Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What is a committed Christian to do in this election?
Canada Free Press ^ | 10/11/16 | A. Dru Kristenev

Posted on 10/11/2016 6:26:43 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony

If candidates believe that knee-jerk reaction to an 11-year-old recording is helping their cause with committed Christians, it does not. It shows them to be engrossed with personal pettiness that may spill this nation’s very lifeblood

There is no doubt that this minute voice from an independent Christian missionary, a woman, will encounter criticism for what follows.

Eight years ago, a phenomenal legal researcher and I did everything in our power to unveil the Obama persona as a change artist whose concept of change was to dismantle our Founders’ legacy and the American dream. The novel Gold Baron wove facts into a portentous tale that has since seen basic fulfillment as that deconstruction has come to pass. If the rest of the country hasn’t learned a lesson, I did. And it’s clear that we’ve already reached a crossroads that, should we travel the wrong path with Hillary, there will be no return. The floodwaters of political correctness that has already overwhelmed secular society will have washed out the road behind us.

TOPICS: Government; Politics; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: christian; christianvote; clinton; election; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: Sean_Anthony

Vote for someone who will make America better, not just the same old failed policies.

A real leader will solve problems, instead of passing them onto the next generation.

Vote for Trump who will challenge the corruption in both parties.

21 posted on 10/11/2016 6:48:21 PM PDT by ADSUM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

A committed Christian should cast the most effective vote possible to deny Hillary Rotten Clinton the White House.

That would be a vote for Trump/Pence.

22 posted on 10/11/2016 6:50:00 PM PDT by NorthMountain (Hillary Clinton: corrupt unreliable negligent traitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Christians will vote for Trump.

23 posted on 10/11/2016 6:52:39 PM PDT by right way right (May we remain sober over mere men, for God really is our one and only true hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Vote for Trump and the straight GOP ticket. Pray for strength and hold their feet to the fire if they don’t live up to their promises.

24 posted on 10/11/2016 6:53:05 PM PDT by CMB_polarization
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

The Bible only lays out required character traits for church leaders, not government leaders. I believe the Bible describes the relevant criteria for government leaders is the ability to punish evil and administer justice. Therefore, you don’t have to believe a candidate is a good person to vote for him/her for public office. You don’t even have to like the person personally. The relevant question that a Christian should ask is which candidate is most likely to punish evil and administer justice. I think we know who that person is.

25 posted on 10/11/2016 6:53:44 PM PDT by Doctor Freeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Simple answer is vote Trump

Next question

26 posted on 10/11/2016 6:54:33 PM PDT by Nifster (Ignore all polls. Get Out The Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony
As a true follower of Christ, you would know the EVERYONE falls short of the Glory of GOD.

However; for some unknown reason, perhaps you think you are better than many others. Perhaps you take a lot of pride in all that you have achieved and sacrifices made.

Are you God? Are you the balancer of the scales? Are Trumps words so horrid that all the goodness he has done is insurmountable? Before you judge any man, look first at his family and then at those he holds close to his heart.

These are the ones he loves, these are the ones who judgment you can trust. Yet so often and shamefully so, a man or woman is judged by a single word or action.

Jesus forgave the PROSTITUTE (one who actively slept with married men and performed all kinds of acts way more explicit than Trumps words)

And you ask: What shall a Christian do? I would ask in stead: What kind of Christian am I, and then TRUST GOD to clear your heart and mind to see GOODNESS in the truth and EVIL for what it is.

27 posted on 10/11/2016 6:58:11 PM PDT by BornToBeAmerican (Don't forget Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Committed Christian answer: you vote for Trump. You don’t put your trust in Trump. You put your trust in God. If Hillary wins, you put your trust in God. The worst thing that can happen to any Christian is to die and go to heaven, and as Paul says, any suffering here is light and momentary, and with all he suffered, he should know.

28 posted on 10/11/2016 6:58:59 PM PDT by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

What’s a Christian to do? Quit hyperventilating about all the supposed “moral dilemmas”. Shut up and vote.

29 posted on 10/11/2016 7:04:09 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Bonheoffer thought the only course of action was to not involve himself, as a pacifist, to try and stop Hitler from obtaining power. He eventually changed his mind when he saw the level of evil that Nazism had sunk to. He thought, in the end, that it would have been better to try and kill Hitler himself and go before God with that on his personal record than to continue to stand aside and watch the inhumanity continue.

30 posted on 10/11/2016 7:07:54 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Vote for the candidate an unborn baby would choose

31 posted on 10/11/2016 7:08:41 PM PDT by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Anyone who doesn’t want to vote for a President, needs to vote for the next Supreme Court. The next supreme court will impact us more than whoever the next president is.

32 posted on 10/11/2016 7:17:33 PM PDT by aimhigh (1 John 3:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Carter lusted for a rabbit.

33 posted on 10/11/2016 7:23:01 PM PDT by Lisbon1940 (Trump-Pence 2016: No full-term Governors!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony; silverleaf
It's past time that citizens--Catholic, Protestant, and others-- who understand their Constitution, with its foundations in Creator-endowed rights and liberty, speak out to defend against this outright assault from Clinton's campaign and her entire "progressive" movement whose ideology makes population control the centerprise of their coercive agenda.

Until now, there has been a strange silence on the subject of her absolute insistence on promoting the "destroying" of human life in the womb. Does no one ask the question, "Why is abortion, even late-term, the most important item on the agenda of a woman who claims to speak for the children?"

On the underlying question moral question discussed here, nothing addresses it better than the simple logic of this quotation from Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, as cited above, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of where a candidate stands on all the questions of life and liberty.

In America, our constitutional protections rest on the Founders' premise that each and all individuals are "endowed by their Creator" with the unalienable right to both life and the liberty to enjoy it, or, in their words, "the pursuit of happiness."

The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.

"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.

When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?

That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.

In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.

Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?

Promises are illusive and cheap. One fact is indisputable, however: Hillary Clinton is committed to the Far Left's agenda on this matter, and that agenda is not compatible with our Constitution's premise.

Some time ago, my attention was drawn to a late-1800's essay which helps to explain the absolute, unbending positions "progressives" hold on what that writer called "population control" and its necessity to "socialism"--the essential position being that without such mechanisms, socialism cannot work in a society.

There is an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.

The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":

Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove."
With Hillary, isn't this the choice we must make--a path to tyranny or a possible path back to freedom in America?

34 posted on 10/11/2016 7:24:48 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

This is a good article. Not because I need convincing, but because there are still some we will come across who do need convincing.

Regarding the posts to this thread: It’s pretty astonishing how many people just throw up posts without reading the article. Seeing your name in lights is better than being enlightened, for some.

35 posted on 10/11/2016 7:34:42 PM PDT by RobinOfKingston (Just what is the difference between a "centrist democrat" and a "moderate republican?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony
So Trump got caught on camera being a tad colourful. He certainly needs to keep this commandment in mind…. Colossians 3:8 “But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:”

Trump is commanded, as we all are to ‘get rid of our old self’ and ‘put on our new self’. What Trump said was exactly what this verse refers to…. filthy communication. He did not swear or use God’s name in vain. If he had of, a much more serious verse applies.… Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

On the other hand, Hillary has a history of talking to Eleanor Roosevelt regularly when she was in the White House the last time…. really!! Here is Bill talking about it…. What does the Bible say about this?

Deuteronomy 19:9 “When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

In summary…. What Trump said was worthy of God’s reprimand and reminder to smarten up and be the new and good person that he can be. On the other hand, the necromancing that Hitlery did is referred to by God as an abomination…..

If you were to look at just these two things, you could say that as a Christian, what Trump said was serious enough that you should keep your eyes and ears open to see if this is a harbinger of things that are potentially worse with his character. On the other hand with Hitlery, what she did was an automatic, absolute and immediate disqualifier.

So go and vote for Trump.... he is definitely far and away the lesser of two evils. And pray for him that he will grow in the spirt and 'put on the new man'.

36 posted on 10/11/2016 7:40:17 PM PDT by hecticskeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

I would suggest voting for the candidate that does NOT believe it should stay legal to suck the brains out of a baby being born just as long as part of it is still inside the mother, because it’s not “yet born”.

Oh, my bad, no, what about he bad man who said the bad words.....

40-60M american defenseless babies aborted since Roe v Wade, which was based on a lie.

37 posted on 10/11/2016 7:43:38 PM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FrankR


38 posted on 10/11/2016 7:45:47 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Freeze
I believe the Bible describes the relevant criteria for government leaders is the ability to punish evil and administer justice.

Thanks so much for this succinct and well spoken answer! You are absolutely right per Romans 13:3-4, will pass these words of wisdom on!!
39 posted on 10/11/2016 7:47:58 PM PDT by wubjo (For a free people mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sean_Anthony

Vote for Trump, of course.

40 posted on 10/11/2016 7:48:01 PM PDT by 353FMG (AMERICA MATTERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson