1. Bo — does 1 Yochanan/John 3:15-17 only apply to letting your spiritual brother, or sister glean from the rich brothers field? The answer is no, there is more application to that, also consider Matt. 25:34-46, look at 1 John 3:16 how sold out Messiah is expecting us to be, giving to the point of laying down our lives for our brethren. “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
    Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
    But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? 1 John 3:15-17″

  2. Matt — You are correct those that are not saved are in more danger than aborted children, because abort children will not go to hell, their spirits will go to a place to learn, and be loved, so that they can eventually go into the New Jerusalem. The unsaved that die as a result of not having insurance, and those that are not participating in the war, and thus are innocent in that way, but yet killed by war might go to hell also. Likewise many individuals that believe in Messiah, are not fully serving, and loving Him in His perfect way like they are expected too, they are serving El/God, but not fully, thus we see them being called righteous in scr., but they are not righteous to the degree that they need to be. “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 1 Kefa/Peter 4:18” We need to understand what this is meaning, the even the righteous are scarcely saved. This means those that don’t believe unto the saving of the soul, are not saved in the way they need to be just as Hebrews 10 explains. “36For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. Hebrews 10:36-39”
    Those that overcome inherit all things, but those that don’t overcome, but still love and serve the Lord in some degree will be saved, but they will suffer loss in the fire, and through the fire be saved eventually coming out of the fire, to the outside area of the New Jerusalem, then when they learn the commands go into the New Jerusalem.
    So that is why I say that many adults that don’t have insurance, and that are killed in war, are in more spiritual danger than aborted children are.

    That is a comparision to determine some ideas, that help to choose correctly, but as I have explained both areas are wrong, they both shouldn’t be done.
    “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Yeshua Messiah(Jesus Christ).
    12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
    13Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
    14If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
    15If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 1 Cor. 3:11-15”

    “7He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his Eloheem(God), and he shall be my son.
    8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Rev. 21:7-8”

    “14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
    15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Rev. 22:14-15”

  3. Matt — One thing I have said is that all forms of government are ok, if they are righteous, and loving, they can all be useful, and a blessing under those circumstances.

    Some organizations in the US are already run like a socialist system. The danger is not in socialism, facism, or any other political spectrum area, the danger is in unrighteous people making bad decisions.

  4. Psa 12:1 To the choirmaster: according to The Sheminith. A Psalm of David.

    Help, LORD; for there is no longer any that is godly; for the faithful have vanished from among the sons of men.

    Psa 12:2 Every one utters lies to his neighbor; with flattering lips and a double heart they speak.

    Psa 12:3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts,

    Psa 12:4 those who say, “With our tongue we will prevail, our lips are with us; who is our master?”

    Psa 12:5 “Because the poor are despoiled, because the needy groan, Now will I arise,” says the LORD; “I will place him in the safety for which he longs.”

    Psa 12:6 The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

    Psa 12:7 Do thou, O LORD, protect us, guard us ever from this generation.

    Psa 12:8 On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the sons of men.

  5. Matt – You are correct things like abortion, gay marriage, and the physical land of Israel and Jerusalem, are not debatable, likewise another truth looms, and still exists, war, forgetting the poor, and judging people unjustly is not debatable either. All are against the Lord’s will.

  6. I see what you are saying, Travis. I am not sure I agree with God controlling all of our hearts, but you have given me something worth looking into and understanding better.

    That is one thing I like about these forums…hearing different perspectives and getting outside my own thinking. We are all different “parts of His body” and I think when we start to be able to hear outside our current mindsets it gives us the opportunity to not only be challenged and understand in what we believe, but practice humility and hear from the Lord through one another.

    Anyway, I appreciate your insight(and the others who have posted also).

  7. Travis – First off let me say I agree that neglecting the poor and those issues are not debatable. I never said they were, what I said was that the policies that each party have in regards to those issues are debatable. I have not heard one single Republican say they want to neglect the poor and make healthcare impossible for people, etc. They want to help take care of the poor just like Democrats, they just have a different idea of how to do it. They want to reform healthcare to make it possible for all to have affordable healthcare just like the Democrats, they just have a different idea of how to do it. I will come back to this in a moment.

    Aborted children go to Heaven to be with Jesus. Unsaved adults go to hell for eternity. The unsaved adults that die and go to hell go there because they did not accept Jesus, period. Scripture is clear that any person who gives their life to Jesus goes to be with Him for eternity either by death or His second coming, there is no such thing as “scarcely saved” Christian in context to “eternal redemption”, but rather that verse in context is speaking of suffering in this life, and it has nothing to do with not fully serving Him or not and that verse has nothing to do with the New Jerusalem. That verse is saying that if the righteous are scarcely saved from suffering in this life, how much more will the unrighteous suffer. Everyone who is truly saved will be with Jesus for eternity, everyone who has not really given their life to Jesus and died to self will not be with Jesus for eternity. There is not some middle ground for people “not saved fully” as you call it. You are either in or not. Every lukewarm half in person (not fully saved in the way they should be as you call it) will go to hell as Jesus vomits them out of His mouth. Going into the New Jerusalem has nothing to do with learning commands, but rather about giving your life to Jesus wholeheartedly.

    I agree that many adults that die without insurance are unsaved and will go to hell, but like I showed you many people will die with government-ran health care because of poor quality of care and rationing of services. What about those people? Are they not in the same boat as those dying without healthcare? You see health care policy (not neglecting the poor, but the policy on how to best help the poor) is debatable as to whose ideas will actually give people the best care and save lives (remember both Republican and Democrats agree we need healthcare reform), but abortion is not debatable. There is no way to save these millions of lives with abortion legal. It is a black and white issue.

    A person dying without healthcare is wrong and it shouldn’t happen and that is not debatable either, I agree, but Republicans have a better health care policy in my opinion than democrats. Again, healthcare policy can be debated as to whose will work better, abortion cannot. Yes poverty is horrible, but economic policy can be debated as to which candidate’s ideas are better, but gay marriage cannot be debated.

    My point is simply that abortion, gay marriage, people dying because they have no healthcare, and poverty are all horrible and all shouldn’t happen as you said and are not debatable issues, but both Republicans and Democrats want to help the poor and stop the death of people because of not having heathcare. However, democrats are pro-murder of children, and pro-gay marriage. Let me break it down this way…

    Issue # 1 = Lower Health Care Costs to make it affordable for everyone –

    Democrats – Yes
    Republicans – Yes

    -You can debate as to which party has the best plan but morally speaking they both want to help and not have anyone die because of not having healthcare

    Issue # 2 – Help reduce poverty and see the poor taken care of

    Democrats – Yes
    Republicans – Yes

    -Again you can debate as to which party has the best plan but morally speaking they both want to help end poverty in America and create jobs and a better economy

    Issue # 3 – Abortion

    Democrats – For the murdering of innocent human children (over 90% of which is done in the name of convenience)
    Republicans – Against the slaughtering of these children

    -Morally and Biblically speaking there is only one way to vote here

    Issue # 4 – Gay Marriage

    Democrats – For the redefining of the God-breathed institution of marriage calling what God says is evil as good.
    Republicans – Against the redefinition of marriage supporting the original intent of God as marriage between One Man and One Woman.

    -Again only one choice here is moral and biblical.

    The point is that of the first 2 issues both parties stand for the morally correct position but have different ideas of how to reach the goal. But with the last 2 issues there is only one way to vote morally. Both groups do not support the moral position; therefore our vote must be against the immorality and for the biblical standards. A vote for Republican is not a vote against the poor, but rather it is a vote for the poor and a vote for life and the sanctity of marriage.

    I hope that clears my position up a little bit.

    God Bless

  8. That’s why we need to be able to individually vote on the issues and not compromise our consciences with either party.

    What do you propose, Travis, that someone do if they are anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage (only) and pro good stewardship (zero pollution, even if it takes us time to get there) of God’s planet, and an end to hunger and poverty (which is another issue dear to the heart of God).

    On some of these issues, one would vote Republican. On others, one would vote Democrat. And still others, one would vote Green. And who knows what other party might have the best plan for yet another issue.

    But you only get two. Well, Blue Dogs are the hybrids, the centrists, what I like to call the Republicrats. No wonder they “lost” the most seats to the TEA Party — they’re the most Republican of all Dems anyway. But BD’s aside, basically, you’re either Red or Blue in American politics today. We can’t pretend the founding fathers designed it that way. The Republican Party was founded by Salmon Portland Chase in the late 19th century.

    Democracy as a concept has been expanding since early Greece. In the 21st century, I would argue that it should mean more participation by Americans on the issues, not eliminating the massive structure that is the Congress, but making them have to vote as their constituents are on the issues. And the only way for them to be sure of how their constituents think is for these to register their vote. I know that would mean a lot of votes. To facilitate it, much of it could be online. It would mean educating the public through frequent postings as the work of the Congress continues. Obviously, some people will elect to not participate, and some only sketchily on matters of great importance to them. It would ultimately mean no allegiance to any one party, but voting one’s conscience every time. So it wouldn’t be a choice between abortion and the earth; or protecting traditional marriage and being more dove-like. (Harmless as doves, wise as serpents.) Christians would be free to simply vote their conscience, not get caught up in the divisive spirit of redstate-bluestate-stalemate.

    (I’m not convinced it couldn’t work, Jacob. Where there’s a will there’s a way. If it allows us to vote our consciences without compromise, it’s worth going for, and wouldn’t fly in the face of the original founders’ intentions..)

  9. “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

    Most of us would not want someone to take our hard earned wealth and give it to someone else. I am beginning to wonder if most of us would want someone else’s hard earned money, though. This goes for health care and other forced socialist programs. I do not vote for other people’s money to be taken away, by taxation, and redistributed to someone who has not worked for it, because I wouldn’t want you to do this to me.

    If a man works 70 hours a week and just happens to get ahead in this life, why does the man that is working 40 hours a week deserve a share of the hard workers money? If a man invests 8 years of his life and hundreds of thousands of dollars in an education, why should a man that has invested next to nothing and spent practically none of his time in higher education get any of the first man’s money? If the hard workers and big investors (in time and money) owe anyone anything, it is to their families who didn’t have their fathers and husbands time, attention and did without financial benefits during these long hours.

    The inheritance tax is stealing, not from the dead person, but from their families. These “rich” men do not owe the rest of society anything until their families are reimbursed with interest. Even after that, they do not owe the rest of society anything but their good citizenship. This goes for income/capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. Look in your Bible and tell me where the inheritance is supposed to go.

    If we give a prodigal son his inheritance, he will waste it. If we give a prodigal government our inheritance it will waste it.

    Greedy people go into debt so that they can live in more expensive houses than they can afford. Greedy banks lend them the money knowing that they will be able to pocket the money that these other greedy people have paid in when they foreclose. Other greedy people stand by and wait to purchase these houses at a fraction of the value. Other greedy people want the government to take the money away form someone else and pay their mortgages. Other greedy people are more honest…they take their own hard earned money and buy lottery tickets. Or they fall for get rich schemes and too good to be true investment opportunities…like buying houses for pennies on the dollar.

    If you want my money you are covetous and greedy. If you don’t want yours, my address is…


  10. “other forced socialist programs”

    Which ones, I can think of the military, education, police, fire, libraries? Maybe I missed a couple.

  11. Dave — I am glad you have been humble, that will cause you to be given honor by the Lord, often times I don’t know answers, so I pursue humility, and say to the Lord I really don’t understand, and ask Him to give wisdom, which scr. says He would do. Wisdom in Hebrew is smarts, He makes us smart.

  12. Matt — You said “My point is simply that abortion, gay marriage, people dying because they have no healthcare, and poverty are all horrible and all shouldn’t happen as you said and are not debatable issues, but both Republicans and Democrats want to help the poor and stop the death of people because of not having heathcare. However, democrats are pro-murder of children, and pro-gay marriage. Let me break it down this way…”
    I agree that seems to be the case with the democratic party, what I am saying is, we shouldn’t just consider one side of the story, we should consider all sides of the story, this will cause us to make a more informed decision. The Lord has chosen both parties in the US to be established so that there would be a balance, when one party goes to far into evil, the other comes along to fight against that specific evil, and vice – versa.
    So the Lord will show all His sheep which one to vote for, and when, and/or to not vote at all, it depends on what the Lord wants in a given circumstance. His sheep hear His voice, and will follow Him in the way He desires, those that are not His sheep will not be led by Him in the way He desires.

  13. Matt — You said, “Issue # 1 = Lower Health Care Costs to make it affordable for everyone –

    Democrats – Yes
    Republicans – Yes

    -You can debate as to which party has the best plan but morally speaking they both want to help and not have anyone die because of not having healthcare

    Issue # 2 – Help reduce poverty and see the poor taken care of

    Democrats – Yes
    Republicans – Yes”
    I am saying, I am not convinced that Republican party are helping the poor, because they often mostly help the rich, also the health insurance that has been around for along time, has not be affordable for many people, it is to far out of reach, and often causes many problems for people, also the Republicans often are the party that really pursues war, they are quick to unrighteous anger. Scr. says to be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath(righteous anger), unrighteous anger is never allowed.
    I am just saying we shouldn’t go around thinking that only one party serves the Lord, because each party does some good, and some bad, we are supposed to listen to the Lord on what He decides we should vote, and not just strictly on party lines. We can use smarts from our Lord, to make the best decision in each circumstance.

  14. Jacob — You make a very good point, there are many examples of organizations that can be construed as socialist, and/or maybe facist, but if done correctly they can be useful.
    You said, ”’“other forced socialist programs”

    Which ones, I can think of the military, education, police, fire, libraries? Maybe I missed a couple.”
    That means that just because that might be the case that doing something else like them, could be useful, oh say insurance.

    Many say they don’t want to government to have control, while others say they want the government to have control.

    I say whatever will establish righteousness is the government that I want, it is not so important to me, if it is the far left, the middle, or the far right. I will accept any as long as mercy, love, righteous judgement, and justice are being established correctly.

  15. Good reponses, Travis. Party politics, particularly in the United States, are not black and white (indeed, they both trend the middle ground more than anything). For example, on abortion:

    G. W. Bush in 1998: “The Supreme Court has decided [on abortion]. The best public policy is to encourage fewer abortions through strong adoption laws and giving children a clear pro-abstinence message.”

    Democrat Platform on Abortion: “We strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”

    Republicans are not attempting to ban abortion like slavery. Democrats do not ask people to kill children.

    Also, Ruth, a couple of comments:
    1) It would actually entirely “fly in the face” of the Founders. Their intentions are clear in the Federalist Papers–the republican form of government is made to have leaders who do not stricly follow the will of the masses. Now, I have no problem if someone says we should go against the original intention, but let’s be honest.

    2) It’s a nice thought, but there is much scholarly work (such as Bosniak 2006, The Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership) arguing that while it is the most democratic (by definition), with 300 million people it would be impossible.

    (I’m not convinced it couldn’t work, Jacob. Where there’s a will there’s a way. If it allows us to vote our consciences without compromise, it’s worth going for, and wouldn’t fly in the face of the original founders’ intentions..)

  16. Ruth — I propose that we see all the issues, and not just some of them, then ask the Lord to lead us into what we are supposed to choose, which party we are supposed to vote for, or if we are not supposed to vote at all. I propose that we pursue righteousness, and not allow any one evil go to far, rather when one evil goes to far, then fight specifically against that one evil, in the way the Lord desires, because when we go with the Lord He backs us up, the Eloheem/God arises, and makes His enemies be scattered away, we are not to be overcome with evil, rather we are to overcome evil with good.

  17. Jacob,

    I was thinking more of earned income credit, social security, government health care, progressive income tax rates, welfare etc.


  18. Exactly, Bo. We pick and choose what we call socialism. We ignore, paramedics, running water, and the VHA (also socialist by definition), and would be upset to lose any of them.

    The rest of what you answered definitely still resides in a capitalist system. Taxes are collected in every form of government, with the highest tax bracket in the U.S. lower than the lowest in other countries(i.e., Denmark). Welfare in the U.S. (as signed into law by President Clinton) requires that you start working. EITC by definition requires work. And, as for health care, it is still in private hands. There is no universal health insurance provided by the government–if anything, the Healthcare legislation props up insurance providing businesses.

    The “Keep Me Safe and Leave Me Alone” mentality of government is not a 21st century reality. We can do away with all services, but I do not wish to have the 19th century agrarian life.

  19. Jacob,

    Here is what I was referring to:

    “I do not vote for other people’s money to be taken away, by taxation, and redistributed to someone who has not worked for it, because I wouldn’t want you to do this to me. ”

    I do think that firemen, librarians, police officers and soldiers work for the money we pay them.


  20. Oh, sorry, you just lost my vote, Bo! See how fickle we are? 🙂

    I think the original founders intentions were as they stated, “in order to form a more perfect union.” If that union requires tweeking from time to time, we should not be so obstinate that we don’t want to change anything at all. They were human beings and we are human beings, and a modern society is not the society that the founders framed our constitution in. We can move forward while maintaining “liberty and JUSTICE” for all people. Is it “just” that laws have become so one sided and so full of loop-holes that the original intentions have become turned around backwards? I don’t think so.

  21. Travis — I agree that we shouldn’t just consider one side of the story. I agree that we should consider all sides of the story and make a more informed decision. I am not saying I ignore issues like the economy and healthcare, I am just saying that both parties agree morally on helping end poverty and healthcare reform, they just disagree on how to do it effectively. However both parties do not agree morally on abortion and gay marriage and I must and I must vote on the side of morality.

    You said “The Lord has chosen both parties in the US to be established so that there would be a balance, when one party goes to far into evil, the other comes along to fight against that specific evil, and vice – versa.”……….

    Where do you get that from? Where do you get that the Lord chose both parties to be established? You seem to have this idea that whatever happens in life is God’s doing, but man’s free will plays in to this. Man chose to set up the Democrat and Republican parties. What God set up was His church to keep the world in balance. What was God willing to save Sodom and Gomorrah for, a balanced political party or Righteous men and women who love Him? It is not a political party that keeps things in balance, but rather it is a burning passionate church in revival standing up for morality and truth in the midst of a morally bankrupt political culture.

    I agree that the Lord will show us which one to vote for and again I do not vote on party lines, but moral lines. However, God showed us what moral issues to vote for in His word. I absolutely believe much prayer and seeking the Lord should take place before casting our votes, but I do not believe God can lead you to sin. So how could God lead you to vote for someone who is going to support the slaughtering of innocent children? Can God lead you to vote for someone who is going to go against Israel and then judge America according to His promise to curse those who curse Israel when it was God Himself who led you to vote for that sin? Of course not. Yes we need to hear God’s voice, but God’s voice will never lead you to something against His word i.e. gay marriage and abortion.

    You say that you are not convinced that Republican Party is helping the poor, because they often mostly help the rich. First of all, Republicans want to cut taxes for everybody, not just the rich. Also cutting taxes for the rich who are the primary business owners will save them money leading to lower prices on the goods and services they offer. Those lower prices are passed on to the consumer (you and I). However, Democrats want to raise taxes for the rich. You know what is going to happen, the rich are in turn going to raise prices on their goods and services they offer to make up the money they are losing in taxes causing the rich to stay rich and the poor to be in more trouble not being able to afford the goods and services the rich offer. The Democrats plan causes the poor to suffer, while the Republican plan helps everyone. You see, I am not convinced that the Democrat plan helps the poor. That is my point, the policies that the parties have on this issue are debatable, the policies on abortion and gay marriage are not.

    I agree the healthcare that has been around (even around in Clinton’s time in office, not just Republicans) is not working. Republicans agree with this and want to change it. They just have a different idea of how to change it. As I showed in a previous post, government-ran universal healthcare as the Democrats want it may lower the price temporarily, but in the end will lead to higher taxes and poor quality care causing many to die and the national debt to climb and the taxes raised making the poor worse off and the people dying because of poor quality of health care rise.

    Republicans don’t pursue war anymore than any other party. And they do not generally go to war for unrighteous anger. The war in Iraq helped liberate and save the lives of hundreds of millions of people who were under the evil ruler ship of a man bent on evil and genocide. The war in Afghanistan is supported by our Democrat president and he has sent more troops to Afghanistan since he has been in office. The war in Afghanistan is seeking to stop the power of terrorist organizations that are bent on terror and the murder of Americans. Again biblically speaking war is sometimes justified even though God desires for there to be no war. We live in a fallen world full of evil people who desire to destroy us and sometimes self defense is called for. Also sometimes war is justified to save the lives of countless millions of innocent people who would be slaughtered under the hand of evil men around the world. Put it this way, if you knew of a woman who was being continually raped and beaten by a man who had no intention of stopping would you just sit back and say I don’t want to call the police because they may have to use force, or would you say that the injustice done to the innocent woman justified the use of force by the police department if neccessary. War is the same way, just on a global level.

    Actually anger is allowed, but unrighteous anger is not. Righteous anger is a hatred of sin and evil, but a love for people. Again war can fall in this context.

    I do not think any party serves the Lord; a party cannot serve the Lord, only individuals can. However, statistically, one party tends to seek biblical morality more than the other one and our votes should be based on morality meaning my votes tend to lean towards one party. However, I care about individuals not party. So if a Democrat stood up against gay marriage and abortion and stood with Israel, I then would decide if I think their policies really help the poor and then my vote could go to them. I care about true biblical morality, not party.

    I do not vote on party lines, I vote on morality clearly defined in scripture.

  22. I agree that gay marriage and abortion are black-and-white in the Bible. But so is good stewardship of the environment (no poisons or toxins! And no deregulation to allow corporations to poison!) also a black-and-white issue. God will destroy those who are destroying the earth, so what is “gray” about that issue? When I was in college and struggling $cially, I actually found it easier (and people were kinder about it, too) to get foodstamps under Pres. Bush than Pres. Clinton, and I fully expected the reverse! But Republicans tend to pursue a no-holds-barred approach to the markets which can actually cripple small businesses in smaller, poorer countries. Their approach to the issue of “money” does not fully pass muster with Biblical principles – please, let’s not pretend it is a model of these. I’m not defending the Democrats; I used to be one, though, and they do tend to push more for the environment, to their credit.

    My only argument is that NONE of the issues we’re discussing are anything but black-and-white.

    Good points, Jacob – but 300 million would not participate anyway. I’ll have to reread the Federalist Papers – it’s been a long time since poli-sci class; however, even if it did “fly in the face” of the founders – as Sheila pointed out, they lived in an entirely different world than ours. By their definition, only white men of property would/should have a vote at all. Should we have stucck with their “intentions” on this matter, also? Then why should we cripple ourselves with other aspects which no longer make sense to us?

  23. Ruth – Allow me to clarify what I am speaking of when I say black and white. I am not referring to the moral biblical principles, which I agree are all black and white, but rather I am speaking of political policies. I am not saying the biblical morals of giving to the poor and taking care of the enviroment etc, are debatable, I am simply saying that both parties morally for these things but their policies and plans on these issues are debatable.

    For instance I have heard Republicans call for better enviromental policies to help reduce pollution etc. They are not morally saying no let’s harm the earth. Here is a couple of quotes from the Republican National Committee’s website…….

    “By increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term demand for oil, we will be well positioned to address the challenge of climate change and continue our longstanding responsibility for stewardship over the environment.”

    “The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.”

    So what is black and white biblically is that we should steward over our enviroment responsibly, but what is not black and white is which party has the best plan to effectively do this. They both want to help the enviroment and protect the earth. But the policies and plans of how best to help the enviroment are debatable. They are not black and white. Who has a better plan for the enviroment? We could debate that all day, but the point is that they are both morally for taking care of the enviroment.

    However, the policies on gay marriage and abortion are black and white. Republicans want to make abortion illegal and keep marriage as one man and one woman, whereas Democrats want to keep it legal to murder children and redefine marriage to allow same sex couple to get married.

    There is not debating on the policies, it is black and white, therefore as I have said I must vote based on the black and white issues.

  24. Matt — You said, I am just saying that both parties agree morally on helping end poverty and healthcare reform, they just disagree on how to do it effectively.
    They might agree in the sense that they want to help, but their actions are quite different, and most of the time the Democratic party is the one that helps the poor, and is now wanting something different. The Republicans have not shown actions to help either the poor, or interest in stopping war.

    Example ex President Lydon B. Johnson one of the Democratic Presidents was a great president at least in some ways. Here is a quote on this website. http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp

    “In a speech at the University of Michigan, May 22, Johnson spoke of a “Great Society.” He said, “The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning.” The speech set the tone for the fall campaign.

    July 2, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a televised ceremony at the White House. The far-reaching law included provisions to protect the right to vote, guarantee access to public accommodations, and withhold federal funds from programs administered in a discriminatory fashion.”

    So we can see the actions of each party are important. Please understand, as I have said, I am one that believes style in the political parties are not the most important thing, rather I think that when things are done correctly any, and all political systems can be accepted, the litmus test of people is not so much political systems, rather it is righteousness. Political systems are simply different systems of governing, the political systems are ok if they are used properly, otherwise they are failing there purposes. That is why I believe people can vote for any political system, and/or not vote, it really depends on the leading of the Spirit, because the scr. says, those that “…are led by the Spirit of Eloheem/God, are the children of Eloheem/God.”

  25. I appreciate your clarification, Matt. Good point.

    I appreciate your pointing out, Travis, that one should ask the Father for direction in voting. I did, and got not to vote that day. I didn’t, despite (no exaggeration) enormous pressure to cast it for the Democrats (most of my family are, and some directly involved in the party). I appreciate the creation of the Secret Ballot because before that, folks were really having the pressure put on them to vote a certain way. It really is their own private business, even though it affects so much beyond them. I’m sure some (or many) people would/could disbelieve that I could have gotten such a direction, but I won’t debate that!

    Thanks to all for a stimulating, spirited discussion thus far!

  26. I voted for the first time in years this year.I voted for pro-life candidates.I would not blame anyone that did not vote though.

    There will be no great changes.If you want to see where thier loyalties are follow the money.The people or companies that contributed large amounts of money.

    There are are a lot of issuses to consider.Jobs is a big one in my area many people are not able to support thier families.Food banks have run out of food.

    The envirorment is an issue.Where I live there have been alot of strip mining done.It takes away the top soil and pollutes the streams and ruins the landscapes.Even when they repair the site its not the same.It takes away jobs as well.It takes less workers to strip mine than to deep mine.

    Don’t get me wrong I’m no Al Gore but we should take care of the envirorment as much as possible.

    Our representatives will do little or nothing about moral issues because there is not enough money in it for them to care.But thier there is plenty of money thrown at them for immoral things such as gambling,Gay marrige,etc…..

    I guess we will just have to wait for the Lord to come back.

  27. Bob — I know many believers believe that gambling is a sin, but tell me why do you think it is a sin? I welcome anyone to respond.

  28. Travis,

    I not really a gambler…never been to a casino. Don’t really like poker but I have played the lottery a few times.

    Simple answer is that in and of itself it is not a sin. It has ruined many lives and goes against biblical principles being a bad steward of your money if you gamble a lot and all….but then again how many believers have massive debt just for the sake of wanting more/nicer things?

  29. Travis-Gambling in and of itself is a SIN! Why do people gamble?Answer-The love of money.1 tim 6:10-11 For the love of money is a root of all evil,and some by longing for it have wandered from the faith,and pierced themselfes with many a pang.11-But flee from these things,you man of God; and pursue righteousness,Godliness,faith,love,perseverance and gentleness.

    1 tim 6:8 tells us to be content with food and covering.1tim 6:9 tells us that those who want to be rich falls into temptation. It also says many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction!

    It’s like saying abortion is not a sin because the word abortion is not used in the bible, but we know it’s murder.The word gambling is not used but it’s made clear that it is a sin in the word Of God.[The Bible]

  30. I imagine just about every adult has at one time or another, fantasized about what being rich would be like; what they would do with their time and money (including give it all away). “America” as the British saw it, was a capital-making venture from the start. Capitalism without constraint is all about becoming rich. So the idea of “being rich” is constantly before the public, whether in television shows or in magazines, books or movies. British society was/is so stratified, with the aristocracy at the top and income levels only dropping from there. The difference in America, as it developed, was the dream that you could start as a poor laborer, but with industry and opportunity, climb the “ladder to success” and become wealthy. So, given all of this emphasis, it’s no wonder that pursuing riches has probably crossed the mind of just about everybody.

    Having said that, pursuing riches is definitely considered worldliness in the Bible, and gambling is actually a form of that, isn’t it? I mean, one might buy a $10 ticket, but isn’t the dream to win big on that ticket — maybe $10,000? That might not seem like a whole lot of money, but if one won $10,000, would they not buy more tickets to buy more chances? And what about raffle tickets? If the “winnings” are fairly small, does that make it OK? Is it the intention here that matters most?

  31. Ok, I don’t see any more responses. People can use their money in any way that can be righteous, there is nothing in scr. that says gambling is evil.
    The Lord can lead people in a way to gain money if He wants too, He gives the power to get wealth to establish His Covenant. Some people receive money from gambling that give to things that are righteous.
    Now some people that gamble may go to far, and use their flesh when gambling, they may do it when they are not supposed to do it, the leading of the Spirit is important. We are not supposed to desire unrighteously for anything, yet in another instance there is righteous desire from the Lord. To the pure all things are pure as scr. does talk about.
    “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Titus 1:15”

  32. Bob,

    It’s like saying abortion is not a sin because the word abortion is not used in the bible, but we know it’s murder.The word gambling is not used but it’s made clear that it is a sin in the word Of God.[The Bible]

    This simply isn’t true. It’s not made clear. Are you saying you know everyone’s motive for ever gambling in any fashion? Maybe a couple friends playing poker with quarters to make the game a little more exciting? Or how about the stock market…talk about gambling.

    Yes, we shouldn’t blow our money or live for the love of money. But that doesn’t in anyway give anyone the right to call something a sin that isn’t explicitly forbidden.

    Gambling isn’t something “new”. It’s been around for a very long time! If it was outrightly prohibited it really would be in the bible. Who living in the Spirit is going to gamble there money away anyway?

  33. Dave-It is in the bible!The scripture I put in my post.Why would playing cards for money make it more exciting?The love of money,thats why.

    Abortion is not mentioned in the bible and it has been around a very long time.Is it not a sin?Is it not murder?Is abortion explicitly forbidden?We don’t have a right to call it a sin? I don’t see where abortion is outrightly prohibited,so if it were a sin[according to you]it really would be in the bible?

  34. Travis-People who steal will sometimes give to righteous causes as well.It does not make it ok or any less a sin.
    People are willing to lose money for a small change to get more money because they love money.

    The love of money leads to ruin and distruction the bible tells us that and that is one reason it is a sin.Exactly what gambling does and is.

  35. Brother Dave — Great point many believers think it is ok to participate in the stock market, but that is a form of gambling.

  36. Stealing is mentioned in scripture. Tell me which specific scripture talks about gambling please.?

    People do different things with their money to have the benefit of other things, that is what gambling is, they want the benefit of other things, but it is not guaranteed, unless the Lord guarantees it to someone then it will happen. People chose to buy products with their money, some products don’t last long, some do, and some may not ammount to anything, while others do. The issue is not gambling, the issue is the heart of the person, which has to do with aman(faith, trust, belief). Whatever is not done in faith(trust, belief) is sin as scripture says, so if the Spirit of faith leads someone to put money in stocks(another form of gambling), to gain wealth, that is just like gambling in other forms, sometimes things are done just for fun, with people not having a large expectation. Sometimes people give away their money to have fun for many different reasons.

  37. I’m not “taking sides” here, I am just trying to understand the truth as best as I can, too.

    I’m wondering about the practice of “casting lots.” I haven’t made a study of it; I know of one instance at least in which it had a negative aspersion to it, when lots were cast for Lord Yeshua’s undergarment.

    John 19:23-24:

    When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

    “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.”

    This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said,

    “They divided my clothes among them
    and cast lots for my garment.”


    I tend to agree that intentionality is important. If the Spirit were to genuinely lead someone to gamble (hold on, I said IF) then that would be a different matter, of course! I don’t know if it would or not since I’m just beginning to wrap my mind around this subject; I only know that when I asked about it, I got in prayer NOT to. I’m not saying that’s for everyone, but it was an answer when I asked. Just like I asked about voting on this election; the answer I felt I got was certainly not for everyone, but was an answer when I asked.

    Again, I haven’t done a study on this, but I’m sure there’s one available online that a pastor somewhere has already done. At one point, it was illegal, most likely based on the Bible. It’s certainly worth investigating out. I wonder what Dr. Brown would think about the issue of gambling and if he’s ever covered it on this show. (I did an archive search just now using the word “gambling” and no posts matched my criteria.)

    (Maybe this discussion should be moved to the recent “Money” thread for continuity’s sake?)

    May we find the truth on this subject!

  38. Dave-It is in the bible!The scripture I put in my post.Why would playing cards for money make it more exciting?The love of money,thats why.

    Huge stretch, there. So let’s put what you are saying in real life context instead of a black/white approach. Cause the simple truth is, the Lord wasn’t black/white on many things he could have been…why must we be b/w on such things?

    I am with my brother, brother-in-law, and father. We all take $5 in quarters to play a poker game let’s say 3 times a year…because it’s fun. Instead of going out to eat which will cost us all $15-20…ya know, just trying to be a good steward and all. No one’s gonna get rich or is “loving money”. It is the slightly elevated risk of losing/winning it which makes it exciting.

    I don’t need a human to interpret things for me that aren’t b/w in the word. This is called legalism and traditions of men. I have the Holy Spirit, whom I am constantly trying to learn to submit to, lead me according to all things that aren’t forbidden in his Word. I am not indifferent or using my “grace as license” to do whatever I want.

    Ok, money thread it is.

Comments are closed.