I might have even voted for Keyes in that US Senate race, but President, no way. (Knowing what I know now, I likely would not vote for Keyes to the US Senate “today” either. But for what I knew back when, I probably would have voted for Keyes as IL Senator over Obama.) We see the way Bush treated Pope Benedict when that antichrist came to America, I dare not think what Alan Keyes would do. We’d really see the President kissing the ring in a photo then LITERALLY.

    I think Alan Keyes as President might very well make America an appendage of Rome, more than it already is. Policy wise, if there was an Alan Keyes that was not in league with the Vatican, I’d very likely vote for him.

    Also, Alan Keyes wasted saints’ time, with stuff like “let Roy Moore have a big 10 commandments monument at the government court house”. As if that rock of stone can save someone. But Roman Catholics love their IDOLS. This is also why I find Alan Keyes as President would probably have MANY bad results.

  15. 15 Keith Tolbert October 10, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    Points well taken gentlmen; however, I hope it’s not your intention for the US to be some sort of theocracy. There was only one of those, Israel, and that didn’t work out so well.

    I disagree with Keyes’ catholicism; but I believe he is sincere about his stance on the issues. He holds convictions not just “finger-in-the-wind” proposals. He has disagreed with the Pope on many things and does not walk lock-step with the vatican. He understands that this country’s moral laxity is the source of its true problems and points toward Jesus Christ as the answer. That, to me, makes him the best candidate.

    I’ll vote for him every time, that is at least until you run IC.

  16. 16 Independent Conservative October 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Well Keith, I have no desires of being a publican :D .

    Of course I don’t desire a theocracy. Not unless it is the millennial reign, with Christ as the leader and eternity after that. But I personally have discontinued endorsing candidates who basically promote false doctrines they claim are Christianity. I could better deal with an unbeliever than someone who soils the truth of Christianity. With Keyes’, it’s not just about the Pope, it’s about the whole core of what makes Roman Catholicism what it is. I can’t endorse some guy who is pushing that and may give it a wider voice. In my opinion, Keyes avoids discussing the details of the doctrine he beleives and only says what Protestants like to hear, because it makes his numbers.

    So basically, I’m more likely to vote for an unbeliever who does not make any claims to Jesus at all, than someone who claims the Lord’s name and is actually promoting a false doctrine, such as Keyes or Mitt Romney. If we were back in 2004, knowing now that Bush showed he’s a universalist and promoted it as Christianity on national TV, I would not have voted for him either. Not knowing what I know now and now better realizing the dangers of false doctrines that claim the Lord’s Name. (For that reason and others given his performance this 2nd term.)

    And with President, the bar is pretty high, because the responsibilities are rather vast. I mean if Keyes was running for a county commissioner seat, the responsibilities are far less, the level of influence is far less, nobody would be influenced much by his view of faith and it probably would not even be asked what he beleives. But guys who are promoting Mary idolatry or teaching God had to work His way up to God status are types I won’t help get national focus as America’s executive point man for 4 years. I’d rather say none. If Obama wins, you can be sure, the heresy he calls the “social gospel” Black Liberation Theology and Liberation Theology in general will be given more of a view as legitimate Christian doctrines, when they are full out heresies. McCain is praying at walls like Bush and Obama. McCain is also giving homage to false Mary idols and we’re at a point in America where dual covenant heresy if not Baal universalism is promoted as truth. I just can’t endorse those who claim to believe in my Lord and Savior when they are leading people to a doctrinal pit. I’d rather they were an unbeliever, than doctrinally this:
    Jude 1:12-13 (New American Standard Bible)

    12 These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted;

    13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

    They’re claiming a seat at the love feasts, while promoting all manner of idolatry and false doctrines. I’d rather they never claimed any seat at the love feasts at all.

    I’m not saying there is no Roman Catholic who can be saved, plenty of them turn to the truth and leave that cult. Some probably come to know the truth, then leave the cult formally some time thereafter. But I am saying if someone wants my vote and they claim my Lord, they better separate themselves from cults first.

  17. 17 Independent Conservative October 10, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    I figure these are reasons why saints in the early church simply abstained from political involvement, unless it happened to be their job before they were converted.

    I am involved in the politics some, but I take a far more cautious approach than in times past.

  18. 18 Keith Tolbert October 11, 2008 at 5:18 am

    Again, points well taken. But I think we have to remember we are electing a president, not a messiah. I don’t know too many people who actually look to the president for spiritual guidance. You didn’t see a massive conversion to catholicism when Kennedy was president and you didn’t see a massive conversion to Christianity when Jimmy “Yes, I have lusted in my heart” Carter was president.

    The president’s job is to uphold the Constitution and defend our country. I belief I can trust Keyes to do that . . . and just that. I think he understands better than anyone else out there where his responsibilities as president begin and end. There has been no more consistent warrior vs. abortion, homosexual marriage, euthanasia and the right to religious expression than he.

    I think even the reformed amongst us forget that even unbelievers can do civil good. Even if it isn’t salvific. Keyes would fulfill his mandate as president. And I really have to disagree with you on the “conservative’s jesse jackson” comment. I’ve had the opportunity to work with the man, personally and I find him to be genuine, even though he is misguided in his catholicism.

    At this rate we would never participate in the political process. We are, for now, citizens of two kingdoms. We have responsibilities in both. Choose the best man for the job, not necessarily the perfect man.

  19. 19 Keith Tolbert October 11, 2008 at 5:19 am

    Also, nothing the early Christians did is binding. Only Scripture is binding.

  20. 20 CiCi October 11, 2008 at 11:00 am

    ST,

    Of course, I understand what you’re saying and appreciate you both as a brother and a thoughtful ‘soldier in the army of the Lord’ as the older saints would say. :-) And I did pass my civics class so I’m well aware of our representative republic/democracy and pray everyday that God would have His way in it — ultimately using whatever and whomever He sees fit for His purposes. I just try to do what I feel is my part. And, I also agree with you about the Alan Keyes going to Chicago situation — I really thought that the whole thing was beneathe him at the time, but then atain, I don’t know him that well.

    Brother Keith,

    Thank you so much for echoing some of my sentiments and savng me the time of having to type them all myself. :-) Although we might not agree on every candidate, I think we do agree on the fact that as you so clearly stated, we are “electing a president and not a messiah”. And I personally feel that if we are to fulfill all of the mandates of scripture we must participate as much as possible in the civic lives of the societies in which we live while we live in them, working for the good of all.

  21. 21 Independent Conservative October 11, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Keith,

    We all know the office these people are running for. If it was about a messiah, I would not mention I’d be more likely to vote for an unbeliever than someone who promotes a false doctrine as Christianity.

    I don’t know too many people who actually look to the president for spiritual guidance. You didn’t see a massive conversion to catholicism when Kennedy was president and you didn’t see a massive conversion to Christianity when Jimmy “Yes, I have lusted in my heart” Carter was president.

    What happened with people such as Kennedy was not a rapid rush to join the Roman Catholic ranks, but rather perceptions towards Roman Catholicism turned more accepting to their doctrines being “OK”. Just as we’ve seen people now claim Mormons are OK. And the Roman Catholics and Mormons both run the same “don’t vote against me because I believe a little different than you” lines. Again, the issue is that this gives a stage for their false doctrines in the sense that it desensitizes Christians from recognizing their doctrines are unbiblical. Also, JFK was not a “devout” Roman Catholic, but rather a “social” Roman Catholic. He claimed them, but he certainly was not as deep into the group doctrinally speaking as someone such as Alan Keyes is.

    With Keyes, yea he’s for the right to religious expression, so much so that he’s led an effort to keep a rock near a courthouse in full violation of the laws he’d be claiming to uphold as President. Keyes made it seem as if it was sinful for the rock to be removed. Another instance where Christians jumped on the bandwagon and made ourselves look foolish. Instead of respecting the rule of law, Christians ran with Keyes and begged Roy Moore to keep the rock in place, to break the law’s of man over a rock, as if God’s presence was in the rock. While 2 Corinthians 3:3 shows the whole effort was misguided, to break laws over a stone. If that’s standing for religious expression, I know I won’t be standing with Alan Keyes. And personally, I’m not standing for “religious expression”, I’m standing for Christ.

    Keith, you mentioned.


    even unbelievers can do civil good.

    Keith, I need you to read my comment again and see where I clearly note why I take a stance with Keyes that I don’t even put on unbelievers. You’re speaking as if I claim never to see an unbeliever that might be able to be in a political post, when I’m saying I’d likely endorse an unbeliever before a “so-called” brother. I’d vote for Mark Levin or Michael Savage before Alan Keyes. All 3 agree with me on much politically, but only one of them is a so-called brother, Keyes. I know we disagree, but want to make this clear. I’m not saying I never vote for someone who is not Christian, but rather I at times put them over people who promote false doctrines and claim to be Christians.

    There’s nothing in scripture that binds saints to have to be involved in politics as we are. The stance of the early church against political involvement was never a case of them avoiding any “responsibility”. Rather, they didn’t get caught up in the affairs of ungodly men. If the governments of this world are to all bow to the Antichrist, the point has to come where Christians will have no options at the ballot. I’m not so bold as to claim my going to the voting booth is better than their stance against it, perhaps it would be better to abstain, I won’t look back at past saints and claim avoiding political involvement is wrong. I used to have that view and have since had to depart from it, given it’s obvious if we are not truly citizens of this world, we’re not bound to having to pick any political leader for it.

    Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, are not found in the Bible, but a much similar statement is found in a cult that is popular in America, Freemasonry. And this nation’s capitol was given a full Freemason dedication by its first President. So I certainly don’t feel Christians are somehow required or under some “duty” to have to participate in the processes of a Freemason government, when even this Freemasonry rooted government gives us the option to not participate. So even in the eyes of government, Christians who choose not to vote are good citizens, they pay their taxes and follow the laws.

    CiCi

    And I personally feel that if we are to fulfill all of the mandates of scripture we must participate as much as possible in the civic lives of the societies in which we live while we live in them, working for the good of all.

    And endorsing people who approve of legal murder of babies in the womb accomplishes good how? And what scripture says Christians have to be involved as much as possible in civic affairs? Can you show us where the Apostles went for conferences with Caesar and led political rallies? If God’s kingdom is NOT of this world, how can you claim Christians have instruction from scripture to be involved in all the civic affairs of this world? And why do you think the early church disagreed with you?

    Where is the scripture that suggests Christians should always vote? Martin Luther King, Jr. being shot because he talked about things like Blacks voting does NOT mean God said Christians should always vote. And I could say more about King, but I’ll end it there.

  22. 22 Keith Tolbert October 12, 2008 at 1:45 am

    IC,

    “What happened with people such as Kennedy was not a rapid rush to join the Roman Catholic ranks, but rather perceptions towards Roman Catholicism turned more accepting to their doctrines being “OK”.”

    I don’t recall either Kennedy or Carter actively promoting either catholic or Christian doctrines in their official capacities.

    “Again, the issue is that this gives a stage for their false doctrines in the sense that it desensitizes Christians from recognizing their doctrines are unbiblical.”

    Any Christian who falls for this or allows himself to become “desensitized” by this has a lot bigger problems than what’s on stage. Perhaps they need to “examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith”.

    “If that’s standing for religious expression, I know I won’t be standing with Alan Keyes. And personally, I’m not standing for “religious expression”, I’m standing for Christ.”

    If you don’t stand for religious expression your blog may become a thing of the past and your ability to stand for Christ may become severely impaired. Just ask Polycarp or John Hus or William Tyndale or John Wycliffe or any Christian in the Sudan.

    I also need you to read my comment again (I don’t know how to do the fancy links back and forth). I said Keyes knows what his job would be as president. He knows that promoting any faith or doctrine is out of bounds as the president of this country. And I’m sure that he would not. If any true Christian ever became president of this country and attempted to promote Christianity, he would be wrong to do so under our constitution. Not that I’d be against him for doing so; but he’d still be violating our constitution.

    “There’s nothing in scripture that binds saints to have to be involved in politics as we are.”

    There is also nothing in Scripture prohibiting it. Let us not shout where Scripture is silent.

    “The stance of the early church against political involvement was never a case of them avoiding any “responsibility”. Rather, they didn’t get caught up in the affairs of ungodly men.”

    I do not fault them for their choice; however, how do you propose we fulfill our mandate to be “salt and light” without showing up in every field of human endeavor? Again, nothing the early church did is binding on my conscience. Only Scripture is binding on my conscience. The early church didn’t necessarily live under a representative republic.

    “If the governments of this world are to all bow to the Antichrist, the point has to come where Christians will have no options at the ballot.”

    When this happens I don’t think we’ll be voting any more.

    “I won’t look back at past saints and claim avoiding political involvement is wrong.”

    Me either. Their convictions are theirs, mine are mine. I believe our goals are the same. As just a government as “humanly” possible.

    “CiCi

    ‘And I personally feel that if we are to fulfill all of the mandates of scripture we must participate as much as possible in the civic lives of the societies in which we live while we live in them, working for the good of all.’

    And endorsing people who approve of legal murder of babies in the womb accomplishes good how? And what scripture says Christians have to be involved as much as possible in civic affairs? Can you show us where the Apostles went for conferences with Caesar and led political rallies? If God’s kingdom is NOT of this world, how can you claim Christians have instruction from scripture to be involved in all the civic affairs of this world? And why do you think the early church disagreed with you?”

    I don’t think CiCi is advocating endorsing people who approve of legal murder of babies in the womb. Where did that come from? We’re discussing a man who has dedicated his life to the fight against that. And again, it’s ok to disagree with the early church. They were sinners and fallible just like us. The early church, while being doctrinally sound, also burned heretics. Probably something we would disagree with today . . . well not totally, but y’know what I mean! :-)

    “Another instance where Christians jumped on the bandwagon and made ourselves look foolish.”

    Hey, don’t be so concerned about looking foolish . . . God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are . . .” That includes us!

    P.S.
    I hope our little disagreement here won’t cause you to pull the link from your blog to mine! :-)

  23. 23 CiCi October 12, 2008 at 8:58 am

    IC,

    First of all, none of my previous comments were addressed to you. I was responding/speaking to specific people on this board.I would appreciate it if you would no longer address any of your comments to me. In my original post here, I stated that I was not going to debate specific policy positions that various leaders hold. I still stand by that position.

    I have visited your site, read many of your positions and think I have a fairly good idea of where you are coming from. I have not posted there because I do not wish (not to be confused with being unable) to debate with you as you appear to be someone to always want to have the “last word”. I’m not interested in that type of discourse as I don’t find it to be a good use of my time and counter productive to what it is I hope to learn and occasionally contribute to these types of discussions.

    But, to be clear, I didn’t mention Dr. King and am glad that you kept anything negative that you had to say about him to yourself. However, as a PERSON who would have been denied the right to participate in the political process that very much determined many aspects of my life here on earth I am extremely grateful for the sacrifices of those who fought in the civil rights movement. I do personally feel an obligation to vote and participate. And I am very congnizant of the fact that many of those disenfrancised before me were Christians, too, who loved God. Yet they were still lynched, denied jobs, education, opportunity, human dignity and sufferred in ways that I can only imagine. Again, I thank God for those people that sacificed for me in what I believe was a tremendous move of God.

    And as far as holding rallies, etc….there is much more to civic life than the political arena and “meeting with Caesar” as you say. However, I don’t think that my Christianity in and of itself excludes any of those things. If I am a financial expert in the area of market economies and am asked to have a meeting with a government official or body am I forbidden to meet with them because I am a Christian? I think not; and I would use the example of Joseph as a guide for that. He served in a government that was not honoring the Lord in all of its laws and customs. However, he upheld the law of the land while maintianing His integrity before the Lord and God used him mightily as he served in a government position.

    Did the early church tell us specifically not to vote?

    Scripture tells to love our neighbors as ourselves. And I think that being involved in civic life is one way that we can do that. For instance If I were a foster child, I would want someone to advocate for me to have adequate medical and dental insurance so that I could have preventive health care and dental visits. We had a case here in Maryland where a 13 year old boy with medicaid died because he couldn’t find a dentist who would treat hin in time because of the low number of dentists who will take medicaid due to the low reimbursement rate. The abcess in his tooth eventually ruptured and the infection spread to his brain. Despite emergency surgery the little boy died. If we had better medicaid regulations maybe his death (and others )could have been avoided. Medicaid policy is set by legislation, hence, the connection to voting and civic involvement.

    Finally, the point of my original post was not to convince anyone of anything. I simply thought that another point of view had relevance and should be presented. So don’t vote if you don’t want to that’s truly your right. But don’t condemn those that feel a different way. We know that this world is not our home, but on this issue we just try to do what we think is right and the best we can while we’re here.

  24. 24 Independent Conservative October 12, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Keith,

    If you don’t stand for religious expression your blog may become a thing of the past and your ability to stand for Christ may become severely impaired. Just ask Polycarp or John Hus or William Tyndale or John Wycliffe or any Christian in the Sudan.

    Keith, this is where the Religious Industry of the “Religous Right” makes a terrible disconnect from scripture. Keyes and Roy Moore started an effort that violated the laws they both claim to respect. They were asked to move a hunk of rock from government grounds and initially refused even after mandated by government to do so. And had a ton of rallies and books made afterward crying about it. That has NOTHING to do with sharing the message of Christ in public, although Moore and Keyes sure hyped it up as if that was the case. The 10 Commandments are treated as salvific by people like Keyes and all the manpower that could have been placed into telling the world about Christ was spent focused on a rock in a building and unbelievers seeing the Christians in the effort as straight fools. Fools in the 1 Corinthians 14:23 sense of looking insane. When Paul went to Gentile areas, he went and spoke in the public areas, he didn’t go laying up rocks with the 10 commandments in their judicial halls. Please Keith, show me where the Apostles laid a PHYSICAL ROCK with the 10 commandments up in a building of the government of men? They put up the Rock of Offense with their WORDS, the message of Jesus Christ. Those commandments in stone don’t save, 2 Corinthians 3:3 and no it does not compare to my blog and it certainly does not compare to Polycarp or John Hus or William Tyndale or John Wycliffe or any Christian in the Sudan. If the Christians in the Sudan were simply allowed to be Christians in public while not trying to force a rock with the 10 commandments into a judicial building, they’d be in great shape right now.

    He knows that promoting any faith or doctrine is out of bounds as the president of this country. And I’m sure that he would not.

    I think our discussion about that rock in a judicial building shows otherwise.

    If any true Christian ever became president of this country and attempted to promote Christianity, he would be wrong to do so under our constitution.

    No true Christian will ever be President, so this is not a matter that even requires speculation.

    Not that I’d be against him for doing so; but he’d still be violating our constitution.

    Well how might a President violate the US Constitution by promoting faith, yet do it in a manner that you would not be against? Can you offer an example for this hypothetical situation?

    There is also nothing in Scripture prohibiting it. Let us not shout where Scripture is silent.

    We agree on that.

    I do not fault them for their choice; however, how do you propose we fulfill our mandate to be “salt and light” without showing up in every field of human endeavor? Again, nothing the early church did is binding on my conscience. Only Scripture is binding on my conscience. The early church didn’t necessarily live under a representative republic.

    Many saints in church history were in representative republics and did not get involved in political affairs.

    If a saint does not desire to be in political affairs, they can and do fulfill the mandate to be light in dark places as well if not better than we who are politically involved.

    Matthew 5:13-16 (New American Standard Bible)

    13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.

    14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;

    15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.

    16 “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

    17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

    18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

    19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Now Keith, that is not a mandate to go and vote. If you feel not voting fails to uphold Matthew 5:13-20, you’re saying saints who don’t get politically involved are in sin and failing to follow the commands of Christ. Which you’ve already said you are not saying. So Keith, you can’t have this both ways. To uphold Matthew 5:13-20 is just as Paul did, go into the public squares and proclaim Christ, nothing to do with voting.

    Who was Jesus sending them proclaim the gospel to? First the Jew, to surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees. Keith, the Pharisees were pro-life, they were anti-homosexual everything, they were seeking to in some ways keep the Mosaic law. But that was not light the Pharisees were displaying in their pro-life, anti-homosexual stance, those Pharisees were in darkness. Because they forsook Christ. When Christians spend time trying to promote so-called “Judeo Christian values” it leaves Christians playing the role of Pharisees. I don’t need a ballot to proclaim the message of Jesus. The Apostles of the Lord Jesus didn’t go around seeking to speak with the political leaders of their day, they instead went to the people, hit the streets and shared the message of Christ. That’s how you uphold Matthew 5:13-20.

    As just a government as “humanly” possible.

    Humanity has proven to be totally depraved.

    I don’t think CiCi is advocating endorsing people who approve of legal murder of babies in the womb. Where did that come from?

    Did you miss the part where CiCi noted she’s for Obama?

    Hey, don’t be so concerned about looking foolish . . . God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise;

    No Keith, that whole entire stone at the courthouse matter was foolish and not simply from a worldly perspective. God never told us to break a decree from government, when government says to remove a rock with the 10 commandments from government property. This is like the “In God We Trust” on money, its a farce man, Jesus said it’s Ceasar’s, Matthew 22:20-22. So is the Alabama courthouse!

    I hope our little disagreement here won’t cause you to pull the link from your blog to mine!

    No, but if you don’t get your tithe payment in to me soon I might. And also be sure to send me your First Fruits offering, oh I mean Tabernacle Offering. :lol:

    CiCi, I’ll read and respond to your latest comment later.

  25. 25 Independent Conservative October 12, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    CiCI,

    First of all, none of my previous comments were addressed to you.

    Well if you have a problem with me responding, you should not post your statements in public places.

    I would appreciate it if you would no longer address any of your comments to me.

    I don’t jump into private conversations, but this place here is public and viewable by all. I as a member of the public will exercise my privilege to respond so long as ST continues to grant me that privilege here. If a conversation is to be held in private, there are private means to accomplish that and I’d never know a word that was said. If you share your thoughts with everyone, don’t be surprised when there is a response from someone reading what you’ve made public.

    And you said to Keith:

    Thank you so much for echoing some of my sentiments and savng me the time of having to type them all myself.

    So you’ve obviously been reading my discussion with him and might have jumped in yourself if he had not said things you agreed with.

    I have visited your site, read many of your positions and think I have a fairly good idea of where you are coming from. I have not posted there because I do not wish (not to be confused with being unable) to debate with you as you appear to be someone to always want to have the “last word”. I’m not interested in that type of discourse as I don’t find it to be a good use of my time and counter productive to what it is I hope to learn and occasionally contribute to these types of discussions.

    Well you may see it as debate to avoid, but it’s usually rather discussing matters of faith between saints, not debate for debate’s sake. 1 Thessalonians 5:14 tells saints to admonish each other when needed. So what you’ve seen on my blog involves much of that. Some of which you’ve likely agreed with at times, as you’ve also obviously at times disagreed although you never mentioned it.

    It’s very easy to sit back and never actually engage anyone who disagrees with you. But as I’ve shown you, scripture does command saints to admonish when needed, but there is none that says saints have to vote, or be party to every political matter.

    But, to be clear, I didn’t mention Dr. King and am glad that you kept anything negative that you had to say about him to yourself.

    Well the fact of the matter is and it should be said because it’s better you know than never hear the full story. MLK Jr. is a false idol for some and the man likely was not a Christian. People of King’s religious philosophy did not actually believe in the miracles of the Bible occurring literally, including the virgin birth of Christ or His literal bodily resurrection from the dead. Unless King had an awakening from God on that balcony before his last moments in this present life, King was not a true believer.

    Again, I thank God for those people that sacificed for me in what I believe was a tremendous move of God.

    It’s the same move people such as King’s wife leveraged (and others who were major figures who are still alive), to claim homosexuals should be granted special “rights”. (And there is strong evidence that shows she probably was right when she said her husband would agree with her, but none to support the claims of Bernice King, who claims he would be against the way those past efforts are leveraged for homosexuals today. MLK, Jr. is the man who kept as his closest fellow worker, a man who was an open homosexual, a man all the other ministers avoided, Bayard Rustin.) It is God who determined where we are (Acts 17:26) and our obligation should be to Him alone.

    I don’t think that my Christianity in and of itself excludes any of those things.

    I’m not saying you are to be excluded from political matters. I’m not trying to influence you to avoid political matters, I take involvement myself, so it would be hypocritical for me to claim such. My point, is that you said:

    And I personally feel that if we are to fulfill all of the mandates of scripture we must participate as much as possible in the civic lives of the societies in which we live while we live in them, working for the good of all.

    And I’m saying there is no mandate in scripture that asserts we must be involved in all the politics of whatever society we live in. Which is why I asked you what I’ve asked previously.

    (Perhaps you misunderstood. I know it’s easy to treat me as someone who claims you should have no political involvement and attempt to dismiss me with talking points used for someone with that position. However it’s not my position, so trying to lump me with a group I’m not in only leaves you with statements that don’t actually address what was asked.)

    I will say, citing an OT figure for justification of something that is not properly related to the actions of Jesus and His Apostles is on par with me pulling OT scriptures to claim God owes me lavish material wealth in this life. The story of Joseph for the Christian is not a message to get into politics, but an allegory of how Christ suffered and was later raised up, plus the promise to saints who persevere, 1 Peter 4:12-19. Regarding politics, the only thing we have in scripture regarding the actions of Christ and His Apostles, is that they never made any claims to it at all. The story of Joseph is one to know in order to persevere to a prize beyond this life. Or I could pull OT scripture to justify slaughtering pagans today too. Yes we should act righteously in all our dealings including if we have political dealings, but the story of Joseph does not imply mandatory political involvement. It also does not imply that just because we get into politics that we’ve made the best decision.

    Did the early church tell us specifically not to vote?

    I’ll first mention scripture is the guide, not necessarily what some saints before us may have done. My mentioning them is to again show how there is no mandate in scripture to assume we have to always jump into political affairs. However, the early saints were VERY outspoken about Christians NOT having ANY political involvement AT ALL and they expressly did tell fellow saints not to vote, not to be in the military, not to have any political involvement at all beyond paying taxes. Up until about William Wilberforce, the no political involvement mode was standard. (That’s a span that almost ran for 2000 years. Always being in politics and trying to dominate it has always been the Roman Catholic position, not the Protestant view until more recent times. But Protestants used to not claim “tithing” too…)

    Scripture tells to love our neighbors as ourselves. And I think that being involved in civic life is one way that we can do that. For instance If I were a foster child, I would want someone to advocate for me to have adequate medical and dental insurance so that I could have preventive health care and dental visits. We had a case here in Maryland where a 13 year old boy with medicaid died because he couldn’t find a dentist who would treat hin in time because of the low number of dentists who will take medicaid due to the low reimbursement rate. The abcess in his tooth eventually ruptured and the infection spread to his brain. Despite emergency surgery the little boy died. If we had better medicaid regulations maybe his death (and others )could have been avoided. Medicaid policy is set by legislation, hence, the connection to voting and civic involvement.

    Of course more babies die from murder in the womb, than children who don’t get medical care in Maryland, but I know you don’t want to talk about that.

    Notice how you’re seeking a government solution to a need of an orphan. While in scripture THE CHURCH VIA IT’S OWN COLLECTIONS AND EFFORTS ARE TO HELP THE ORPHANS, James 1:27! See, this is one of my issues with the “Religious Left” AND the “Religious Right”. Both have claimed hold to politics as the means for things scripture tells THE CHURCH to do AS THE CHURCH, not as “godverment”. It is the church, that is to of it’s own efforts help the orphan, not seek for government to play the church’s role. When government gives an orphan medical care, it is done minus any efforts to share the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Those are the laws of this land we are in.) This is why the church is supposed to do it, then while helping that orphan directly, it provides a very direct opportunity to tell them about Jesus. It is the church who should visit and directly aid the orphan in their distress, not the church telling government to do it. Today, the church has been lulled into looking to government to do a job the church really is neglecting to do more directly its self.

    CiCi, really you don’t hold anything against anyone who does not vote, neither do I, although I will be voting, just not for any of the running Presidential candidates. I don’t hold anything against people who vote, as I said I vote myself. One concern I do have, is that you noted you feel scripture mandates political involvement and I’m simply noting it’s not in scripture.

    I don’t speak to you as an enemy, but a fellow saint, who is seeking to discuss matters of importance to us. We both feel political involvement is OK, although we have disagreements on matters in politics. God help us if we are wrong in our view that to be politically involved is OK.

    Personally speaking, the way the politics of men are going. There might be a day in my own lifetime, when I skip more than the Presidential option on the ballot.

  26. 26 Ya Ya October 14, 2008 at 1:20 am

    Hey IST just wanted you to know I put up a little VODPOD vid of Fara-CON calling Obama-nation the “Messiah” I’d say it ain’t so, but then I’d be lying! Hat tip to Lavrai.com for putting it up first!
    Good eye gal!
    ~Anointed

  27. 27 Keith Tolbert October 14, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    IC,

    “Keith, this is where the Religious Industry of the “Religous Right” makes a terrible disconnect from scripture. Keyes and Roy Moore started an effort that violated the laws they both claim to respect. They were asked to move a hunk of rock from government grounds and initially refused even after mandated by government to do so. And had a ton of rallies and books made afterward crying about it. That has NOTHING to do with sharing the message of Christ in public, although Moore and Keyes sure hyped it up as if that was the case. The 10 Commandments are treated as salvific by people like Keyes and all the manpower that could have been placed into telling the world about Christ was spent focused on a rock in a building and unbelievers seeing the Christians in the effort as straight fools. Fools in the 1 Corinthians 14:23 sense of looking insane. When Paul went to Gentile areas, he went and spoke in the public areas, he didn’t go laying up rocks with the 10 commandments in their judicial halls. Please Keith, show me where the Apostles laid a PHYSICAL ROCK with the 10 commandments up in a building of the government of men? They put up the Rock of Offense with their WORDS, the message of Jesus Christ. Those commandments in stone don’t save, 2 Corinthians 3:3 and no it does not compare to my blog and it certainly does not compare to Polycarp or John Hus or William Tyndale or John Wycliffe or any Christian in the Sudan. If the Christians in the Sudan were simply allowed to be Christians in public while not trying to force a rock with the 10 commandments into a judicial building, they’d be in great shape right now.”

    I’m not focusing on the rock at the courthouse thing. I see that and the “In God We Trust” and the taking “under God” out of the pledge as just the tip of the iceberg. Once those who want to eliminate God and the Gospel out of the public square suceed with these insignificant goals, they become bolder and go after the important ones.

    “‘He knows that promoting any faith or doctrine is out of bounds as the president of this country. And I’m sure that he would not.’

    I think our discussion about that rock in a judicial building shows otherwise.”

    If Keyes became president he’d appoint judges who would never attempt such things as he fought against. Bench legislators would be a thing of the past.

    “‘If any true Christian ever became president of this country and attempted to promote Christianity, he would be wrong to do so under our constitution.’

    No true Christian will ever be President, so this is not a matter that even requires speculation.”

    O.K.

    “‘Not that I’d be against him for doing so; but he’d still be violating our constitution.’

    Well how might a President violate the US Constitution by promoting faith, yet do it in a manner that you would not be against? Can you offer an example for this hypothetical situation?”

    All I meant here was that I would approve of his promotion of Christianity; although I wouldn’t approve of him violating the constitution. I believe they call that a paradox.

    Regarding Matthew 5:13-16. I’m not claiming that there is a mandate to vote in this passage. That would be ridiculous seeing as they were living under the Roman Empire (strangely I’m thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “You don’t vote for kings!” Help, help, I’m being repressed!”). I’m saying that being involved politically is just another avenue by which Christians can be “light and salt”; therefore, it ought not be rejected out of hand.

    “‘As just a government as “humanly” possible.’

    Humanity has proven to be totally depraved.”

    Yeah, but gosh darn it, they’re so darn cute! :-)

    “‘I don’t think CiCi is advocating endorsing people who approve of legal murder of babies in the womb. Where did that come from?’

    Did you miss the part where CiCi noted she’s for Obama?”

    I was only referring to the comment she made in reference to mine.

    “‘Hey, don’t be so concerned about looking foolish . . . God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise;’

    No Keith, that whole entire stone at the courthouse matter was foolish and not simply from a worldly perspective. God never told us to break a decree from government, when government says to remove a rock with the 10 commandments from government property. This is like the “In God We Trust” on money, its a farce man, Jesus said it’s Ceasar’s, Matthew 22:20-22. So is the Alabama courthouse!”

    Not big on humor, are ya?

    “‘I hope our little disagreement here won’t cause you to pull the link from your blog to mine!’

    No, but if you don’t get your tithe payment in to me soon I might. And also be sure to send me your First Fruits offering, oh I mean Tabernacle Offering.”

    Oh, so you do have a funnybone!

  28. 28 Independent Conservative October 15, 2008 at 1:39 am

    Hey Keith,

    I’m not focusing on the rock at the courthouse thing. I see that and the “In God We Trust” and the taking “under God” out of the pledge as just the tip of the iceberg.

    Keith, is God really in their use of the statements if they don’t have Jesus? If those who don’t have Jesus claim “in God we trust” do they really have the Father? So for many, they removed God even before they made the statement and many who endorse the statement openly reject Jesus as Christ. And what’s the point of Caesar putting “In God we Trust” on his money, that has a picture of his face and his structures dominating it? These are the kinds of things people like Keyes will keep you focused on, the real iceberg is under the fact they won’t say In God We Trust Through Jesus Christ. Bush says “In God we Trust” too and we already know he feels Muslims worship God when they don’t have the Father at all, they reject Christ. Keith, the gospel does not have to be knocked out of politics by enemies of God, it was never there. Taking “In God we trust” off money is not the public square, money is a government note, not a “public square” note. It’s not about “In God we Trust”, but who God is. Because for many, their god is that money and they trust in it. Evil accomplishes a great goal in leading everyone to feel that saying “God” means whatever each person desires “God” to mean. So “God” is kept on money and bulk of the nation has a god named Baal, but hey, everybody is saying “In God we Trust”. Hey, I’ve even got the phrase “In God we Trust” on the back of my car, but this nation can be judged for hell with “In God we Trust” everywhere it already is, because the “God” I trust in is not really the “God” much of this nation claims.

    If Keyes became president he’d appoint judges who would never attempt such things as he fought against. Bench legislators would be a thing of the past.

    Never mind the judges, Keyes would be doing exactly what he’s already done, but with the power of the Presidency. It would boggle the mind the number of executive orders I’m sure he’d decree to suit his desires. I think you’ve got a lot pinned up in your view of Alan Keyes, which would become a great disappointment for you if he ever actually was President. I know you say you know Keyes from your time with him, well I’m from MD, his home state. I’ve known and heard about the man probably even before you ever knew who he was. I was even hearing him on the radio when he was small time local in the Baltimore city/county area. And really, that’s why I know Alan Keyes will never be anything, including never being President. Because when Alan Keyes has a real chance to win an election, Alan Keyes won’t even run for the post. But that’s something me and people in MD know about. Like I said, he’s a Conservative spin of Jesse Jackson. You may resent me saying it, but I say it knowing more about the man’s political history than you probably have first hand knowledge of.

    And if Alan Keyes was President, he would have judges that legislate from the bench, for Rome. I’m certain of that.

    Hey Keith, I know you made your decision based off the Alan Keyes you know. I’ll say his proposed platform trumps that of many other candidates. But still because of the Alan Keyes that I know, although I once used to support him sort of like you, I won’t be voting for him.

  29. 29 Keith Tolbert October 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    IC,

    Fair enough; but by the criteria you have listed it’s probable that you won’t be voting ever again.

    Methinks you guess too much when you say I have a lot pinned up in Keyes. My hopes are not pinned up in Keyes, nor in the presidency. Like I said I’m not voting for a messiah, I’ve already got one (another Monty Python reference for those keeping count)!

    I still hold that by participating in this admittedly flawed process I have an opportunity to be salt and light. Whenever I tell someone that I voted for Keyes, invariably this type of discussion follows. That is when I can voice what I understand to be Christ’s view of the issues we are face with (abortion, et al) and share the Gospel. So for now I’ll continue to vote and continue to vote for Alan Keyes.
    I still believe his positives outweigh his negatives. If it ever came to the point that he might actually win, I’d continue to know that even his heart is in the hands of the Sovereign God. Which also can be said for Obama and McCain, so ultimately the Christian is in a “no lose” situation. Soli Deo Gloria!

  30. 30 CiCi October 15, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    IC,

    I specifically asked you not to address any of your comments to me, nevertheless, you did so anyway totally disregarding my wishes and request. As I stated earlier, I have no desire to debate with you. Your reply is extremely long, really unnecessary.

    I only asked one literal question which could have been interpreted as requiring an answer which was whether scripture forbids us from voting. A yes or no answer would have been sufficient, but instead you chose to launch into another lengthy dissertation.

    The rest of my post was commentary explaining my thoughts, concerns, and views. These required no comment from you, yet you felt the need to do so. You have made your positions and thoughts well known and no further explanation of them to me is necessary. It is this kind of behavior that I find to be argumentative. We all have our own thoughts and opinions. Discussion does not mean nor require persuasion.

    And please understand that I am well educated in many areas including history so I really have no need of you to teach me about the Civil Rights era. And your snide comment comparing the tragedy of the young boy’s death to babies dying in the womb is really unnecessary, insensitive, and argumentative. You have no idea what engagement I have in activities that promote the lives of the unborn as well as those already living. Someone died unnecessarily because no one, the church nor the government, did anything. And if you know of a local church that is really taking care of orphans, please let me know so that I can pass along the information to all of the children’s services departments in the nation so that they can send the orphans there.

    And, finally, I believe that this comment you made really demonstrates my feelings on attempting to engage in any type of dialogue with you:

    “So you’ve obviously been reading my discussion with him and might have jumped in yourself if he had not said things you agreed with.”

    Yes, I had read your comments and I CHOSE NOT to respond even though I found many of them objectionable. I find no profit or pleasure in exchanging with someone who always has to “right” and/or have the last word. And, unfortunately, that’s what your comments have continuously demonstrated to me.

  31. 31 speaking truth October 15, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Ok, Ok IC & Keith

    I’m going to gently step in to play “traffic cop” for a brief moment. IC & Keith, let’s just agree to disagree – we all believe that McCain and Obama both carry much baggage. Alan Keyes is a subject that deserves his own post – not one I’m particularly interested in writing, but a seperate post indeed. Both of you are going to remain entrenched in your positions so let’s just call it a draw (just my suggestion, surely not a mandate).

  32. 32 Independent Conservative October 15, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    OK, ST, I’m going to put up a post on my blog about Alan Keyes, I’ll leave it alone here and discontinue the back and forth with Keith on the matter. Of course I have much more to say, but I’ll say my piece on my own blog and respect the cop ;) .

    CiCi,

    I specifically asked you not to address any of your comments to me, nevertheless, you did so anyway totally disregarding my wishes and request.

    I specifically said I would continue so long as granted the privileged to speak. You posted publicly and I have no problem with responding, whether you desire to see my response or not. And I will make it as long as I am granted to make it.

    I only asked one literal question which could have been interpreted as requiring an answer which was whether scripture forbids us from voting. A yes or no answer would have been sufficient, but instead you chose to launch into another lengthy dissertation.

    And I asked you plenty before your question which you never really gave answers for. You say you feel that to walk fully in scripture voting is a mandate and I’m still waiting for those scriptures which say that.

    It’s not about trying to make an argument, you’ve made a theological assertion that scripture mandates voting. Now I’m asking you to prove it. Which you’re still avoiding doing. I asked you how voting for people who allow baby murder helps too, but I know you don’t want to talk about that issue that has resulted in over 40 million dead babies and that’s in America alone. Sum the total of American loses from all other causes that might be considered murder and war and lack of medical funding over the same period of time and that total pales in comparison to the dead babies via abortion.

    Most people who enter a hospital get some form of care, while babies that enter abortion mills always leave dead via the back door.

    And your snide comment comparing the tragedy of the young boy’s death to babies dying in the womb is really unnecessary, insensitive, and argumentative.

    I stand by my statement.

    You have no idea what engagement I have in activities that promote the lives of the unborn as well as those already living.

    And depending on what you’re involved in, it would only make your choice of political candidate an even sadder sight. To work on one hand to save children, while with the other pulling the lever for a candidate who approves of government permitting child murders.

    Someone died unnecessarily because no one, the church nor the government, did anything.

    And many more die via abortion because nobody seems to do anything. But some people do vote for politicians who continue to advocate allowing the sick abortion deed.

    And if you know of a local church that is really taking care of orphans, please let me know so that I can pass along the information to all of the children’s services departments in the nation so that they can send the orphans there.

    Obviously you’re not doing much work with any churches in this regard. Because there are Christian adoption agencies, Christian pregnancy crisis centers and other Christian orphan aid groups all over this nation and the world. I mean there are so many, you can literally pull them up in the phone book or a simple Google search. So now you have some better options to look to for helping orphans than government.

  33. 33 CiCi October 15, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    IC,

    Again, you make erroneous assumptions….

    “Obviously you’re not doing much work with any churches in this regard. Because there are Christian adoption agencies, Christian pregnancy crisis centers and other Christian orphan aid groups all over this nation and the world. I mean there are so many, you can literally pull them up in the phone book or a simple Google search. So now you have some better options to look to for helping orphans than government.”

    I actually work with several organizations that supplement what the government is doing. But, they are obviously not doing enough or I wouldn’t have had to work 70+ hrs a week as a Care Coordinator for a PUBLIC social service agency that works with long-term foster care children.

    Until you have done what I’ve done and lived what I’ve lived I’d appreciate it if you would keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

    And this WILL be the last time that I reaspond to anything that you say.

  34. 34 Independent Conservative October 15, 2008 at 5:49 pm

    Cici,

    Until you have done what I’ve done and lived what I’ve lived I’d appreciate it if you would keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

    You don’t know what I’ve done which may relate to things you’ve done and are doing.

    Interesting that you see NGOs as a “supplement” to government agencies. There’s something apparent about your way of thinking, that relates directly to your choice of political candidate.

    At 70+ hours/week in the role you mentioned for a public organization, it sounds as if you’re doing it as your occupation and so your work in the area probably directly relates to a need to be paid for doing it. I’ve got no problem with that, but many NGOs will accept an unlimited amount of volunteer work time. So they (NGOs, specifically Christian groups) can do as much as is offered from people willing to do it and that can provide funds for it. Christian groups I’ve worked with in various tasks have made it easy for any willing person to do as much or as little as they desire, but it’s mostly volunteer.

    And I guess Obama has promised more potential government funds for groups like yours. Of course the more a Christian is taxed by government for things government does apart from sharing the message of Jesus Christ, that’s less a Christian can give to church groups if they desired. And you can be certain, Obama will raise taxes on way more than 5% of Americans. His math like Liberals before him will prove it if he wins. He’ll be taxing most everyone more and godverment will continue claiming the role as savior.

    But if Liberals have their way with government funded abortions, which really is a big goal of theirs, they’ll sadly be less foster children and just more dead babies.

    Obama v. Biden on partial-birth abortion, tax-funded abortion, and Born-Alive Infants Protection Act


    Barack Obama advocates federal funding of abortion, and while in the Illinois legislature he voted against legislation to restrict state funding of abortion on demand.

    Obama is going to bring something other than “hope” for many babies.

  35. 35 Jeanie Franklin October 17, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    ST,
    I have to ask you and others for your input: Will christians be held accountable for who they vote for next month? Some know what Obama stands for. He is a bi-racial man and not black. Why are people voting for him? I am not voting for either of them They are secular humanists.

    Jeanie

  36. 36 Jeanie Franklin October 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Accountable to God in who we vote for?

  37. 37 Independent Conservative October 17, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    Jeanie Franklin – All Blacks in America are “multi-racial”, there are no pure African blood Americans. Unless you count immigrant families from Africa who have a baby in America.

    I don’t see the value in holding Obama to a “Blackness” contest. Depending on the criteria, he could rank “Blacker” than some people who claim 2 Black parents. Especially if the criteria include knowledge of the culture of an African nation. If he’s not “Black” because of his upbringing, there are native born Blacks who are born into environments that some may not consider “Black”. What of a Black child adopted by White parents from birth? It does happen. (ST, I’m sure you know about Marcus Dixon and despite his White adoptive mother you know he was pretty much dubbed the Blackest kid in GA.) What of the Black child who is born to parents who are millionaires? If money is the criteria, Obama’s own mother had to feed Barak off food stamps for a period of time. I’ll just repeat, I don’t see the value in holding Obama to a “Blackness” contest. (But I’m no fan of such things in anyone’s regard.)

    Regarding voting, do you think Jesus can’t see inside the voting booth? For the Christian, all we do is going to have a direct impact on our rewards after this life, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. We are accountable to God even for every idle thought that we entertain in our minds. I can only speak for myself when I say, I don’t want to stand before the Lord and claim I compromised.

  38. 38 speaking truth October 18, 2008 at 8:32 am

    Jeanie,

    I can pretty much echo IC’s reply to your questions (and thanks for taking the initiative IC – especially since it took me almost 24 hours to reply :-) ).

    There were initial questions in my comment threads about the depth of Obama’s “blackness” back when the whole Jeremiah Wright episode exploded on the scene this past Spring/Summer. Like IC said, when we start measuring “blackness” many of us could come up short for various reasons.

    Regarding being held accountable for your vote, I agree that we will be held accountable for every decision, thought, word, and deed when we stand before the Lord. I won’t say “you’re going to hell if you vote for Obama”. Everyone will rationalize why they will or will not vote for Obama or McCain (or anyone else, for that matter). For me, it was a personal decision not to compromise and I hope that the Lord is pleased with my small stand for what I believe is right.

    I do believe that a “little” compromise will lead to “big” compromises later (as IC alluded to at the end of this comment), so we must take a stand at some point.

  39. 39 Jeanie Franklin October 18, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    ST and IC,
    OK< i deserve the answers I received, but I should have made a better statement. Sorry about that. What I meant to ask what is the reason for Obama’s popularity? I know some blacks are voting for him because he is black but he is multi-racial. I have no problem with that because my son is married to an hispanic and I have a bi-racial whom i love very much. They cannot give me a reason other than a “change” and I ask what change? I know whites who are voting for him. What is the appeal here? How do i answer my friends and relatives other than what the Word of God says and how it lines up with scripture. These are people who attend church also. I cannot compromise either. Like I said before my space for president will be blank. Thank you and I apologize for that!

    IC, please call me jeanie because when you call me Jeanie Franklin it reminds me of when I was little and being a pastor’s kid I would get into trouble and my daddy would call me that! (smile)

  40. 40 Jeanie Franklin October 18, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    My biracial granson. I am slipping today! Sorry!

    Jeanie

  41. 41 Independent Conservative October 18, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Dear Jeanie :) ,

    What I meant to ask what is the reason for Obama’s popularity?

    In my opinin, the answer to that question is one word, sin. Because if he was not getting cheers from Planned Parenthood, he would not be anywhere near as popular as he is. And that’s popularity just not here nationally, but internationally as well.

    IC, please call me jeanie because when you call me Jeanie Franklin it reminds me of when I was little and being a pastor’s kid I would get into trouble and my daddy would call me that! (smile)

    I understand. Basically I converse with so many people who use so many various handles online, I usually call a person whatever they named themselves online. Unless I really hold disdain for their opinion, then I might call them some additional things :D .

    When it comes to who is Black, various measures can be used. I made up my own, called the “Man in a dark alley test”. It goes like this, if a certain man is in a dark alley at night and walks by a White woman who is afraid of Black men, will that White woman react in fear? I mean if she has a purse, will she pull it back out of fear of the man, not general cautiousness, but fear that she feels the man is Black because she’s afraid of Black men? I think Obama passes that test with flying colors :D (no pun intended). He’s Black in terms of Jim Crow being the measure and he can’t “pass for White” as they used to say.

    Fact is, everybody calling themselves “Black” in America is multi-racial and a DNA test would prove it. There really are people in America who are called “White”, that have more indigenous African DNA than some people who are called “Black”.

    If Obama wins, he will be the first Black President when considering the last measure this government ever used to measure Blackness, Jim Crow. And that fact will make me sadder, because I’d prefer the first Black President was someone not ready to initiate an agenda that will likely result in more dead Black babies.


  1. 1 this is what I would say…… « Revolutionary Intent Trackback on October 9, 2008 at 9:27 am
Comments are currently closed.



AddThis Feed Button Add to Technorati Favorites
twitter

Get Daily Email Updates:

Sign up for email updates and get the latest articles in your email inbox!

People Looking For Truth:

  • 912,780 ...and counting

RSS John Piper Sermons

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Categories

Archived Articles…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers

%d bloggers like this: