Post Number: 340
|Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2013 - 5:32 pm: || |
First of all, is Dr. Ben Carson still SDA? Second, i grew up thinking SDA's for The most part are to avoid politics and the military although every SDA i every knew who was involved in either of those fit into The exclusion catagory of their rules. Fox News has and article on todays internet site about Dr. Carson and he's being nominated as a presidential contender for The 2016. I'm not going to get into politics but iu want to know how The SDA denomination reconciles this with their teachings of past day events, not trusting the political authorities, Sunday laws, the beast, etc. ,then having one of their own so deeply involved in things on such a large scale.
Post Number: 2037
|Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2013 - 9:25 pm: || |
Don't know about most SDA's... but my MIL agrees that Ben Carson should remain in the operating room and out of politics.
He seems like a very nice man, and I am sure he means well,,, but I don't personally think it is possible for anyone ANYONE to become a politician and not become somewhat corrupted morally. Some more than others of course,,, but it just seems to go with the territory
Post Number: 655
|Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 7:07 am: || |
In my wishful thinking, I would love for Adventism to get spotlight so Christians could see what SDA beliefs really are. But if past experience is any indication (i.e. Mitt Romney being Mormon) then Christians will turn a blind eye as long as the candidate is of their particular political persuasion.
Post Number: 14330
|Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 4:37 pm: || |
Cloudwatcher, I agree with you completely. Skeeter, I think you're right, in general, about what it means for someone to become a career politician. I'm willing to say there could be exceptions, but especially at the Heads of State level, I think compromise goes with the territory.
Post Number: 346
|Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 8:30 pm: || |
But, i want to know how the SDA denomination and individual SDA 's reconsile one of their own making it big in a profession And way Of life that EGW and the church itself disapproves of. For instance, EGW said to avoid the military. Then in The 20's and 30's The denomination ran their cadet corps so when SDA young men were drafted they could become medics. The official position is still avoidance of military service but they print a monthly magazine sentence free to all active duty SDA service members and they encourage SDA ministers to be military chaplains. Likewise, the official position on politics is avoidance. Yet, when one of their own gets elected it's a true source of pride. Seems bass akwards to me.
Post Number: 622
|Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 10:21 pm: || |
At least we now know the answer to one question, since Dr. Carson's Sabbath Day address to CPAC. ...
One need no longer wonder how he'd handle **The Sabbath Question** should he ever be elected president. ...
No problemo! ...
This guy could be good old Ted Wilson's very worst nightmare.
Post Number: 13
|Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 7:28 am: || |
When I vote my primary consideration is that person's values, not their theology. Would you vote for a Jew to be in political office if they shared your values?
To that end, I think it's a great credit to the Evangelicals who voted for Romney in spite of their deep theological differences. They realized that they were not electing the head theologian of the US.
Post Number: 347
|Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 11:52 am: || |
Most SDA 's in my kinship will vote on issues but not for people
i am told by them it is because none are righteous, no, not one and since Jesus isn't currently running for office they only will vote on issues.
Post Number: 14333
|Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 2:50 pm: || |
Jonasaras, your point is logical. There is an underlying issue, however; a persons worldview and his own theological beliefs shape his integrity in office. He may espouse certain issues, but if he is fundamentally deceived, he'll have no trouble morphing his values or reinterpreting his promises.
In the case of Romney and his Mormonism, most evangelicals have no idea that within Mormonism, Romney's bid for the presidency was seen as the possible fulfillment of their Mormon prophecy that one day the USA would be controlled by a Mormon president. Politics are a means to an end: getting the USA to be under the leadership of Mormons and thus have Mormon principles shaping US life and law.
We are instructed to honor and pray for all our leaders, even if they are "bad"...Paul wrote these instructions when Nero was on the throne of the Roman empire. Nevertheless, the religion and personal integrity and worldview of the leaders really is what shapes that person.
Post Number: 1015
|Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 6:49 pm: || |
I agree with what you have said in your post #1433 up to a point!
I do not think it is written in Scripture that "Believers"
are commanded to vote for a person that they do not believe in~
Honor and pray for, yes; vote for, No~
Post Number: 14
|Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 8:13 pm: || |
My reasoning IS logical. If Ben Carson believes that this world is a bacteria on the back of a green turtle that is of no concern to me unless he espouses policies based on that belief. As long his values match mine, I do not have an issue.
Which would you rather have in office; a person who has the same theology you do but opposite values or a person with different theology and your values?
Post Number: 48
|Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 8:41 am: || |
It's just that our beliefs shape our values.
Post Number: 222
|Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 9:49 am: || |
I whole heartily agree with Jonasaras here. If you have 2 candidates, one with albeit an SDA theology background, but having the same morals as I do, while on the other hand a candidate with completely different morals than mine, I'll go with the one with my moral ideas every time.
Colleen, I understand your concern to an extent, but I'm afraid that in our last election too many people only looked at Romney's theological background and not what he personally stood for.
I'm afraid exactly with the reasoning of worrying about someone's theology instead of what they personally stand for as with this last election and Romney being a Mormon, is why we got someone with such utterly dispicable morals.
It's sometimes a balance of choosing between the 2 lesser evils if you are voting at all. However, I believe for myself that I should vote because not only is it my right, but I may help to stave off an even more evil influence. It just didn't happen this time around though.
Post Number: 14334
|Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 1:16 pm: || |
MJ, I fully agree with you.
On the whole, I agree with your concerns, Jonasaras and Starlabs. I don't expect to see a candidate who is fully sold out to the Lord Jesus. At least...it's unlikely! So I do have to vote based on what they espouse and defend.
That being said, I think it's possible for people to have a conservative (or a liberal, for that matter) platform but still be ideologically "dangerous", for want of a better word. I have to say that I'm not sure a person who is committed to an unbiblical cult of any sort can actually have the "same morals" as a true believer. They may have very moral behavior and "values", but without the resurrection life of Jesus making them new, that morality can be deceptive and can even turn cruel.
As Gary Inrig said once, "There is nothing more dangerous than a highly moral man who doesn't need Jesus." A moral public life can hide really scary hidden agendas. Think about, for example, the squeaky-clean nazi doctors who lived respectable family lives, went to church every week, were very involved husbands and fathers and respected in the communities. Yet behind closed doors, they committed unspeakable atrocities and experiments on vulnerable people. They did harm and even killed people...they were completely able to split from their respectable public lives and live lives of torturing evil.
A person's public statement of values and morality is not necessarily an indication of their trustworthiness, nor does it protect from deceptive "bait and switch" moves.
Actually, I have found myself, in the past, in a position of not feeling morally able to vote for either of the main candidates...not because I disagreed with both of their platforms, but because I knew that the personal beliefs of one or the other meant there was more to the picture than the platform revealed.
Post Number: 656
|Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 6:55 pm: || |
I totally agree, Colleen. I find no comfort in God-less moralistic culture. As believers we shouldn't be content with a society that *acts right* but is spiritually dead.
Post Number: 223
|Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 11:54 pm: || |
Well we sure have an immoral man in office now because of people not voting for a candidate that at least had better morals than the man in office now. I mean just look at our country and the degrading of human society and values we have now. We have legalized gay marriage in a lot of our states. Abortion is more prevalent now than ever. "Girls" that are actually boys being allowed in the same bathroom as the girls and so on and so on. Of course Obama made no bones about his morals. We knew what we were getting with him. That's why I could not in good conscious vote for him.
Do I think Dr. Ben Carson would make a good president? I really don't know if he has any knowledge in the area of leading a country. Does his morals match mine? Again I'm not even sure unless he ran and stated what he believes in. But to judge a man by his church is only judging a book by the cover. To be fair to Obama, and seriously, I really could careless if I'm fair to him or not, but some tried to judge him by his church and his radical pastor.
People were up in arms when a Catholic was president. When it comes to voting for someone I'm not looking at their church attendance. I'm looking at what they say they stand for and more importantly I think at times, what they don't stand for.
Post Number: 9959
|Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 1:19 pm: || |
When I vote, I vote for a Commander in chief, not a Minister in chief.
Post Number: 351
|Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 1:41 pm: || |
It's on the news today that BC said if he is approached/called to run for office he'll accept the offer.
Post Number: 657
|Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 6:32 pm: || |
Starlabs, seriously, you think country's morals went to pot after Obama was elected??? Are you serious?
It is more likely that the country elected a leader that reflected their morals/beliefs. Obama is a reflection of where our country has gone. Like it or not.
Post Number: 224
|Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 7:24 pm: || |
I sure think he sped things up. Yeah, I sure do. I think every time we have leaders that allow laws to be enacted that give into the depravity of man we have a weak leader.