A Question that Needs to be Asked

Can anything be Christian if it is not scriptural? and Can anything be politically right if it is morally wrong?

I find that the more conservative a person is in his understanding of biblical truths, the more likely he is to belong to the right-wing politically.

It should, however, be understood that the terms, "right wing" and "left wing" are actually socialist terms used to describe American politics - but the word, like the word "Christian" stuck and became a descriptive label.

Conversely, the less certainty that people place in the Bibles, the more likely they are to embrace a liberal philosophy politically - and I believe that that is due to their hesitancy to accept absolute truth - preferring rather to enjoy the somewhat neutral view that all truth is relative and dependent upon the situation (situational ethics, et al).

I, for one, have no problem accepting a literal Bible and the essential, fundamental truths contained therein so that I could never support a party that demands rights for homosexuals, or abortion-on-demand or stripping a nation's right to both self-defense and involvement in procuring freedom to oppressed nations when necessary to our own common defense.

Yet, lately, I am saddened to see the new so-called conservative party in America trying to appease the leftists by embracing more and more liberal positions in the hope that they might somehow win over those that hate moral values. We have a whole new party evolving that no longer recognizes the platform that Ronald Reagan successfully captured the American spirit of patriotism with, and have begun clamoring for a so-called "moderate" platform.

Moderates are nothing more than fence-sitters that will only fall one way or the other depending upon what way the wind happens to be blowing, or what the latest poll says they ought to do. These people, such as the ones that are voting to take away more and more rights of their constituents should change their party designation from "Republican" to the truer one of "Rhino" - Republican in name only.

If a person claims to be saved, there is absolutely no way that they can support the agenda of the left, and yet, the very term "Christian" is no longer the descriptive it once was - sort of like the word "gay" no longer stands for being happy.

A Christian is one that can answer this question unequivocally: "If you were to die today, are you absolutely certain that you will go directly into the presence of the Saviour because of His death for you on the cross and your acceptance of His free gift of eternal life."

Paul Harvey, the noted Christian newscaster, tells of a Civil War soldier who decided to play it safe. He put on a gray Confederate coat and blue Union trousers. Then he stepped out in the battle line.

What happened? You guessed it. He got shot at from both directions.

Compromise never pays.

To win a battle any army must know what side it is on and against whom it is fighting.

Note that being saved is not the only impetus for conservatism. My own conservatism is secular, based upon the belief that man is horribly flawed and that the smaller government is, the less likely it will amplify those flaws. Religion requires self government, which is the best of all kinds of government, and why I would rather live among American Christians than any incarnation of liberalism. Devout Christians make the best of all people, provided that they are secure with their religion. If not, they often try to force it on others as if by doing so they convince themselves they've a better chance of being saved. As the article mentioned, if one has any doubts, he isn't.

But also note that when religion becomes government, as in Europe's dark ages or in present day Middle East, it becomes, inevitably, no better than just another amplifier of man's evil. Originally, the US constitution recognized this and created the best government ever known to man. It recognized and supported religion, but didn't rule by it. That has been completely misinterpreted by liberals, who hate religion and the constitution.

Agreed, wgflyer.

The only theocracy that has any hope of surviving is one where the Lord JESUS CHRIST is sitting on the throne of power, as says the old nugget: There can be no peace without the Prince of Peace. That is, however, for a future time.

We taste of this kind of government when we allow the Saviour His proper place upon the throne of our individual lives as we accept His authority as Lord over all. This is what helps us to make the right decisions - such as, to whom shall we vote for?

Indeed, I would not like to see any religion, even mine own, become the religion of the state. I believe that our founding fathers, though not specifically Christians, but biblically-minded, saw the best government as that where, as you state, man is permitted to rule over his own affairs and conscience - rather than having some despot - as I fear we now have.

Thank you for reading.

American presidents do not govern by their religion, they govern by how their religion HAS TAUGHT THEM. Since we are mostly a Judeo Christian country, most people believe in God, the Bible and the Ten Commandments as a way of governing or how they function in life. This is as it should be. A leader’s religion even if devout is a guide, not a hammer.

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.