Or what SHOULD take precedence at the polls?

For non Christians the same question applies with respect to their religious text?

Who's interpretation? The Bible is infallible but interpretations are not (example multitude of Protestant sects). Christianity is not meant to be political. Honor God and love your neighbor. The rest falls into place.

Larry Lajitas said:

---

Who's interpretation? The Bible is infallible but interpretations are not (example multitude of Protestant sects). Christianity is not meant to be political. Honor God and love your neighbor. The rest falls into place.

---

The Constitution is fallible along with its interpretations. Not sure what you mean that Christianity is not meant to be political. It has a lot to say about politics.

I vote for who I think will support the church and its mission the most. This includes things he/she has said and legislation they have supported.

I see nowhere that they conflict. Use Both

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I vote for who I think will support the church and its mission the most. This includes things he/she has said and legislation they have supported.

---

What church? A Methodist/Episcopal church could have individuals who see very differently from a Catholic/Orthodox or a Baptist/Bible Church. Politics is always a slippery slope for someone who is called to live right to someone who wants to make someone live right.

I don't want the Book of Kings to get political.

Larry Lajitas said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I vote for who I think will support the church and its mission the most. This includes things he/she has said and legislation they have supported.

---

What church? A Methodist/Episcopal church could have individuals who see very differently from a Catholic/Orthodox or a Baptist/Bible Church. Politics is always a slippery slope for someone who is called to live right to someone who wants to make someone live right.

---

I vote for whoever will implement a Christian theocracy where all policy and legislation is reviewed by the Council of the 12 Apostles selected by the Supreme Seer.

Jesus takes precedence, of course. Which is why I don't bother voting.

Voting: 2nd ammendment, border wall, same sex marriage, abortion, tax spending, view of judges, income inequality, etc.

What matters most to God is: _________

DirtDiver said:

---

What matters most to God is: _________

---

To act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. To love your neighbor. To love your enemy. To love.

You hit the target I was aiming for... This is the discussion I thought would be interesting. Legislating morality or legislating fairness...

Quote:

---

What does it mean to say that the Bible takes precedence over Constitution in politics? Does this mean that this politician holds the importance of their faith over their duty to protect someone else's faith?

---

A person familiar with the Bible would understand that God gave humans free will. A Christian politician would have no biblical reason to deny someone the freedom to practice their faith. A Christian is to lovingly persuade people to believe in Jesus. We do not use force to prevent another's beliefs.

Quote:

---

I suspect for most of you, this does not mean legislating morality. I suspect most of you would not support making divorce, premarital sex, homosexuality, missing church on Sunday, blasphemy, etc. illegal. I don't think any of you want a Christian North Korea.

---

Divorce is permitted in the scriptures because of the hardness of the human heart. Why would a Christian with a Bible over constitution value change this? Also, how can anyone prevent homosexuality or premarital sex? Homosexuality is a sin in the scripture just like disobeying parents, lying, heterosexual lust and adultery All humanity has failed in at least one or like me multiple categories. While I would support legislation to protect the biblical view of marriage between a man and a woman. We couldn't prevent same sex unions and freedoms.

Quote:

---

So what do you want? A politician that supports religious freedom? If that's the case, does that politician even need to be a Christian? An atheist can support religious freedom.

---

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

I want a politician that supports religions freedom and promotes policies that punishes evil and praises those who do right. Qualification: In a manner that follows the heart of Jesus. When it would been permitted to stone the woman caught in adultery under Jewish law, he showed mercy, grace, and compassion.

Quote:

---

Or is it somewhere in the middle? You want a politician whose justification on certain issues is religious and on other items they are constitutional or political? Oppose gay marriage . . . cuz God. Allow Muslims to marry. . . cuz constitution. Oppose abortion . . . cuz God. Support war . . . . cuz politics. How do you keep from falling into consistency problems?

---

Oppose abortion? Absolutely! Declaration of independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life
Oppose redefining marriage - cannot prevent unions
Allow Muslims to marry? What????
Support war? If we are under attack we go to war. Not opposed war to protect those who cannot protect them selves under evil regimes. ie: going to war against Japan and Germany
One would keep from falling into consistency problems by carefully studying the Bible in it's entirety. Sure mistakes will be made.

Quote:

---

I don't think this is a straight forward question and I suspect most of the Christians here value support for religious freedoms more than anything else in a politician. And for those people, the Bible's got nothing to do with it.

---

I disagree. We simply have to look at how Jesus and Paul dealt with those with differing views. The did not deny others freedoms but simply work to persuade them with words and loving actions. Did they deny others religions freedom or did others deny theirs?

I used to share similar beliefs. I no longer think this way.

Would love to hear your story some time.

Like I said, I don't expect many here are advocating Christian North Korea.

What do you think of my statement that an atheist can promote religious freedom as well as a Christian?

I think it's fair to ask you to dig into this a bit deeper:
" I want a politician that supports religions freedom and promotes policies that punishes evil and praises those who do right. Qualification: In a manner that follows the heart of Jesus. When it would been permitted to stone the woman caught in adultery under Jewish law, he showed mercy, grace, and compassion."

It's a nice sentiment, but it's wholly too simple for the messiness of the real world. Or at least, it's too open to interpretation. What are these policies?

As far as war, I was thinking Korea, Vietnam, Iraq . . . and wars where motivations are more rooted in politics than self preservation. There is a lot that our military has done or still does that is less straight forward in defending. WW2 isn't a perfect example, but it's the low hanging fruit of examples.

Larry Lajitas said:

---

Who's interpretation? The Bible is infallible but interpretations are not (example multitude of Protestant sects). Christianity is not meant to be political. Honor God and love your neighbor. The rest falls into place.

---

Dare I point out the multitude of Catholic sects, or Islamic sects, or sexy sects.
People tend to join groups (its almost like the law of gravity: 2 is stronger than 1, 4 is stronger than 2, 8 is stronger than 4,etc.) and at the same time split off and create new groups, a never ending froth.
How to get the law to fairly accommodate this constant change is one justification for voting.

DirtDiver said:

---

Would love to hear your story some time.

---

4chan probably