I want to thank all of you who took part in WWCP's first ever poll.
When asked who you think would make the worst President, you answered overwhelmingly that Hillary Clinton would. With 32 votes (65%), she received almost double the amount of votes of all the other candidates combined!
The only person even remotely resembling a challenger for the throne was Rudy Giulani, who received 7 votes (14%).
I found it particularly interesting that almost nobody caught on to the fact that "Other" includes the likes of Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and everyone else in the world. The hodge-podge category got only 1 vote (2%).
Also, it is clear that Mrs. Clinton maintains her position as Public Enemy Number One among conservatives, as Barack Obama (4 votes: 8%) and John Edwards (3 votes: 6%) didn't stand a chance.
Mitt Romney received 2 votes (4%).
Please vote in the new poll.
Alasan Bermain Judi Kasino Online
-
Perekonomian agen bola terpercaya dunia tidak berjalan dengan baik. Biaya
hidup semakin tinggi setiap harinya. Oleh karena itu, setiap individu[...]
6 years ago
10 comments:
Polls are a great idea! It's a great way for everyone to participate!
I was really excited when Blogger announced their own polling device.
I'm going to disagree with your whole premise here. We don't need a Christian president, but rather, a president who is a Christian. The more I look at the phenomenon of 'the Christian right', the more convinced I become that we as believers have no business advocating political parties or candidates. We got a taste of power in the late 1970s and 80s and look what we've become - more wrapped up in candidates than in the Great Commission.
We can be Christians with a role in the public forum, but we will not change hearts or win the lost through political campaigns.
My 2 cents...
Thank you for visiting, Steve.
I'm not sure I totally disagree with you, but I think you're going to have to explain your differentiation between a "Christian president" and a "president who is a Christian." Grammatically, the former is a noun modified by an adjective and the latter is a noun modified by an adjective clause. The two phrases could mean exactly the same thing.
But you may be intending a subtle implication that I missed.
I do agree that we should not blanketly advocate particular political parties, but the act has become practical since such a majority of Democrats have alienated conservative Christians.
I do think Christians can endorse specific candidates, as long as there's an understanding that we are not endorsing them on the level of, say, apostleship.
Also, I do think we should keep politics in perspective, but we shouldn't underestimate the importance of government, either.
Finally, I think politics can really create the atmosphere for evangelism. How the First Amendment is interpreted, how foreign policy is carried out, and even the state of economics all can contribute to the spreading--or non-spreading--of the gospel.
I posted a reply to your question last night. Is it in moderation or did you not receive it?
Let's try again...
There is a great distinction between 'a Christian president' and 'a president who happens to be a Christian.' The first is a someone like a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson who seeks political gain to put forth a specific religious agenda. Remember what kind of messiah the Jews were expecting before Christ? He would be someone who would fight their battles and defeat the evil Romans. That's the candidate that a Jerry Falwell (and many evangelicals/fundamentalists) would get behind.
The second (a president who is a Christian) is someone who is informed and even guided by his particular faith, but who doesn't make it a political issue.
I would be happy to see no discussion of 'Christianity' in political debate. That's not to say that I wouldn't support a candidate I knew was a believer. He just better not make faith a political cause.
Again, you don't win the lost through political campaigns, but by reaching them with the Gospel.
I think what your saying Steve is that we want a president who is a Christian, not one that just claims to be. Your right.
That's a really good point you brought up about Christians being involved in politics. My stand on it is that we should seek to get good people in the government. That is our responsibility as a citizen. Our responsibility as a believer is to evangilize the people of this country. Christians in many high and important positions are important because they can keep Christianity and spreading the gospel from becoming illegal. But when you have leaders who are against Christ and His church, they will seek to stamp out our faith.
Sat., DEC. 15 is NATIONAL Windshields 4 Huckabee DAY!
Spread the word and find out more at:
WindShields4Huckabee.blogspot.com
Reasons for a Christian man to be president don't stop with keeping the Gospel from becoming illegal. All the Biblical standards that a Christian should have, will certainly make a stronger president: corruption won't be an option, the truth will be told, and loving your neighbor won't include pointing a gun to Guy A's head and forcing him to fork over some dough to Guy B.
Steve, you're right, using the office to push the Gospel down the country's throat isn't why we elect men of the Word. But I expect a Christian to use the Word to wisely make decisions in the office.
Jeana
By the way, I think the reason that Hitlary Clinton is SO unpopular stems from the fact that we've already had a taste (more than a taste--a mouthful) of her. Candidly, I think that we can't go wrong on any of the Democratic candidates. They all are bordering on the edge of insanity, and one is not less liberal than the next. Same deal with Rudy Giulani and Mitt Romney.
Jeana
Post a Comment