Jill Stein insists Trump is less dangerous than Clinton

[Ender]

Who's face was on the coin which Christ said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?

It was the Julius Caesar's face, worshiped by many to be a god, and the coin was minted off the blood of innocents and the tyranny over others. Yet still Christ said to give unto Caesar what is his. Was Christ a sell out? Was Christ immoral?

Christ paid taxes to a government which was paganistic and against His Lordship (Matthew 17). Does that make Him immoral for participating and 'supporting the system'?

Actually, my take on the "Render unto Caesar" is that although Caesar was extolled as a god nothing was his. So to "render unto Caesar what was Caesars" equaled: NOTHING. Christ knew that all was God's and rendered unto Him; to Caesar he owed nothing.

[TER]

Actually, my take on the "Render unto Caesar" is that although Caesar was extolled as a god nothing was his. So to "render unto Caesar what was Caesars" equaled: NOTHING. Christ knew that all was God's and rendered unto Him; to Caesar he owed nothing.

Well, we disagree in your take, which is one part of it. But thanks for your opinion.

[Ender]

Well, we disagree in your take, which is one part of it. But thanks for your opinion.

No prob- I just think Jesus was a Master with words, as well as many other things, of course.

And I apprecIate friendly disagreements- THANK YOU!

[hells_unicorn]

Who's face was on the coin which Christ said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?

It was the Julius Caesar's face, worshiped by many to be a god, and the coin was minted off the blood of innocents and the tyranny over others. Yet still Christ said to give unto Caesar what is his. Was Christ a sell out? Was Christ immoral?

Christ paid taxes to a government which was paganistic and against His Lordship (Matthew 17). Does that make Him immoral for participating and 'supporting the system'?

We're not talking about paying taxes though, are we? We're talking about voting and endorsing the illegitimate rule of a government that is not merely pagan, but one that has renounced Christ's lordship and cast off the true religion. This government isn't merely pagan, it's apostate. Give me the rule of Caesar in this country and I'll call it a step up from where we now find ourselves.

I obey this government insofar as it enforces the laws of nature in accordance with Paul's words in Romans 13, but I am not obligated to bless politicians who blaspheme God The Father by invoking his name while making illegitimate oaths to a government conceived by a false god.

P.S. - "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is followed by "Give to God what is God's". I will not subordinate myself to the idol of the U.S. Constitution against the Christian religion anymore than the martyrs of the early church would bow to Roman idols. I owe no obedience unto men unless their authority is just, and then only insofar as it is just.

[heavenlyboy34]

We're not talking about paying taxes though, are we? We're talking about voting and endorsing the illegitimate rule of a government that is not merely pagan, but one that has renounced Christ's lordship and cast off the true religion. This government isn't merely pagan, it's apostate. Give me the rule of Caesar in this country and I'll call it a step up from where we now find ourselves.

I obey this government insofar as it enforces the laws of nature in accordance with Paul's words in Romans 13, but I am not obligated to bless politicians who blaspheme God The Father by invoking his name while making illegitimate oaths to a government conceived by a false god.

P.S. - "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is followed by "Give to God what is God's". I will not subordinate myself to the idol of the U.S. Constitution against the Christian religion anymore than the martyrs of the early church would bow to Roman idols. I owe no obedience unto men unless their authority is just, and then only insofar as it is just.

+rep ~hugs~

[TER]

We're not talking about paying taxes though, are we? We're talking about voting and endorsing the illegitimate rule of a government that is not merely pagan, but one that has renounced Christ's lordship and cast off the true religion. This government isn't merely pagan, it's apostate. Give me the rule of Caesar in this country and I'll call it a step up from where we now find ourselves.

I obey this government insofar as it enforces the laws of nature in accordance with Paul's words in Romans 13, but I am not obligated to bless politicians who blaspheme God The Father by invoking his name while making illegitimate oaths to a government conceived by a false god.

P.S. - "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is followed by "Give to God what is God's". I will not subordinate myself to the idol of the U.S. Constitution against the Christian religion anymore than the martyrs of the early church would bow to Roman idols. I owe no obedience unto men unless their authority is just, and then only insofar as it is just.

Are not your taxes going to bombs which are killing innocent people? To maintain your position, then you should not pay taxes, right?

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, we disagree in your take, which is one part of it. But thanks for your opinion.

The footnote in the OSB @Romans 13 says "When civil rulers are in direct opposition to God, the believer must follow God." Ender, et al. are especially right in the case of 'Murica-the civil rulership is secular at best and typically isn't interested in God at all-so much so that it is normally in opposition to God.

[TER]

The footnote in the OSB @Romans 13 says "When civil rulers are in direct opposition to God, the believer must follow God." Ender, et al. are especially right in the case of 'Murica-the civil rulership is secular at best and typically isn't interested in God at all-so much so that it is normally in opposition to God.

Do you pay taxes to the US government?

[TER]

And BTW, I'm not saying that we must not follow God.

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you pay taxes to the US government?

Not direct taxes.

[hells_unicorn]

Are not your taxes going to bombs which are killing innocent people? To maintain your position, then you should not pay taxes, right?

If I refuse to pay my taxes, the government will still take what I have by brute force and use it to kill people, this is what is known as Christian prudence or the path of least evil if you prefer. However, there is a difference between consenting under duress to not have the executioner's ax come down upon me and voluntarily saying that the executioner is godly and seal it with an oath, which is what voting does.

P.S. - There are no innocent people following Adam's Fall. It may seem like splitting hairs, but if these people were truly innocent, the bombs couldn't kill them since death would have no hold upon them. This should not be taken that I approve of this ravenous bear of a federal government in its quest for unjust war without end, but more a matter of clarifying our language.

[Jesse James]

Sorry, hyperbole doesn't work on me, and I don't believe in the concept of voting as a civic duty unless the civil government is worth supporting as such. The U.S. Constitution is anti-Christian, so voting would render oneself a horrible, immoral person regardless of who is president.

Try again.

it's not hyperbole, it's my opinion ya fool.

[Jesse James]

If we're going by Jesse James' implicit definition, absolutely. Being a Christian means believing that all nations are subject to Christ's lordship, the U.S. Constitution states the exact opposite. He put down an ultimatum, I answered it, infer from it what you will.

P.S. - I am more sympathetic to your position than Jesse James', but I've made up my mind on not voting until some needed changes are made to the foundation documents of this alleged "nation".

what was the definition I gave? please go on, since you know so much.

[Jesse James]

If I refuse to pay my taxes, the government will still take what I have by brute force and use it to kill people, this is what is known as Christian prudence or the path of least evil if you prefer. However, there is a difference between consenting under duress to not have the executioner's ax come down upon me and voluntarily saying that the executioner is godly and seal it with an oath, which is what voting does.

P.S. - There are no innocent people following Adam's Fall. It may seem like splitting hairs, but if these people were truly innocent, the bombs couldn't kill them since death would have no hold upon them. This should not be taken that I approve of this ravenous bear of a federal government in its quest for unjust war without end, but more a matter of clarifying our language.

if i refuse to vote, the government will still choose a president.

[TER]

If I refuse to pay my taxes, the government will still take what I have by brute force and use it to kill people, this is what is known as Christian prudence or the path of least evil if you prefer. However, there is a difference between consenting under duress to not have the executioner's ax come down upon me and voluntarily saying that the executioner is godly and seal it with an oath, which is what voting does.

P.S. - There are no innocent people following Adam's Fall. It may seem like splitting hairs, but if these people were truly innocent, the bombs couldn't kill them since death would have no hold upon them. This should not be taken that I approve of this ravenous bear of a federal government in its quest for unjust war without end, but more a matter of clarifying our language.

You are exactly stating my point. The lesser evil is to pay taxes rather than have me, the breadwinner, become incarcerated which would give great duress to my family. Christian prudence and picking the lesser of two evils, as you stated. Christ told St. Peter to pay the tax even knowing it was being partially used for nefarious reasons because otherwise it would cause other problems. This is picking the lesser of two evils.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is the same thing. It does not mean that the voter thinks the executioner is godly as you say, or sealing it with an oath, just as paying taxes doesn't mean I agree with what the money is used for. Do you sort of see my point?

[hells_unicorn]

if i refuse to vote, the government will still choose a president.

So nothing changes either way, may as well get square with God instead of wasting your time.

[hells_unicorn]

You are exactly stating my point. The lesser evil is to pay taxes rather than have me, the breadwinner, become incarcerated which would give great duress to my family. Christian prudence and picking the lesser of two evils, as you stated. Christ told St. Peter to pay the tax even knowing it was being partially used for nefarious reasons because otherwise it would cause other problems. This is picking the lesser of two evils.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is the same thing. It does not mean that the voter thinks the executioner is godly as you say, or sealing it with an oath, just as paying taxes doesn't mean I agree with what the money is used for. Do you sort of see my point?

The problem is that voting is not the same thing. It's one thing to surrender some of your goods to a corrupt government if the alternative is force, it is quite another to pretend that said government isn't made up of thieves, liars and murderers. When you vote for a government, you profess that it has moral sanction, and that is tantamount to excusing idolatry when the person being voted on takes an oath to uphold a godless constitution.

Let Uncle Sam recognize the true religion, then I'll consider voting. America's problems began to increase drastically when Christians first started participating in this farcical government.

[TER]

The problem is that voting is not the same thing. It's one thing to surrender some of your goods to a corrupt government if the alternative is force, it is quite another to pretend that said government isn't made up of thieves, liars and murderers. When you vote for a government, you profess that it has moral sanction, and that is tantamount to excusing idolatry when the person being voted on takes an oath to uphold a godless constitution.

Let Uncle Sam recognize the true religion, then I'll consider voting. America's problems began to increase drastically when Christians first started participating in this farcical government.

I disagree. I think the premise is very much similar. Sometimes you vote to stop a greater evil. Voting doesn't always mean that you sanction what they are doing, but rather you are choosing for that over what the alternative will be if you don't. Same way with paying taxes.

But, so that I can understand you better, if Ron Paul was voting for President, you wouldn't vote for him because that would make you immoral? I can understand you saying that you couldn't in good conscience vote for a lesser evil, but from what I am gathering, you are saying that you won't vote for anyone period, and that those who do vote in America are immoral. Is this correct?

[Ender]

The problem is that voting is not the same thing. It's one thing to surrender some of your goods to a corrupt government if the alternative is force, it is quite another to pretend that said government isn't made up of thieves, liars and murderers. When you vote for a government, you profess that it has moral sanction, and that is tantamount to excusing idolatry when the person being voted on takes an oath to uphold a godless constitution.

Let Uncle Sam recognize the true religion, then I'll consider voting. America's problems began to increase drastically when Christians first started participating in this farcical government.

You have a problem with the 1st Amendment? Freedom of religion is extremely important, even though in the history of the US, the country has not always practiced it.

[Christian Liberty]

why couldn't you vote for Castle?

hells_unicorn more or less said what I would have said for me.

P.S. - There are no innocent people following Adam's Fall. It may seem like splitting hairs, but if these people were truly innocent, the bombs couldn't kill them since death would have no hold upon them. This should not be taken that I approve of this ravenous bear of a federal government in its quest for unjust war without end, but more a matter of clarifying our language.

I sometimes use the phraseology of "innocent" here but it does have to be defined. There is no rightful basis for the US government to kill the people in question is the point.

You are exactly stating my point. The lesser evil is to pay taxes rather than have me, the breadwinner, become incarcerated which would give great duress to my family. Christian prudence and picking the lesser of two evils, as you stated. Christ told St. Peter to pay the tax even knowing it was being partially used for nefarious reasons because otherwise it would cause other problems. This is picking the lesser of two evils.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is the same thing. It does not mean that the voter thinks the executioner is godly as you say, or sealing it with an oath, just as paying taxes doesn't mean I agree with what the money is used for. Do you sort of see my point?

I obviously can't speak for HU, but just to give my thoughts on this, I do think its different. Paying taxes (under an unjust civil authority like ours) is like paying an armed robber who puts a gun to your head. That's a bit different than positively choosing to use one's political power (minimal though it may be) to help a wicked man into power

[Jesse James]

if voting is immoral, what are y'all doing on a website for a retired politician? I don't understand why you would be on this forum if you wouldn't or didn't vote for Ron Paul.

[hells_unicorn]

if voting is immoral, what are y'all doing on a website for a retired politician? I don't understand why you would be on this forum if you wouldn't or didn't vote for Ron Paul.

I didn't hold this position when I joined this website, I was actually a Roman Catholic at the time (aka the sectarian group that has controlled this country for the past couple decades and turned it into its present nightmarish form). I learned about the futility of trying to make an unjust government just the hard way. I voted for Ron Paul twice, and I sent money to Rand during the primary this time around. Ron Paul is a retired politician, I'm a retired voter.

Oh, and there is nothing immoral about voting, it's voting under the American system as constituted that is problematic. Hypothetically, if I was living in the UK and there was a Scottish municipality that acknowledged the truth of the Solemn League and Covenant, I would absolutely vote in that municipal election without hesitation. I'm not an anarchist.

[hells_unicorn]

You have a problem with the 1st Amendment? Freedom of religion is extremely important, even though in the history of the US, the country has not always practiced it.

Freedom of religion is fundamentally anti-Christian, especially when it involves any magistrate refusing to recognize the true religion. People who say "Freedom of Religion" is important are people who think that government is king and God is just some nice little way of excusing the terrible things that the government will ultimately do in the name of itself or "the people". The so-called "will of the people" itself is a crypto-socialistic concept that puts truth to a vote, which is not compatible with Christ's lordship.

I'm not interested in trying to wrestle power away from a fundamental atheistic government, they have the control for now and I am not an anarchist looking to bring down America (I am actually very much happy to live here and have nothing against most of the people living here apart form their politics and religion) but I am sure not going to go around pretending that the U.S. Constitution is compatible with Christianity. Anyone who thinks it is doesn't understand one or both of the things under consideration.

[Natural Citizen]

Freedom of religion is fundamentally anti-Christian, especially when it involves any magistrate refusing to recognize the true religion. People who say "Freedom of Religion" is important are people who think that government is king and God is just some nice little way of excusing the terrible things that the government will ultimately do in the name of itself or "the people". The so-called "will of the people" itself is a crypto-socialistic concept that puts truth to a vote, which is not compatible with Christ's lordship.

I'm not interested in trying to wrestle power away from a fundamental atheistic government, they have the control for now and I am not an anarchist looking to bring down America (I am actually very much happy to live here and have nothing against most of the people living here apart form their politics and religion) but I am sure not going to go around pretending that the U.S. Constitution is compatible with Christianity. Anyone who thinks it is doesn't understand one or both of the things under consideration.

Mm. This is actually agreeable.

Of course, if we look at the American heritage from a historical perspective, the country was founded as a place for all religions. And certainly those religions do vary. So our government is religious in nature. To be religous in nature does not, as you infer, mean that it is based on Christianity.

Let me ask you this. And I ask it merely for the purpose of stimulating discussion. Not for debate. Do you agree that the spiritual brotherhood of men is a product of the common Fatherhood of God? More clearly, would you agree that the relationship of Man to Man is the product of the spiritual relationship of God to Man? I'm thinking in terms of moral duty and adherence to a higher law. Of course, all men are created. Endowed by their creator.

As I said, your points here are agreeable. But you didn't mention much in terms of what you think constitutes a proper form of self governance by moral men. Of course, by moral, I mean adherence to His higher law. A government to man relationship that is a product of the Man to Man relationship which, of course, is the product of the spiritual relationship of God to Man.

That's a mess there but you oughtta be able to pick it apart.

Thanks.

Oh, also, the DoI. What's your thought on that?

Coercion of Man (particularly by force) by government whether it be claimed for his own good or the greater good or the collective is certainly against His Higher Law when judged morally. It is anti-moral.

[Jesse James]

Mm. This is actually agreeable.

I have to concur.

[enhanced_deficit]

She is going places:

Third Party rising star Jill Stein attacks Obamacare, "boondoggle for insurance companies"

Step side Hillary, a real liberal anti-war, anti-SWccare historic woman candiadte is rising now thanks to DNC's cheating of Bernie supporters.
She also says if QE can be used to bailout bankers, why can't QE be used to bailout students with debt.
FF to 6:00 mark for SWccare comments:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECH9xwzN1Mw

Historic candidate JILL STEIN: Hillary Could Start Nuclear War...