2008 USA Presidential Primaries thread

[BulletMagnet]

What are you referring to exactly? “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s"?

The key bits on this that come to mind when it comes to Jesus are -

Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: "This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world." Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone. - John 6:14-15

So Pilate entered into the governor's palace again and called Jesus and said to him: "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus answered: "Is it of your own originality that you say this, or did others tell you about me?" Pilate answered: "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered you up to me. What did you do?" Jesus answered: "My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from this source." - John 18:33-36

Also, the full text of the bit you posted above is -

Then the Pharisees went their way and took counsel together in order to trap him in his speech. So they dispatched to him their disciples, together with party followers of Herod, saying: "teacher, we know you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care for anybody, for you do not look upon men's outward appearance. Tell us, therefore, What do you think? Is it lawful to pay head tax to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: "Why do you put me to the test, hypocrites? Show me the head tax coin." They brought him a denarius. And he said to them: "Whose image and inscription is this?" They said: "Caesar's." Then he said to them: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God." - Matthew 22:15-21

In short, Jesus didn't allow his followers to use their devotion to God's rulership to incite revolts or become bad citizens, but at the same time noted that there are some things that the government, from a Christian standpoint, is not entitled to - trusting them instead of God to solve the world's problems is one of them. (Compare Psalm 146, if you're interested).

He criticized the Temple as a "den of thieves".

Actually, I think you're off on that one -

And Jesus entered into the temple and threw out all those selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money-changers and the benches of those selling doves. And he said to them: "It is written, 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a cave of robbers." - Matthew 21:12-13

And actually, he'd already done same thing at an earlier point -

And he found in the temple those selling cattle and sheep and doves and the money brokers in their seats. So, after making a whip of ropes, he drove all those with the sheep and cattle out of the temple, and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he said to those selling the doves: "Take these things away from here! Stop making the house of my Father a house of merchandise!" His disciples called to mind that it is written: "The zeal for your house will eat me up." - John 2:14-17

As you can see, he wasn't criticizing the temple, but rather those who were using it for personal gain rather than for worship. In actuality, he was defending it.

And after all he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword...

He did say that, but note all the stuff I mentioned above - he did cause a stir via his teachings, but he did not use the political system to do it. If he'd wanted to, he could have gotten into office and done heaven only knows what, but as he said many times, that's not why he was there. People were awaiting the Messiah at that time, but they thought that he was going to free them from the Romans and bring their nation back to its former glory - when Jesus insisted that this wasn't his purpose (compare Matthew 20:25-28), they rejected him, and most are still waiting for the Messiah to this day.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, just saying you aren't involved in politics doesn't mean you aren't.

This is true, but at the same time just because others want to put a political skin on what you're doing doesn't mean that was your intention.

Bullet still hasn't answer why liberal stations can't even come close to Rush with ratings.

I've answered it several times and I'll answer it again - MARKET PERFORMANCE IS NOT INEVITABLY DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO QUALITY. Read the long (and yet still far from complete) list of things he's lied through his teeth to his viewers about (I know you haven't bothered to as of yet), and try to tell anyone with ANY sense at all that this is top-quality stuff we're dealing with here.

I do too but some things that come out of your mouth I just want to scream.

If you really did value my opinions you'd take the time to address them, regardless of how intensely you disagree with them, the same as I've done with your countless baseless assertions. The way you've been acting tells me that you're just not interested in anything that doesn't line up with the preconceived notions you've already decided you like best, evidence be damned.

[Turrican]

Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: "This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world." Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone. - John 6:14-15

Refuting to be King is refuting power, not refuting political stance / action (that's at least what I see in it).

In short, Jesus didn't allow his followers to use their devotion to God's rulership to incite revolts or become bad citizens,

which I hope it's not all you see in "politics". It's not that it's all about revolts and being bad. ^^

but at the same time noted that there are some things that the government, from a Christian standpoint, is not entitled to - trusting them instead of God to solve the world's problems is one of them.

Yes, of course.

Actually, I think you're off on that one -

And Jesus entered into the temple and threw out all those selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money-changers and the benches of those selling doves. And he said to them: "It is written, 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a cave of robbers." - Matthew 21:12-13

And actually, he'd already done same thing at an earlier point -

As you can see, he wasn't criticizing the temple, but rather those who were using it for personal gain rather than for worship. In actuality, he was defending it.

Thanks for getting the most accurate quotes out there (mine were from wikipedia), but I don't think I was too far off. He was criticizing the actual state the Temple was in - thus defending his own and higher idea of what it should've been. But regardless who gets the critic (undoubtedly the merchants, my bad) - he criticized the status quo and wanted some change. And I'd call that politic.

He did say that, but note all the stuff I mentioned above - he did cause a stir via his teachings, but he did not use the political system to do it.

Oh, but he didn't? I wouldn't be that sure. Of course he didn't make a career in the political establishment - then again that's not what revolutionaries do. they cause a system crumbling from the outside. There are many ways to do a political act.

I guess eventually it comes down to our own definition of politics. If doing politics back then would have been a Roman centurion or getting some other title, then of course he wasn't into politics. If you accept a broader meaning of the word - to make an example, Rosa Parks's action on that famous bus was a political one - then you see early Christianity was into politics, as it was intended back then of course.

[Neon]

MSNBC beats Rush Limbaugh in ratings

liberal jew-run media = truth

[GaijinPunch]

Bullet still hasn't answer why liberal stations can't even come close to Rush with ratings.

B/c the average person is amazingly stupid. You will realize this a few years down the road when you've joined the work force and got out on your own. Of course, this transcends political party, but if you look at standardized test scores, the red states are traditionally far lower (hence, dumber) than the blue. This doesn't mean all conservatives/Republicans are dumb, but the ones that vote Republican and are poor definitely are. The issue is, people living in the middle of nowhere making $50k/ year w/ a car think they're rich, and they're not. It's such a huge scam.

[Zebra Airforce]

O'Reilly on the Colbert Report

[BulletMagnet]

which I hope it's not all you see in "politics". It's not that it's all about revolts and being bad. ^^

Heh, no, but some have used their supposed total devotion to God as an excuse to not pay taxes or other such bad behavior - Jesus, among others in the Bible, say, in no uncertain terms, that they think differently (a particularly strong statement of this is in Romans chapter 13).

He was criticizing the actual state the Temple was in - thus defending his own and higher idea of what it should've been.

Actually, those weren't "his ideas" - they'd been there for ages (while selling animals to be sacrificed wasn't itself unlawful, anything except worship was prohibited within the temple itself), it's just that some didn't bother to follow them (some also speculate that, by setting up shop so close to the altar, they likely charged unfairly high prices for the "convenience"). According to scripture, God's view of his house wasn't any less strict before Jesus got there.

I guess eventually it comes down to our own definition of politics. If doing politics back then would have been a Roman centurion or getting some other title, then of course he wasn't into politics. If you accept a broader meaning of the word - to make an example, Rosa Parks's action on that famous bus was a political one - then you see early Christianity was into politics, as it was intended back then of course.

It'd seem that you define a "political act" as an effort to change something, in some way - and considering that such changes, in one way or another, often end up happening via government action of some kind, that's understandable. In Jesus' case, however, the change he sought was not related to government in any way - what he wanted to change were people's attitudes and habits when it came to worship, and he didn't lobby either the Sanhedrin (though he did criticize them for many things, including their improper involvement in politics) or the Romans to make it happen, and he didn't seek office for himself and warned his followers against doing so. Another interesting point to consider is that one of the things that the Jews charged Jesus with was sedition, a charge that Rome did not take lightly - however, if you read a bit farther past the "my kingdom is no part of this world" passage I posted earlier, even Pilate had to say that he saw no reason to convict Jesus, and was only eventually forced to do so because holding out became more political trouble for him than he thought it was worth (the Jews, ironically, insisted to him that "we have no king but Caesar," despite the fact that they were hoping that Jesus would be the one to put them in their place).

Most any way you slice it, Jesus (and the Bible as a whole, there are plenty of corroborating passages in the Old Testament as well) make about the strongest case for the "separation of church and state" that has ever been made - though many clergy and candidates would burst a blood vessel or two if confronted with that fact.

[Turrican]

Actually, those weren't "his ideas" - they'd been there for ages (while selling animals to be sacrificed wasn't itself unlawful, anything except worship was prohibited within the temple itself), it's just that some didn't bother to follow them

Of course - I meant "his ideas" in the sense of the idea he shared and agreed on about how a Temple should be. Actually this is not much different that Luther's reaction many centuries later when he went to Rome. Acting against the corruption of modern days to restore the golden age is also a recurring theme in eastern tales.

It'd seem that you define a "political act" as an effort to change something, in some way - and considering that such changes, in one way or another, often end up happening via government action of some kind, that's understandable. In Jesus' case, however, the change he sought was not related to government in any way

Except I don't see a political act ending by all means in the consolidation of a government - you mentioned his teachings caused quite a stir, and in a sense even that could be considered a political act. To quote from wiki again "Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions." - basically as soon as you have humans in a number larger than one, you have politics in my view.

Another interesting point to consider is that one of the things that the Jews charged Jesus with was sedition

Right, and while I don't doubt he being sincere in his stance, it's clear that he was already seen as a political threat. But I do agree on the principle that how you are perceived is not necessarily what you are.

Most any way you slice it, Jesus (and the Bible as a whole, there are plenty of corroborating passages in the Old Testament as well) make about the strongest case for the "separation of church and state" that has ever been made - though many clergy and candidates would burst a blood vessel or two if confronted with that fact.

Now you got me lost - I never meant to talk against the Separation principle. I only thought you were interpreting it a bit too strictly. You said initially "If he was a "real Christian" he (and all the rest) wouldn't be involved in politics at all". Now, from our further discussion I take you were meaning "he wouldn't accept any political charge" - which is reasonable. But take vote, for example. Being involved into elections and cast your own vote are political acts (even if you don't take part in the government, of course). Would you say a "real Christian" shouldn't vote in any election?

I don't think Christianity would require such a reclusion from the actions of men - I would expect this more from a more meditative form of religious thought, like Buddhism. If you really think "real Christians" shouldn't even vote, there must be few of them around.

[Fighter17]

Let's just carry on as though F17 hadn't taken a massive dump on the thread. The biggest thing to me is electability, so I'm having a hard time deciding. I've seen polls where it shows that Hillary is more likely to beat the Republican opponent (at this point) but Obama seems to have greater appeal amongst independents. O-face hasn't run the best campaign, either. If he performs in the general as he is now, it'd be a shame. Where was his display of emotion in Nevada? A desperation move was necessary but he didn't even try. It appears inevitable again that Hilly will win anyway, but I dunno.

Rule number one: NEVER TRUST POLLS! Take polls with a grain of salt. In many states the Independents in the Open-Primary states were mostly voting for McCain. I would vote for McCain if Florida was a Open-Primary state (which it's not).

Well since a lot of African Americans are voting for Obama and a lot of the white voters are voting for Hillary, Hillary is going to get the win if everything goes as it is right now. In SC expect Obama to win because of the huge African American population who in the books are going to vote for Obama.

I've answered it several times and I'll answer it again - MARKET PERFORMANCE IS NOT INEVITABLY DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO QUALITY. Read the long (and yet still far from complete) list of things he's lied through his teeth to his viewers about (I know you haven't bothered to as of yet), and try to tell anyone with ANY sense at all that this is top-quality stuff we're dealing with here.

I've already said I don't agree with Rush 100% and yes time to time he does take it out of hand.

But, when I listen to Air America and other liberal theme radio stations it's not quality, it's crap (and they lied under their teeth a lot worse than Rush).

The reason why Rush is still on the radio station after 20 years is because he talk politics which make sense to many people, and he's also a entertainer. He can amuse you while at the same time get his message across to people. While you agree with him or not he was very helpful to the Republicans for the major 94 GOP victory in Congress (the first time Republicans took control over the house in 40 years).

You said people with any sense with not call this quality stuff. Tell that to any liberal-minded person and they'll agree. Tell that to any Conservative and they'll disagree. A lot of young people will usual vote Democrats for many years until they start having families and getting older (and wiser). A good number of them (not all of them) will say "WTF the Democrats are doing?" and will change to Republicans or Independents. That's why a lot of older people with families are usually Republicans and a lot of single people (and a lot of the poor) tend to be Democrats.

Might be getting myself a little too far ahead, but that's from American Federal Government 101 (or just go your own research about the numbers, it's not that hard).

B/c the average person is amazingly stupid. You will realize this a few years down the road when you've joined the work force and got out on your own. Of course, this transcends political party, but if you look at standardized test scores, the red states are traditionally far lower (hence, dumber) than the blue. This doesn't mean all conservatives/Republicans are dumb, but the ones that vote Republican and are poor definitely are. The issue is, people living in the middle of nowhere making $50k/ year w/ a car think they're rich, and they're not. It's such a huge scam.

I'm already in the work force mind you. People who are stupid don't even give a shit about politics.

And for those are poor, they tend to vote Democrats. The Middle/Upper class will usually vote for Republicans in the Red States.

So what you saying is that people in the Red States who vote Republican tend to be dumber? Have you ever taken an American Federal Government course in college? People with little or no education and people with really high education (more than four years in college) tend to vote Democrat. People with a four year degree in College tend to vote Republican. Can't say that for everyone, but that's a fact.

Standardized test scores is not a good source because each state has a different education standards. I used to live in New York (a blue state) and the education system was shit.

[JoshF]

Well since a lot of African Americans are voting for Obama and a lot of the white voters are voting for Hillary, Hillary is going to get the win if everything goes as it is right now. In SC expect Obama to win because of the huge African American population who in the books are going to vote for Obama.

You're doing the same thing I was talking about at the beginning of the thread. i.e. white males have genetically superior critical thinking abilities while blacks and women make decisions based on melanin levels and sex organs.

[Fighter17]

You're doing the same thing I was talking about at the beginning of the thread. i.e. white males have genetically superior critical thinking abilities while blacks and women make decisions based on melanin levels and sex organs.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Hahaha......ha.

I tend to base it that humans tend to be (or in this case, vote) for their own kind usually.

[BulletMagnet]

You said people with any sense with not call this quality stuff...Tell that to any Conservative and they'll disagree.

So how much of that list of blatant lies (not "misstatements," not "embellishments," LIES) from that link can you or any other Republican refute or defend? And...

But, when I listen to Air America and other liberal theme radio stations it's not quality, it's crap (and they lied under their teeth a lot worse than Rush).

...once again, do you have any examples to show of this? If the lies are that bad, someone is bound to have documented them, just like Rush's were.

A lot of young people will usual vote Democrats for many years until they start having families and getting older (and wiser).

I'd say it's more likely that some of them acquire substantial financial assets and begin looking for excuses to hold onto as much of them as possible. Also, and I almost hate to say this because it almost sounds like a low blow, but you have to admit it sounds odd for a mid-teenager to be talking about how much wiser one supposedly gets (i.e., starts to think like he does) as one gets older...you might have certain factors in your favor when it comes to discussion (feel free to demonstrate them anytime you please), but "experience" is definitely not one of them.

To quote from wiki again "Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions." - basically as soon as you have humans in a number larger than one, you have politics in my view.

Well, if you're going to use that wide-reaching (pretty much all-encompassing) of a definition of "politics", then I suppose I ought to use a different word when discussing this sort of thing with you...what's the "official" term for "politics" in the sense that it's "normally" used? ("governmental politics" maybe?)

Then again, I think you already know what sort of thing I'm referring to when I say "politics," hopefully it's not a big enough deal to cause any confusion.

Right, and while I don't doubt he being sincere in his stance, it's clear that he was already seen as a political threat.

Well, again, if you use the term "politics" in a wide sense...of course, the real thing that the Sanhedrin was worried about was the fact that Jesus was openly criticizing their self-interested departures from the law they were supposed to be following - what he was accused of was sedition to the Roman government, not the Jewish establishment (which, as Pilate quickly found out, was completely baseless).

Being involved into elections and cast your own vote are political acts (even if you don't take part in the government, of course). Would you say a "real Christian" shouldn't vote in any election?

I suppose that to some extent (as elsewhere) people can interpret passages as they see fit (or try to), but again, the basic idea of Christianity when it comes to government is that God and his teachings are the ONLY thing that a Christian has any "real" obligation to obey, when it comes to the most important choices to make in one's life (beyond the relatively minor stuff discusses earlier, taxes, etc.). Even if you don't run for office yourself, supporting someone else for government office (who is an imperfect human, the same as you) could plausibly be taken as an indication that you trust him/her to make a difference worth making in the world, something which the Bible claims ONLY God can do (compare Jeremiah 10:23). As I said, some might disagree, but the argument can certainly be made against Christians having any part in the political (using "the BM definition" ) process.

If you really think "real Christians" shouldn't even vote, there must be few of them around.

Very few indeed - and there are plenty of other basic Biblical teachings that one could list which would disqualify many, many others from being labeled as "Christian," if you define it as someone who bases his lifestyle on Biblical teachings.

[JoshF]

I tend to base it that humans tend to be (or in this case, vote) for their own kind usually.

So Coulter is more inclined to vote for Hillary?

[Acid King]

So Coulter is more inclined to vote for Hillary?

That is if you consider Ann Coulter to be a woman... or a human, for that matter.

[Twiddle]

ann coulter is funny as fuck, he's a great irl troll

[Specineff]

I suppose that to some extent (as elsewhere) people can interpret passages as they see fit (or try to), but again, the basic idea of Christianity when it comes to government is that God and his teachings are the ONLY thing that a Christian has any "real" obligation to obey, when it comes to the most important choices to make in one's life (beyond the relatively minor stuff discusses earlier, taxes, etc.). Even if you don't run for office yourself, supporting someone else for government office (who is an imperfect human, the same as you) could plausibly be taken as an indication that you trust him/her to make a difference worth making in the world, something which the Bible claims ONLY God can do (compare Jeremiah 10:23). As I said, some might disagree, but the argument can certainly be made against Christians having any part in the political (using "the BM definition" ) process.

Sorry to disagree with you, BM. I must present a counterpoint. Truly, for a Christian, God is above all human authority. But that doesn't mean they are not supposed to be given their due: To Cesar what belongs to Cesar, to God what belongs to God.

Romans 13:14: The authority does not carry its sword in vain.

And Paul the apostle also encourages people to pray for their popular leaders.

Men of authority rallied and led people to great victories chronicled in the Bible. They were trusted, and followed by lots of people. (Book of Judges) It is against blind trust on a man what christianity advices against. There is nothing wrong or sinful with hoping and expecting an elected leader will use the power vested in them to improve, correct, change or keep things the way they are for the better.

[Neon]

ann coulter is funny as fuck, he's a great irl troll

lol he

if ann were revealed as a tranny, my life would be made of win

[shoe-sama]

hey guys who should i vote for

[Twiddle]

the one that isn't going to directly or indirectly shave off your benefits sooner

[Fighter17]

ann coulter is funny as fuck, he's a great irl troll

You would hit that.

lol he

if ann were revealed as a tranny, my life would be made of win

One on the right is actually her.

[BulletMagnet]

Truly, for a Christian, God is above all human authority. But that doesn't mean they are not supposed to be given their due: To Cesar what belongs to Cesar, to God what belongs to God.

I did mention that scripture in a previous post, and Paul also instructs Christians to "render to all their dues, to him that calls for the tax, the tax; to him who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to him who calls for fear, such fear; to him who calls for honor, such honor." However, the question is, what exactly are "God's things" that need to be paid to God, if not trust that he'll be the one to make things right, and that human governments, despite the good intentions of some, are incapable of it (check that scripture in Jeremiah I alluded to earlier)? How can one pledge allegiance to a flag (or some other similar act) and not be overstepping that boundary somehow?

Romans 13:14: The authority does not carry its sword in vain.

I assume that this is a typo and you meant Romans 13:4 ("But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword..."). I referenced Romans 13 earlier, and it does say that "the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God" and acknowledges the good that governments can do (guaranteeing religious freedom, protecting against crime, etc.), but again, those positions are relative.

And Paul the apostle also encourages people to pray for their popular leaders.

Offhand do you know where that is? It doesn't ring a bell off the top of my head...

Men of authority rallied and led people to great victories chronicled in the Bible. They were trusted, and followed by lots of people. (Book of Judges)

The thing about the Judges (and even the kings that God didn't want put in place to begin with) is that God "raised them up" himself, in the same manner as he did with the prophets. This was still a matter of God performing his will through people who subjected themselves to it, in much the same manner as the priests or the like - politicians, on the other hand, are subjected to the will of those who get them elected, no matter how much they might talk about God (compare Romans 13:8).

It is against blind trust on a man what christianity advices against. There is nothing wrong or sinful with hoping and expecting an elected leader will use the power vested in them to improve, correct, change or keep things the way they are for the better.

As was mentioned above, the Bible doesn't view people in positions of authority as absolute evils (Paul, after all, appealed his legal case to Caesar), but at the same time neither he, nor Jesus, nor anyone else in the Bible ever supported a particular party or politician in the hopes of making things better - their message was that this was God's job, and that while in the meantime we should be peaceable with the secular authorities, we shouldn't place our trust in them.

As I mentioned earlier, I suppose the core issue is where you draw the line when it comes to what you consider "devotion to" something...all indications in the Bible that I'm aware of seem to point to active participation in the political process as a step over it, though some, obviously, interpret it differently (or just don't care enough to bother with it). I probably ought to split the topic at this point...*fiddles with mod controls*

[Neon]

hey guys who should i vote for

Jesus as a write-in

[jp]

hey guys who should i vote for

Segata Sanshiro.

[Neon]

hey guys who should i vote for

Segata Sanshiro.

Segata Sanshiro=Jesus

[Zebra Airforce]

Vote for the Captain.

If you look closely, that's not the wind blowing, it's his hair doing shouryukens.

[Specineff]

@BM My counterpoint can be resumed in this: Only God can make things perfect. Men are capable of making things better than they were. I have yet to find anything in the Bible that says that we should distrust and completely disavow the authority of our superiors. Knowing that they are imperfect and prone to mistakes, Paul encourages his readers to respect the authority. It is there for a reason. If it was wrong to do so, he would have said something against it, right?

My quotes are re-translated (from spanish). Hence the big difference.

Also: VOTE FOR PEDRO.

[shoe-sama]

steven colbert

[Randorama]

ann coulter is funny as fuck, he's a great irl troll

lol he

if ann were revealed as a tranny, my life would be made of win

She certainly has a much longer dick than anyone in this board (including me of course). Her acting in "Donkey bukkakke spectacular" kinda sucked though...

[BulletMagnet]

Only God can make things perfect. Men are capable of making things better than they were.

This is true (though oftentimes the results don't live up to the expectations), but see some of my later comments for a bit of additional thought on this...

I have yet to find anything in the Bible that says that we should distrust and completely disavow the authority of our superiors.

I've never disputed that (note some of the stuff I quoted in earlier posts), but at the same time there are scriptures like these (I might've already quoted them, but just in case...) -

"In time all the older men of Israel collected themselves together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him: 'Look! You yourself have grown old, but your own sons have not walked in your ways. Now do appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations.' But the thing was bad in the eyes of Samuel inasmuch as they had said: 'Do give us a king to judge us.' Then Jehovah said to Samuel: 'Listen to the voice of the people as respects all that they have said to you; for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is I whom they have rejected from being king over them. In accord with all their doings that they have done from the day of my bringing them up out of Egypt until this day in that they kept leaving me and serving other gods, that is the way they are doing also to you.'" - 1 Samuel 8:4-8

"Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs." - Psalms 146:3

"All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, during the time that man has dominated man to his injury." - Ecclesiastes 8:9

The first scripture is particularly strongly worded, as it compares the desire for leadership by a human with the desire to worship another God. And even the other scriptures do not put human leadership in a good light (read the rest of Samuel 8 for more of that).

Knowing that they are imperfect and prone to mistakes, Paul encourages his readers to respect the authority. It is there for a reason. If it was wrong to do so, he would have said something against it, right?

As I mentioned before, it depends on where you draw the line when it comes to "respect" - is following the laws and being a good citizen, as is expressly instructed, enough, or do you go beyond what's directly said and put forth effort to get these people elected, throwing your support behind someone who puts forth his own judgment, rather than God's standards (and no, anyone who wants to outlaw gay marriage while at the same time refusing to help the poor in any way doesn't fit the bill), as the way to make things the way they ought to be?

I didn't intend to debate at length over this (especially since it's so far off topic), but having studied the Bible for some time this is the overall message that I've gotten from it. Obviously I don't claim to know everything about it or that my studies shouldn't go further, but at least as of now my judgment of anyone who tries to reconcile Christianity and secular politics is someone who's playing his supporters as rubes and fools.

Also: VOTE FOR PEDRO.

Well, that about cancels out everything.

Segata Sanshiro=Jesus

Was he impaled on a missile in outer space? I'll have to reference that one...

[No_not_like_Quake]

http://www.zod2008.com/

[Acid King]

Guns and Dope Party