Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been listening to Dr Tony Evens during my lunch break and his sermons have been about who we should vote for in the next election. Specifically he thinks we should vote for who GOD would want to fill the position. I am not sure about how to take this (i.e. Is GOD interested in who we vote for, and would GOD vote for someone?) , but I am curious how other people feel about this and who they think God would want to be president.
The preacher cannot name candidates or parties. He can speak in principles, and of course can say anything he wants if he wishes to risk losing his church's tax-exempt status.
This Tony guy is right. Does God vote? God of course expects us, as christians to choose the person that most agrees with God's principles and rules. Seems this would just be common sense.
RobinD69, I seriously think that you have not read The Constitution or The Bill Of Rights because if you had you would not have made such an ignorant statement as to the one in bold above.
The first amendment of the bill of rights goes like this.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads like this;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So I guess under the law of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, no religious organization can deprive people their rights.
Before you call someone ignorant you must prove your point which you haven't. There is in no way shape or form the seperation of Church and state found in either document yet many try to interprit it in there.
I have been listening to Dr Tony Evens during my lunch break and his sermons have been about who we should vote for in the next election. Specifically he thinks we should vote for who GOD would want to fill the position. I am not sure about how to take this (i.e. Is GOD interested in who we vote for, and would GOD vote for someone?) , but I am curious how other people feel about this and who they think God would want to be president.
Don't worry, Yehovae Elohim Hawyaw will put whoever He wants to be there...
They had the Roman rule, and the Jewish rule, and the Jews had to pay tax to both. It was called "tax". On top of that Jesus said you should give to the poor voluntarily.
Actually, If memory serves, the Jews had to pay a special tax known as the Jewish tax which was higher than the normal tax levied against everyone else that was non Jewish in the Roman Empire...I am not sure but it might of had something to do with the fact that the Romans did not impose Emperor worship on them as they did everyone else...
Before you call someone ignorant you must prove your point which you haven't. There is in no way shape or form the seperation of Church and state found in either document yet many try to interprit it in there.
Didn't say you were ignorant, said your statement was ignorant, see seperation. Am I to assume that you do not live in the United States and that you have not read nor do you understand The Constitution Of The United States of America and the Bill of Rights? Now you may be an intelligent individual on some subjects and ignorant on others it would seem that you do not understand either one of those documents. There are many Supreme Court rulings that disagree with you on the seperation of church and state and just because your sacred book has ancient archaic laws that you try to live by they do not necessarily go along with the secular laws that this country is run by.
are you trying to tell me that jesus was some kind of anti big goverment - pro private enterprise crusader
this thread has become surreal , jesus did not go around spouting generic political slogans like some party hack
No, I am pointing out that Jesus never said it was the State's job to "redistribute wealth" and take care of the poor. I never said He was an anti-big government crusader, just that He was never explicitly pro-big government.
No, I am pointing out that Jesus never said it was the State's job to "redistribute wealth" and take care of the poor. I never said He was an anti-big government crusader, just that He was never explicitly pro-big government.
i dont tend to argue about what someone didnt say
when it comes to jesus , all evidence suggests he was a big fan of helping the destitute and needy , to inteprete this as meaning he supported private charity but opposed state enforced redistribution is not only a stretch , its political cynicism on a pretty breathtaking scale , jesus was a humanitarian , not a capitalist
he was not political in that he had no self serving agenda but since everyone by thier actions can be politically pigeonholed to some degree , we can safely say that jesus was decidedly to the left on economic matters , in fact id go as far as to say he was a bit of a socilist revolutionary in many ways , he sure upset the ruling class and didnt exactly wear a suit and tie to the country club , he was also a forgiving kind of guy which is why i called him a compassionate conservative socially
anyone who is capable of reshaping JC,s immage in such a way that he could be credibly aligned with the politics of the republican party , must be capable of turning chalk into cheese , never mind water to wine
when it comes to jesus , all evidence suggests he was a big fan of helping the destitute and needy , to inteprete this as meaning he supported private charity but opposed state enforced redistribution is not only a stretch , its political cynicism on a pretty breathtaking scale , jesus was a humanitarian , not a capitalist
Quote:
What is this "evidence"? How is it not a stretch that he suports big government and the State redistributing wealth? Where did He say anything like that? And why do you think Republicans are not a "big fan of helping the destitute and needy"?
he was not political in that he had no self serving agenda but since everyone by thier actions can be politically pigeonholed to some degree , we can safely say that jesus was decidedly to the left on economic matters , in fact id go as far as to say he was a bit of a socilist revolutionary in many ways , he sure upset the ruling class and didnt exactly wear a suit and tie to the country club , he was also a forgiving kind of guy which is why i called him a compassionate conservative socially
Quote:
lol He told the Jews to pay their taxes to the emperor and to obey the Pharisees. Yeah, some revolutionary. Again; where does Jesus explicitly in clear terms support State redistribution of wealth? And why do you categorize Conservatives who believe in private charity and giving as having a "self-serving agenda"?
anyone who is capable of reshaping JC,s immage in such a way that he could be credibly aligned with the politics of the republican party , must be capable of turning chalk into cheese , never mind water to wine
I could say the same thing for Democrats. Scripture isn't really clear on this, as on a lot of things, why we have so many different denominations and sects today because few can agree on one interpretation of Scripture. You see (somewhere) where Jesus supports big government and government redistribution of wealth, I do not. Since this is not explicitly clear, (though He never explicitly says he is pro-Statist) we'll just have to agree on the concept of giving to the poor, but disagree on who should do it: individuals voluntarilly or the State forcively? This is something theology can not help, and something the Catholic Church leaves up to the laity's prudential judgement What is considered a prudential judgment? - Catholic Answers Forums:
Quote:
A judgment of the prudential order is the use of reason to evaluate temporal circumstances. The Magisterium cannot judge every situation of each and every person at all times. So the Magisterium teaches basic principles of ethics, which are used with reason and one's knowledge of the particulars of a situation in order to decide the best course of action. This is not outside of morals.
There are three fonts of morality:
1. intention - if the intention is bad, the act is a sin.
2. moral object - if the moral object is evil, then the act is intrinsically evil and always a sin.
3. circumstances - but the circumstances are evaluated based on a judgment of the prudential order as to the possible consequences of an act, according to their moral weight and likelihood. If the reasonably anticipated bad consequences morally outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences, then the act is a sin.
Judgments of the prudential order are also used to decide which of several moral acts is more pleasing to God, that is to say, which is the best course of action. Prudential judgment is also used by the temporal authority of the Church, when persons in authority in the Church make decisions, issue rules or rulings. These types of actions are not teachings, under the Magisterium (the spiritual authority), and so they fall under the temporal authority. The Church has two types of authority, spiritual and temporal.
Quote:
CCC:
1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.
"Those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church which, since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defense, and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere" (Libertatis Conscientia, 68).
This "preferential option for the poor" challenges Catholics to make a special effort to help those in poverty. How this is translated into public policy is a matter for prudential judgment. But it's clear from other aspects of the Church's social teaching that Catholics must be careful not to undermine any person's right to self-determination and autonomy, as has been witnessed by some forms of welfare assistance.
The principle of social justice combines the notion that persons are responsible for exercising their freedom to obtain the goods of life, and that these goods are proportionate to their inherent dignity. But there are some who cannot obtain these goods without assistance. One of the most contentious issues in modern politics is the question of what and how much should be provided by the community or the state.
Catholic social teaching does not justify the growth of a federal welfare state. A wealthy state that provides for the less fortunate is to be preferred to the socialist state where everyone is equally poor. The goal of Catholic social teaching is to provide the conditions for persons to obtain the goods appropriate to the dignity of their existence.
One way in which the government can most appropriately weed out the roots of poverty is through a sound fiscal policy. At a minimum, the Church advocates regulated income levels and working conditions that promote self-respect and self-sufficiency: "The amount a worker receives must be sufficient, in proportion to available funds, to allow him and his family a standard of living consistent with human dignity" (Pacem in Terris, 20).
The federal government should also enact legislation that motivates the unemployed to move from the welfare lines to the workforce. We should not embrace policies that encourage the unemployed to become dependent on the government, thereby losing their incentives to become self-sufficient.
But this is exactly what you are doing. You claim that Jesus was for big government and State redistribution of wealth. Jesus never said this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
