View Full Version : In God we trust, and so should the President
firetown
09-10-2008, 09:52 PM
I truly believe that part of what makes America what it is, is the fact that America believes in electing Presidents who are Christians. For some reason the thought of an atheist being in office scares me as a good foundation is going to be needed when it's time to make fast and good decisions.
People say that politics and religion should be seperated, and I believe that this believe is unrealistic as people will vote for something they would die for.
I think it's important that the words of the American forefathers resonate and "In God we Trust" needs to be upheld.
What are your thoughts on this?
~ Mike Dammann
It isn't so much about trusting in God as trusting decisions that cater to someone elses sense of morality.
Everyone interprets God differently.
firetown
09-10-2008, 11:33 PM
It isn't so much about trusting in God as trusting decisions that cater to someone elses sense of morality.
Everyone interprets God differently.
HOnestly, I myself would not feel comfortable with a non Christian being a leader of the most powerful country in the free world. I think we all make emotional decisions and decisions which are done instinctive and our true convictions come out. So my believe is if a President doesn't try to submit to God's will, then this CAN be a bad thing, and apparently it has been the voting behaviour in the U.S.
I interpret God as in the Bible, and of course, I am learning more about it pretty much everyday.
firetown
09-10-2008, 11:53 PM
What is God's will, ft?
THAT I don't know, but I do believe that those who pray are being shown step by step. And especially in moments when they need it the most.
THAT I don't know, but I do believe that those who pray are being shown step by step. And especially in moments when they need it the most.
What of those who harm others in the name of God?
firetown
09-11-2008, 12:00 AM
What of those who harm others in the name of God?
There is IMO a difference between abusing God's word or using it as an excuse for doing evil and doing something that you believe needs to be done in order to prevent evil. And in the second one, it can be that people suffer, but I do believe that when you look at the bigger picture or God's will if you will, it's something that needed to happen or was meant to happen.
How do you cater to people who don't share a common idea of morality?
firetown
09-11-2008, 12:23 AM
How do you cater to people who don't share a common idea of morality?
I think that morality is important, but when you simply base morality on what people are comfortable with, it is going to be very hard to find a common ground. You need to allow people freedom of choice. I don't believe in trying to make anybody believe your way. It's not even what faith is about, that has to come from within. But I do believe that as a President you will not do a good job if all you believe in is your very own abilities.
elisheva.d
09-11-2008, 02:31 AM
What of those who harm others in the name of God?
That's a tricky part I think. Those who do harm in the name of God, most likely, I believe, don't know God at all. If they knew, they would not do any harm in the first place. So in the end, they are not doing it for God... rather for themselves.
I think that morality is important, but when you simply base morality on what people are comfortable with, it is going to be very hard to find a common ground. You need to allow people freedom of choice. I don't believe in trying to make anybody believe your way. It's not even what faith is about, that has to come from within. But I do believe that as a President you will not do a good job if all you believe in is your very own abilities.
Do you believe non-Christians and atheists to be amoral? Do you believe they know the difference between right and wrong?
firetown
09-11-2008, 12:34 PM
Do you believe non-Christians and atheists to be amoral? Do you believe they know the difference between right and wrong?
No, and the issue is broader than morality. I don't understand what it is God wants from us always, but there is more to it than being moral in our own understanding.
No, and the issue is broader than morality.
Howso?
I don't understand what it is God wants from us always, but there is more to it than being moral in our own understanding.
Then why would it matter whether a Christian is elected or not?
What expectations do you have from a President?
What expectations do you have from Christian President?
firetown
09-11-2008, 02:39 PM
Howso?
Then why would it matter whether a Christian is elected or not?
What expectations do you have from a President?
What expectations do you have from Christian President?
It matters if you have more reponsibility than most human beings are able to handle. It matters to me and I think that having a non Christian up there with all the responsibility could lead to disaster when you give one person that much power and every action made by him makes such an impact on the entire world.
It matters if you have more reponsibility than most human beings are able to handle. It matters to me and I think that having a non Christian up there with all the responsibility could lead to disaster when you give one person that much power and every action made by him makes such an impact on the entire world.
Why does it matter? What makes a Christian better?
firetown
09-11-2008, 03:06 PM
Why does it matter? What makes a Christian better?OK this is turning into the deepest discussion I have ever had about it, but I will try to get accross what I think.
First, it is not about being better. It's about God's grace and surrendering to his will and as a result become better than you were before. It's not about Christian's being better, it's up to God to decide who deserves what.
It's about wanting to do God's will. A journey. Destination heaven.
Many non Christians feel threatened thinking of Christians as some "good ole boys club" discriminating against others, but anyone is able to accept Jesus as his Lord and Saviour.
I believe that a non Christian should not be President, as I believe Jesus is the way the truth and the light and if someone has not accepted him yet, then he should not be the one making decisions for the country as a mediator between God and the people if you will.
John Scott
09-11-2008, 03:14 PM
Religion is a personal issue. Like somebody's sexual preferences.
When you get people in office who think that religion is a social issue, it scares the beepers out of me.
Bush seemed to rely way too much on divine inspiration. And then you have Obama, who seems to think that religion is something the government should be eradicating.
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
The quote would seem to suggest that government is an alternative to religion. :confused:
First, it is not about being better. It's about God's grace and surrendering to his will and as a result become better than you were before. It's not about Christian's being better, it's up to God to decide who deserves what.
It's about wanting to do God's will. A journey. Destination heaven.
Many non Christians feel threatened thinking of Christians as some "good ole boys club" discriminating against others, but anyone is able to accept Jesus as his Lord and Saviour.
I believe that a non Christian should not be President, as I believe Jesus is the way the truth and the light and if someone has not accepted him yet, then he should not be the one making decisions for the country as a mediator between God and the people if you will.
Sorry, I'm dense. Non-Christians don't believe in self-improvement? One of your own countrymen, Nietzsche introduced the concept of the Übermensch (the superman). Nietzsche was seriously anti-God.
A mediator between God and the people is a very scary notion. :)
What advantage would a Christian bring to the Presidency that a non-Christian would not?
firetown
09-11-2008, 03:20 PM
Sorry, I'm dense. Non-Christians don't believe in self-improvement? One of your own countrymen, Nietzsche introduced the concept of the Übermensch (the superman). Nietzsche was seriously anti-God.
The amount of people over there being "anti God" is very large, and part of the reason for them having been blind enough to elect who they elected back in the 1930's. It's the country I am from, but not the place I identify with and haven't identified with since I was a kid.
John is right to some degree. You should not make religion mandatory and whether or not you believe in having a Christian or non Christian up there should never be mandatory, but a choice of the people, so what I am suggesting is not a law, just my believe in what is going to be what's best for the world.
The amount of people over there being "anti God" is very large, and part of the reason for them having been blind enough to elect who they elected back in the 1930's. It's the country I am from, but not the place I identify with and haven't identified with since I was a kid.
John is right to some degree. You should not make religion mandatory and whether or not you believe in having a Christian or non Christian up there should never be mandatory, but a choice of the people, so what I am suggesting is not a law, just my believe in what is going to be what's best for the world.
That's a wee bit too much power to give to an elected official. ;)
OK. Let's try a different route:
Many of the voters in this country are Protestant. The Protestant Reformation effectively eliminated the middle man between God and his worshippers.
How personal are your beliefs? Would you really want the mediator between you and God elected by popular vote? These are the people who elected Bill Clinton, an amoral mediator for two Presidencies.
firetown
09-11-2008, 04:08 PM
What I'm saying is that if a leader makes decisions on his own and does not do God's will, then the country will suffer. :) And in the case of the U.S. it will effect the world.
What I'm saying is that if a leader makes decisions on his own and does not do God's will, then the country will suffer. :) And in the case of the U.S. it will effect the world.
We've come full circle.
What is God's will? How would you know a President is adhering to the will of God?
firetown
09-11-2008, 04:24 PM
We've come full circle.
What is God's will? How would you know a President is adhering to the will of God?
Honestly, this is something I can't put into words. My answer would be "thru prayer", those who believe like I do will know what I mean, but I have to think of a good way to put it for those who don't.
Honestly, this is something I can't put into words. My answer would be "thru prayer", those who believe like I do will know what I mean, but I have to think of a good way to put it for those who don't.
I can't argue with faith.
I can only hope that those who share your beliefs respect the beliefs of those who do not.
firetown
09-11-2008, 09:26 PM
It's all free will. You cannot make anybody believe anything. :)
kerrin
10-06-2008, 06:23 PM
It's all free will. You cannot make anybody believe anything.
But you started this thread with this statement:
I truly believe that part of what makes America what it is, is the fact that America believes in electing Presidents who are Christians.
I know many Christians who do not vote or believe in electing a President simply because of his or her religious beliefs.
Other then prayer doesn't a Christian believe they can discover the will of God in the bible ("his word")? I think you will have a hard time pointing to a scripture in the Bible that advocates government leaders being Christian.
If a leader makes decisions on his own and does not do God's will, then the country will suffer.
A political leader will make political decisions (their job) based on his or her political philosophy. Political philosophy comes from the thinking of many people throughout history. Some political philosophy is even based or influenced by Christian principles. Besides, a president to one degree or another relies on the advice of others around them. "Checks and balances" in the Constitution could also be seen as prohibiting "on [their] own" decision making for the country.
John Scott
10-10-2008, 07:56 AM
Religion should be a private matter. Some people wear Christianity on their sleeves for business reasons. Some do it for political reasons. Sleazy either way.
I would love it if a politician told the press that his religious beliefs were a personal matter.
Most of my friends are non-Christian (Japanese - spiritual, but not religious), and they are good people all the same.
kerrin
10-10-2008, 01:34 PM
I would love it if a politician told the press that his religious beliefs were a personal matter.
Agreed. That would be great!
Most of my friends are non-Christian (Japanese - spiritual, but not religious), and they are good people all the same.
No religious group or philosophical worldview has claim to exclusive "good people."
The day that personal religion is left out of political races will be a great day!
firetown
10-13-2008, 05:19 AM
But you started this thread with this statement:
I know many Christians who do not vote or believe in electing a President simply because of his or her religious beliefs.
Other then prayer doesn't a Christian believe they can discover the will of God in the bible ("his word")? I think you will have a hard time pointing to a scripture in the Bible that advocates government leaders being Christian.
A political leader will make political decisions (their job) based on his or her political philosophy. Political philosophy comes from the thinking of many people throughout history. Some political philosophy is even based or influenced by Christian principles. Besides, a president to one degree or another relies on the advice of others around them. "Checks and balances" in the Constitution could also be seen as prohibiting "on [their] own" decision making for the country.
I definitely do not believe it should ever be mandatory to elect anybody based on any religion. That would be the end of freedom and open doors for anybody to pretend to be something and wind up with the best actor in the lead.
I think it should be something where people use their instinct and THE PEOPLE decide.
I am however expressing my belief that electing a Christian, a true Christian for President is something that leads the U.S. and the world into a much better direction.
kerrin
10-13-2008, 05:34 AM
I am however expressing my belief that electing a Christian, a true Christian for President is something that leads the U.S. and the world into a much better direction.
I respect your belief. Still, it seems hard to defend given the direction the U.S. has gone under the leadership of our current President, who claims to be a Christian.
Just so you know I'm not a Bush hating nut-job and had I been able to vote in 2004 I would have voted for him (I wasn't a US citizen then). I also have much respect for religion and Christianity in particular and I don't believe they're the cause of the world's problems.
How would you defend the current direction of the U.S. under a Christian president as "better"?
Is it God's will that the U.S. be $10+ trillion in debt?
Is it God's will that the U.S is involved in nation building?
Did God tell W. that these things were his will?
firetown
10-13-2008, 05:40 AM
Are you setting ME up to look like a nutjob? ;)
OK, I'll go for it and then I hide :)
Who is to say that NOT going to war would have not lead into more disaster. Who is to say that NOT going to war would not have encouraged countries and fascist groups to use that as a motivator to do more?
You are trying to explain world politics with logic, but you are dealing with enemies not following logic.
As to God's will ... I take the good with the bad.
It's His plan and not mine.
People always ask how God can allow so much evil to happen. But my key question to you is who the enemy is. Do you think it's G.W. or do you think that it may have taken a tough guy to deal with tough situations?
And do you believe we should blame that person with the U.S. being in bad shape or should we say it's something we have to get thru together and God willing get out of together?
kerrin
10-13-2008, 07:14 AM
No setup. I don't think you are a nut job. In fact I probably thought very similarly to you a matter of years ago.
Who is to say that NOT going to war would not have encouraged countries and fascist groups to use that as a motivator to do more?
The idea of going to war and nation building are two separate ideas. My question to you is about state-building (nation-building) not going to war (regime change) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-building#Differentiating_.22nation-building.22.2C_military_intervention.2C_regime_cha nge). Nation-building being one of the contributing factors to the $10 trillion in debt.
...you are dealing with enemies not following logic
I disagree. They are rational (logical) creatures. Their reasons for what they do are different then ours, but their reasoning is rational (their reasons for acting are not illogical). Their core beliefs about the world (worldview) are also different. Their worldview is perhaps less reasonable then yours or mine (this is another topic entirely). Let me put it to you this way, why is it more rational (logical) for you to believe in a virgin birth giving eternal life then it is for someone to believe that blowing themselves up will result in an award of 70 virgins after death? Which belief is more rational (logical) and why?
As to God's will ... I take the good with the bad.
It's His plan and not mine. But you are advocating voting for someone who "knows" what God's will is for the U.S. and can lead in that direction. You are starting to sound deterministic as opposed to your earlier statement that "it's all free will."
People always ask how God can allow so much evil to happen.
Not my question at all. In fact I know christian theology very well and don't have this question nor is it part of my questions to you. I understand as it relates to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, described by reformed theology, the better question is not about evil, but why would a sovereign God allow any good? (You don't need to answer. I'm merely showing I understand the question and answer and it's not part of my questions to you)
Do you think it's G.W. or do you think that it may have taken a tough guy to deal with tough situations?
G.W. is not "the enemy." Within the Republican party it's the neocons and their political philosophies that could be considered an 'enemy' to that parties effectiveness to do good on behalf of the U.S.
G.W. was not a neocon before he became president. He was a true conservative (reference primaries in 1999/2000). His implicit trust of and loyalty to the advisors and people he appointed around him led him down the neocon path and after 9/11 is when he really started listening to them. His value of trust and loyalty could actually be attributed, to some degree, to his christian beliefs.
And do you believe we should blame that person with the U.S. being in bad shape or should we say it's something we have to get thru together and God willing get out of together?
To some degree G.W. is responsible (he was in charge) but in a representative republic we are all "to blame." However, the leadership holds primary responsibility most of which I would place on the neocons and big government democrats currently in power not just G.W.
firetown
10-13-2008, 03:57 PM
No setup. I don't think you are a nut job. In fact I probably thought very similarly to you a matter of years ago.
cool
The idea of going to war and nation building are two separate ideas. My question to you is about state-building (nation-building) not going to war (regime change) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-building#Differentiating_.22nation-building.22.2C_military_intervention.2C_regime_cha nge). Nation-building being one of the contributing factors to the $10 trillion in debt.
Nation building vs. going to war go hand in hand when regimes cause the same problems consistently.
I disagree. They are rational (logical) creatures. Their reasons for what they do are different then ours but their reasoning is rational (their reasons for acting are not illogical). Their core beliefs about the world (worldview) are also different. Their worldview is perhaps less reasonable then yours or mine (this is another topic entirely). Let me put it to you this way, why is it more rational (logical) for me to believe in a virgin birth giving me eternal life then it is for me to believe if I blow myself up I will receive 70 virgins when I die? Which belief is more rational (logical) and why?
They are so used to listening to the illlogical. They accept it as normal.
But you are advocating voting for someone who "knows" what God's will is for the U.S. and can lead in that direction. You are starting to sound deterministic as opposed to your earlier statement that "it's all free will."
Someone who bows before God and has "higher goals" if you will.
Not my question at all. In fact I know christian theology very well and don't have this question nor is it part of my questions to you. I understand as it relates to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, described by reformed theology, the better question is not about evil, but why would a sovereign God allow any good? (You don't need to answer. I'm merely showing I understand the question and answer and it's not part of my questions to you)
I think that ALL things work out for the best of God looking at the big picture, not just all good things.
G.W. is not "the enemy." Within the Republican party it's the neocons and their political philosophies that could be considered an 'enemy' to that parties effectiveness to do good on behalf of the U.S.
G.W. was not a neocon before he became president. He was a true conservative (reference primaries in 1999/2000). His implicit trust of and loyalty to the advisors and people he appointed around him led him down the neocon path and after 9/11 is when he really started listening to them. His value of trust and loyalty could actually be attributed, to some degree, to his christian beliefs.
But you have people joining both parties for the wrong reason. They will always be there, so the President has a job to get his beliefs and convictions put into action by congress.
To some degree G.W. is responsible (he was in charge) but in a representative republic we are all "to blame." However, the leadership holds primary responsibility most of which I would place on the neocons and big government democrats currently in power not just G.W.
He is responsible for many mistakes within the war, which doesn't mean the war in itself was not necessary to begin with.
Mike
kerrin
10-13-2008, 05:32 PM
Nation building vs. going to war go hand in hand when regimes cause the same problems consistently.
My problem with the "conservatives" in power is that nation-building was a justification and reason for going to war in Afganistan and Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Neoconservative_views_on_foreign_p olicy). It was not an outcome of war as you pose in your statement.
...is it more rational (logical) for you to believe in a virgin birth giving eternal life then it is for someone to believe that blowing themselves up will result in an award of 70 virgins after death? Which belief is more rational (logical) and why?
They are so used to listening to the illogical. They accept it as normal.How do you know this is not true about you? How do you know you haven't been listening to "the illogical" and now accept it as "normal?"
By the way you didn't answer my questions.
You said earlier in this thread:
It's all free will. You cannot make anybody believe anything.
We (you and I) can agree that we believe Democracy (or representative republic) is the best form of Government. Now, aren't you forcing a belief in Iraq and Afganistan by Nation-building the west's form of government there?
Also, didn't Jesus teach that you should "love your enemies" (Matt. 5:44)? If you are electing a Christian president because he is Christian, wouldn't you want him to do "God's will" and "love your enemies?"
Does loving your enemies include forcing your belief (democracy is the best form of government) on them?
eternaltraveler
02-04-2009, 12:07 AM
I think it's important that the words of the American forefathers resonate and "In God we Trust" needs to be upheld.
"in god we trust" became our national moto in 1956.
"Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.
eternaltraveler
02-04-2009, 12:21 AM
What I'm saying is that if a leader makes decisions on his own and does not do God's will, then the country will suffer. And in the case of the U.S. it will effect the world.
God's will ends with planes flying into sky scrapers. I think we need to use something with a bit more sound ethical footing, or at least more consistant.
"in god we trust" became our national moto in 1956.
"Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.
His statement was accurate.
In God We Trust/E Pluribus Unum was first used by our forefathers in 1782.
eternaltraveler
02-04-2009, 01:08 AM
His statement was accurate.
In God We Trust/E Pluribus Unum was first used by our forefathers in 1782.
E Pluribus Unum ("from many, one") was used in 1782 on us currency and was the defacto national motto. This is not true of of "In God we trust".
My sources tell me the first use on any currency was during the civil war period, due to so called increased religious sentiment due to the war.
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
And this was itself drawn from the final stanza of the star spangled banner
O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave![9]
which was not written until 1814 (and a version of it was not the official national anthem until the 30s).
John A Roark
12-18-2009, 05:42 AM
Clearly there is no such thing as the causeless, and thus the case for some higher intelligence than humans that MAY HAVE created the Earth--we just don't know, not for certain.
Belief is one thing, science another. The theory of evolution--yes, it is still a theory--is the best we have been able to come up with after many years of scientific evidence.
Mind you, evolution is NOT incompatible with intelligent design.
"How utterly improbable..."? So you have evidence of some other being in the universe that is indeed more intelligent than Homo Sapiens? Not belief, but evidence?
We wait with bated breath.