Evidence for God from Science

I think it is important to realize that NOT every single elected official or ruler that has ever ruled anywhere and at any given time, was put there/allowed to rule By God.
Free will and all that.
That God HAS used them, yes, SOME of them, NOT all of them.
And I don't think it does ANYONE any service to start debating the pros and cons and why God has allowed "such and such" to Rule.
A Christian MUST follow his conscience in regards in who to vote OR IF to Vote.


ON a side note, I wish that a law would be made that NO elected official could govern without a clear majority of vote by registered voters AND that there must be at least 3/4 of the population registered to vote ( and that people running for office should NOT be able to accept campaigning "contributions" too)

I think it is important to realize that NOT every single elected official or ruler that has ever ruled anywhere and at any given time, was put there/allowed to rule By God.

Directly contradicts many Scriptures!

" ... was put there/allowed to rule By God."

Well, it had to one or the other, did it not?

That God HAS used them, yes, SOME of them, NOT all of them.

You absolutely have no way of knowing that. And you certainly don't know which would be which. And as God USEs but does not cause men to do evil, it is clear that He often has a purpose for both, even though both types of actions are freely chosen. As we're mortals, we just can't KNOW!

And I don't think it does ANYONE any service to start debating the pros and cons and why God has allowed "such and such" to Rule.

Much agreed! Because to competently debate such rulers, actions and events, we would have to have the very mind of God.

Philip wrote:Stygian, clearly you don't accept Scripture as truth! Because if you did, you would realize that NO leader, elected or not, benevolent or ruthless, by his subjects or inner group of peers, or by ruthless, bloodthirsty brutality - not one of them was not put in office without God allowing/ordaining it. That is what Scripture teaches. Again, does God need perfect people to accomplish His will? How many times did God use one of Israel's enemies to punish and protect it from another enemy? And how did God sometimes use Israel's enemies to punish or chastise THEM?

I don't deny that God can use these people, but that doesn't mean we should be perfectly fine with someone who is against His teachings. Should we support everybody that goes against scripture and help them get into power just because God could use them? That makes no sense. Do you think He expects us to say "Well, this guy is pretty bad and supports abortion and killing thousands of people overseas. However, His opponent only kills people over seas! I'll vote for Him! Hey God? Would it be alright if you could make the unwarranted killing of thousands of people turn out for the better somehow? Thanks!" Again, the poison analogy. I refuse to take either poison. Am I therefore evil or going against God's will? I will not partake in the poison drinking and pray that nobody else will ever have to feel the effects of either poison. It's not OK to support those who go against His Commandments, whether we're the ones disobeying them or not. We can't do or condone bad things and ask God to fix it.

"Hey God, I can either help someone shoot someone or help someone rob someone, or I could do neither. I think robbing is a less evil choice, and doing nothing sounds lazy to me. Can you make it so it's not so bad?"

Philip wrote:Stygian, clearly you don't accept Scripture as truth! Because if you did, you would realize that NO leader, elected or not, benevolent or ruthless, by his subjects or inner group of peers, or by ruthless, bloodthirsty brutality - not one of them was not put in office without God allowing/ordaining it. That is what Scripture teaches. Again, does God need perfect people to accomplish His will? How many times did God use one of Israel's enemies to punish and protect it from another enemy? And how did God sometimes use Israel's enemies to punish or chastise THEM?

God knew who was in power, and how He could use them. That is all. I refuse to believe He would rig elections, because with our free will, it's obvious that WE are the ones who choose; not Him.

Philip wrote:Again, let's take the Supreme Court and abortion. We well know that the majority of the court makeup can be the difference in millions aborted or not. That is a KNOWN fact. If you have one candidate who now says that he would only nominate candidates against it and the other that says his nominees would all support it - as a constitutional right, then you STILL don't think that one issue is important enough to go vote? And, remember, the next president could well nominate 2 - 3 new Supreme Court replacements. Think of the philosophies of all the federal judges the next president will nominate. All of these are hugely important, and you've been given but one small voice in that process, but potentially/collectively, a determining voice in that process. IMO, this one issue should be enough for one to vote - as it may well be the collective difference between giving people the legal right to continue killing millions - or NOT.

Sure some of them might be against abortion. I'm totally against the killing of unborn children. But it's not like the abortion stance is the only stance they have. What if they against abortion, but perfectly fine with raising taxes on everybody? Or going overseas to kill a bunch of Muslims? Or requiring that churches not turn down gays who want to be married? Is that not just as evil? Why should I even think to support that? I don't agree man should have such power. To not vote is to have faith that God will lead the way. To worry about the outcomes of you not voting is to not have faith that God will lead.

It's not like I will NEVER vote. I just have yet to see someone worth voting for. Someone who I believe has God's protection and is inspired by Him, or at least enacts things consistent with the Bible.

Philip wrote:Point is, we don't vote for GUARANTEED outcomes, but for POTENTIAL ones, albeit only ones with the best probabilities that a mortal man can discern. But it is God who directs history and outcomes, but He does allow us free will and consequences based upon our actions. And I would also say of our INACTIONS. And make no mistake about it, an inaction IS an action, just as a non decision IS a decision. They both have consequences.

What you're implying is God wants everything on Earth that has happened to happen. It's pretty easy to tell by a candidates past if they're a good leader or not. It's a matter of analyzing their current stances and comparing them to past ones, and how exactly they went about enforcing previous ones and what the outcomes were.

Philip wrote:If we all had the same views about not voting as some here do, we'd probably never have gotten married. We each know of certain things in our on past and our spouse's past, and thus know neither of us were previously perfect. We know that vows taken in marriage might be broken by our future spouses - or even, God forbid, by ourselves. Nonetheless we make the best decision we can and trust God for the outcome. There just are NO certainties, but a realistic man just doesn't make a decision because of uncertainties about outcomes. If we did that on everything else, we'd never move off of the spot!

I know people as they are now, and that they did bad things in their past as we all did. But if I found out my spouse killed two people in a drive-by shooting five years ago, or beat a child to death, I'm not sure I'd be too trusting, and neither would you, most likely. But choosing who you want to spend the rest of your life with is a lot different to voting on who will control your entire life (something previously done by God). Choosing a spouse is MY choice, while choosing a leader is only the choice of the majority (and God knows how foolish or ungodly that majority might be).

Philip wrote:

I think it is important to realize that NOT every single elected official or ruler that has ever ruled anywhere and at any given time, was put there/allowed to rule By God.

Directly contradicts many Scriptures!

" ... was put there/allowed to rule By God."

Well, it had to one or the other, did it not?

That God HAS used them, yes, SOME of them, NOT all of them.

You absolutely have no way of knowing that. And you certainly don't know which would be which. And as God USEs but does not cause men to do evil, it is clear that He often has a purpose for both, even though both types of actions are freely chosen. As we're mortals, we just can't KNOW!

And I don't think it does ANYONE any service to start debating the pros and cons and why God has allowed "such and such" to Rule.

Much agreed! Because to competently debate such rulers, actions and events, we would have to have the very mind of God.

Honestly, I just don't think this "train of thought" does any good.
It leads us to places that, well...best to leave to God.
Saying that God ordained WHO rules seems to imply that ALL that have ruled and governed were put there by God, which kind of makes voting irrelevant for one thing ( God is gonna do what He wants to anyway) and opens up a can of worms for all believers - Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc...

Should we support everybody that goes against scripture and help them get into power just because God could use them?

What, we should only vote for someone that is sinless? Are you? Is anyone? You appear to want what does't exist - a totally moral candidate. Newsflash: THEY DON'T EXIST!!!

Do you think He expects us to say "Well, this guy is pretty bad and supports abortion and killing thousands of people overseas. However, His opponent only kills people over seas! I'll vote for Him! Hey God? Would it be alright if you could make the unwarranted killing of thousands of people turn out for the better somehow?

What you are doing is putting up a false choice. Are there U.S. military-caused deaths that shouldn't happen? Absolutely. Does that bother me? Sure. But let's talk about whether numbers matter, as we make a decision, do we not try to minimize things that we see as wrong? I would hope so. Elections do this. Since Roe vs. Wade, there have been approximately 54 MILLION abortions in the U.S. Now they are at about 1.2 MILLION per year. We're within just 5 years of accumulative abortion deaths that will equal the ENTIRE casualty numbers for WWII (60 MILLION deaths). And yet you're saying that voting doesn't matter? Trying to compare people killed in debatable military operations with the genocide of millions of unborn children? Really?

God knew who was in power, and how He could use them. That is all. I refuse to believe He would rig elections, because with our free will, it's obvious that WE are the ones who choose; not Him.

True, WE do freely choose. But God brings consequences to our collective/societal choices. If we elect those that have no God-respecting morals - or at least when not given a choice, then at least those with moral choices that line up as close to ours as is available (in a candidate) - then He brings consequences per our collective choices/hearts. If Christians in this country had long been truly and prayerfully considering candidates and issues and voting their Christian consciences, I can tell you that our candidates, laws, leaders, etc. would be far preferable.

Sure some of them might be against abortion. I'm totally against the killing of unborn children. But it's not like the abortion stance is the only stance they have. What if they against abortion, but perfectly fine with raising taxes on everybody? Or going overseas to kill a bunch of Muslims? Or requiring that churches not turn down gays who want to be married? Is that not just as evil? Why should I even think to support that? I don't agree man should have such power. To not vote is to have faith that God will lead the way. To worry about the outcomes of you not voting is to not have faith that God will lead.

So raising taxes is EVIL? No context, silly point. Ever see a candidate that wants to honor God's view of the unborn that just wants to willy nilly, heartlessly go kill Muslims, yet without having to make tough, proactive decisions to do so based upon often very difficult, hidden, enemy, often embedded in civilian populations? Ever see that candidate of that type of morality wanting churches to be forced to marry gay people? You are talking nonsense and making tons of excuses why you shouldn't vote. So God gives us free will, a vote and choices, and a brain to discern people and issues, but we should somehow just sit on the spot and let GOD decide our leaders, etc. for us. Ever see any nations that do this? Not voluntarily, I tell you. Yep, there are places without any real vote, as no vote would even matter - they're called DICTATORSHIPS and are run by tyrants!

It's not like I will NEVER vote. I just have yet to see someone worth voting for. Someone who I believe has God's protection and is inspired by Him, or at least enacts things consistent with the Bible.

So you want a theocracy in which the most spiritual amongst us lead? Did God choose leaders in the Bible like this - those so moral, spiritual and exemplary? Think of the very leaders God DIRECTLY chose - those many weak, flawed cast of characters God chose to use - and DID accomplish His plans through (adulterers, murderers, etc, etc). And did God wait until His chosen leaders were perfect before beginning to use them? Hardly!

What you're implying is God wants everything on Earth that has happened to happen.

Absolutely NOT true! But NOTHING can come to pass without God ALLOWING it to - even though freely chosen. He does not cause nor is He limited in outcomes by those who chose to rebel against Him. That is not to say that we should not pick those of good moral character, He certainly wants us to do that.

I know people as they are now, and that they did bad things in their past as we all did. But if I found out my spouse killed two people in a drive-by shooting five years ago, or beat a child to death,

Again, an extreme, pointless smokescreen of a point. My point is that no person has a perfect past or record. And thus you must make decisions based upon what you perceive to be the honesty, views and integrity of that person TODAY. Do they seem stable, constantly flipping and flopping on key issues? If they've had a history of unsettling flips/flops, were these in recent years or the distant past.

But choosing who you want to spend the rest of your life with is a lot different to voting on who will control your entire life (something previously done by God). Choosing a spouse is MY choice, while choosing a leader is only the choice of the majority (and God knows how foolish or ungodly that majority might be).

Point is, YOU still made a choice. And you have no assurance of the outcome of that choice. Probably no choice you will make will be any more important to you. But you chose to make that choice in YOUR wisdom (hopefully, prayerfully). And that is what God also calls us to do. We're not responsible for the outcome. However, if we ever come to where the choices are so unbelievably bad, in which there is absolutely no reason to believe it truly matters which candidate wins ( a Hitler vs. Stalin), well, that's the only point at which I could see not voting. But I'm 54, and have yet to see that at least one candidate on the ballot didn't appear to be better than the other. I have seen school board races that I'm not familiar with the views of the candidates, and so I've not voted in those. But as for major races impacting me - haven't seen any races that I didn't feel compelled to make the best decision I could.

Pointless to continue. I just believe God gave us a vote, brains and choices. And I believe we're to use them!

Absolutely NOT true! But NOTHING can come to pass without God ALLOWING it to - even though freely chosen. He does not cause nor is He limited in outcomes by those who chose to rebel against Him. That is not to say that we should not pick those of good moral character, He certainly wants us to do that.

Ah yes, I understand what you mean and Yes, I agree.

Honestly, I just don't think this "train of thought" does any good. It leads us to places that, well...best to leave to God. Saying that God ordained WHO rules seems to imply that ALL that have ruled and governed were put there by God, which kind of makes voting irrelevant for one thing ( God is gonna do what He wants to anyway) and opens up a can of worms for all believers - Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc...

Paul, I can see that you're not getting my point. We (at least in the U.S.) DO freely vote. And I'm not saying that God just puts someone in office without considering the collective/majority societal actions (or votes, in our case) that puts them there. But it is clear that He often honors the majority views, morality and hearts of a given society. Throughout the Bible we can see how God dealt with Israel's collective hearts and values. When these honored God, He honored them. When they rebelled against His ways, it brought consequences, sometimes horrific ones. But sometimes God allows things that make us shudder and recoil.

Sometimes God ALLOWS (not that He causes evil) things that we see as bad, or people who we KNOW are bad to do bad things, but that nonetheless He means for the ultimate good of His plans. We can't always see the logic in this - often we can't. But make no mistake, God IS sovereign (And I'm certainly no Five Point Calvinist or opponent of belief in free will), and so nothing happens without Him at least allowing it. And God DOES want the ultimate good for men. But men are often rebels - some permanently so, and some eventually embrace God's initiatives and enlightening. But whatever the case, nothing happens that He can't use or doesn't ultimately have control over. Scripture teaches that, "... in him ALL things hold together." This is why God knows the future - as He is it's ULTIMATE Author. He is certain of ALL outcomes. Whether good or bad, there are limits to the effects and outcomes intended by OUR choices and actions. But God is not limited by OUR intentions or actions. This is true of votes, elections, and of power derived by brutal conquerors.

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." (Genesis 50:20) God ALLOWED, and through His plan, that the freely chosen and EVIL actions of Joseph's jealous brothers, in selling him into slavery into Egypt, would end in ultimate good for those in Egypt, God's glory, and an amazing restoration, reunion and display for the ages of what forgiveness should look like - as between Joseph and his brothers. But WE would have never planned or perceived to accomplish in the way that God did through those of evil intentions and actions. But we are not God. Only an all-knowing, loving God could do this. And did.

We have problems thinking God gave Stalin or Hitler (temporary) power. So do I. Seems unthinkable, evil, horrible. But it IS what Scripture says is true of ALL leaders. But God's good and eternal plans are not impacted in the least by the temporary actions allowed of such tyrants. ULTIMATELY, God's will will ALWAYS be accomplished.

Oops, I was typing while Paul was posting.

Philip wrote:What, we should only vote for someone that is sinless? Are you? Is anyone? You appear to want what does't exist - a totally moral candidate. Newsflash: THEY DON'T EXIST!!!

And I'd be inclined to agree. I look for the one that does one thing: limit the power of government over the people. God should have that power, not government. For these reasons, I do lean in favor of people like Ron Paul.

Philip wrote:What you are doing is putting up a false choice. Are there U.S. military-caused deaths that shouldn't happen? Absolutely. Does that bother me? Sure. But let's talk about whether numbers matter, as we make a decision, do we not try to minimize things that we see as wrong? I would hope so. Elections do this. Since Roe vs. Wade, there have been approximately 54 MILLION abortions in the U.S. Now they are at about 1.2 MILLION per year. We're within just 5 years of accumulative abortion deaths that will equal the ENTIRE casualty numbers for WWII (60 MILLION deaths). And yet you're saying that voting doesn't matter? Trying to compare people killed in debatable military operations with the genocide of millions of unborn children? Really?

I try to minimize it by refusing to support those that enact such things. It works. I want to work for things to fix the system; not choose evil people that make it LESS evil. Military deaths are not limited to those killed in combat. Those who suffered in the Holocaust are a result of Hitler coming to power, which was a result of World War I. Mao-tse Dung's rise to power was a result of World War II. Many shortened lifespans of Japanese citizens were the result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are more evils in the world than abortion and war. A sin is a sin. Even then, it is a myth that we need to put pro-life Republicans in office to try to limit abortions or cease funding them. Republicans have already failed to do either of these things. Republicans need Roe v. Wade. Not because they want their wives and daughters to have access to "safe and legal" abortions, but because they need the promise of overturning it to sucker the "pro-life" faithful to vote for them instead of those evil "pro-choice" Democrats. We live in a near-police state where the Constitution is violated, civil liberties are in peril, wealth is unjustly redistributed, foreign policy is sinful, and government regulation and spending are far beyond just 'worrying'. A pro-life president who perpetuates these things is just as evil as a pro-choice president who does so. What makes you think abortion can even be solved by government? You assume they have the ability to do so, and that making something illegal makes everything better. People who commit an abortion should indeed be punished if there is to be any government, which should only exist to preserve out freedoms. I don't believe in aggression to prevent potential aggression (in this case, having an abortion).

Philip wrote:True, WE do freely choose. But God brings consequences to our collective/societal choices. If we elect those that have no God-respecting morals - or at least when not given a choice, then at least those with moral choices that line up as close to ours as is available (in a candidate) - then He brings consequences per our collective choices/hearts. If Christians in this country had long been truly and prayerfully considering candidates and issues and voting their Christian consciences, I can tell you that our candidates, laws, leaders, etc. would be far preferable.

Problem is, many voters, including Christians, are ignorant. They have little to no knowledge of how governance should be applied. God brings about bad consequences for voting for bad men. Both candidates are bad men. Therefore, he used the bad men already to show it is futile to think someone else can govern us other than God. Therefore, I do not vote.

Philip wrote:So raising taxes is EVIL? No context, silly point. Ever see a candidate that wants to honor God's view of the unborn that just wants to willy nilly, heartlessly go kill Muslims, yet without having to make tough, proactive decisions to do so based upon often very difficult, hidden, enemy, often embedded in civilian populations? Ever see that candidate of that type of morality wanting churches to be forced to marry gay people? You are talking nonsense and making tons of excuses why you shouldn't vote. So God gives us free will, a vote and choices, and a brain to discern people and issues, but we should somehow just sit on the spot and let GOD decide our leaders, etc. for us. Ever see any nations that do this? Not voluntarily, I tell you. Yep, there are places without any real vote, as no vote would even matter - they're called DICTATORSHIPS and are run by tyrants!

Places without a vote are also called an anarcho-capitalism. Not anarchy, like most people unfamiliar with the subject instantly point out. It is a lack of intervention on the lives of others. Only God has dominion over people. All we can do is protect our basic rights; nothing more. Even if you think anarchy is a completely horrible idea, the 'Wild West' was an anarchy. Anarchy means no overarching government controlling all people in a country; not total absence of laws. And I'm not stating all those as REAL examples. Just as examples of 'for one good thing, but still condones ten horrible things!' I'm not voting for someone just because they are consistent with Christianity in ONE regard. Taxes simply CAN be evil. I'm for paying for things EVERYBODY uses (not that only government has the power to do so, since the private sector is just as capable). But when it's for, again, going overseas to assert imperialism across the globe, then I think it's evil.

Philip wrote:So you want a theocracy in which the most spiritual amongst us lead? Did God choose leaders in the Bible like this - those so moral, spiritual and exemplary? Think of the very leaders God DIRECTLY chose - those many weak, flawed cast of characters God chose to use - and DID accomplish His plans through (adulterers, murderers, etc, etc). And did God wait until His chosen leaders were perfect before beginning to use them? Hardly!

I only want those consistent with the Bible. The many candidates I see are far from that. Are you saying God wouldn't have preferred someone else? We have no knowledge like God. Even then, why vote? He can use any person no matter how evil to fulfill His will! Do you have some kind of absolute idea of who is the least evil person at all times? Just because they are 'Christian' and do 'Christian things,' doesn't make them any less evil. They have just as much potential to be corrupted. A majority is not smarter than God, so it is futile to think they will make His choice properly.

Philip wrote:Absolutely NOT true! But NOTHING can come to pass without God ALLOWING it to - even though freely chosen. He does not cause nor is He limited in outcomes by those who chose to rebel against Him. That is not to say that we should not pick those of good moral character, He certainly wants us to do that.

Well, I don't see anybody of truly good moral character. So, there. I don't vote.

Philip wrote:Again, an extreme, pointless smokescreen of a point. My point is that no person has a perfect past or record. And thus you must make decisions based upon what you perceive to be the honesty, views and integrity of that person TODAY. Do they seem stable, constantly flipping and flopping on key issues? If they've had a history of unsettling flips/flops, were these in recent years or the distant past.

Yes, it's an exaggeration. But it's hard to trust someone who I think is consistently going against the Bible, so I don't. They are NOT of God. Politicians often simply go for what is convenient to get into office, or appeal to a certain blinded demographic. That is why I don't trust them. God doesn't just call us to vote for the best person; He calls for us to choose what's best for the world. I think that thing is freedom.

Philip wrote:Point is, YOU still made a choice. And you have no assurance of the outcome of that choice. Probably no choice you will make will be any more important to you. But you chose to make that choice in YOUR wisdom (hopefully, prayerfully). And that is what God also calls us to do. We're not responsible for the outcome. However, if we ever come to where the choices are so unbelievably bad, in which there is absolutely no reason to believe it truly matters which candidate wins ( a Hitler vs. Stalin), well, that's the only point at which I could see not voting. But I'm 54, and have yet to see that at least one candidate on the ballot didn't appear to be better than the other. I have seen school board races that I'm not familiar with the views of the candidates, and so I've not voted in those. But as for major races impacting me - haven't seen any races that I didn't feel compelled to make the best decision I could.

That choice affected me personally, not millions of others.

Philip wrote:Pointless to continue. I just believe God gave us a vote, brains and choices. And I believe we're to use them!

And I believe man gave us the vote; not God. But to be quite honest, I think we need a new topic for this if we ARE to continue.

My bad, I see Stygian is only 18 years old. No disrespect, but if I'd known that, I'd have approached our debate differently.

But funny you bring up Republicans and Democrats, as what I've been talking about applies to those of both parties. I have no party affiliation. You need to quit forming your political opinions off of brain-dead websites, blogs and talk shows! And please give me the name of just one well-respected, well-known Bible-believing, Scripturally conservative pastor or theologian who advocates not voting. Just one! But you know better? And at 18?

It's not that youth can't be mature in its views, but let's at least let you get to 30 and we'll see what you think then. So, at 30, get in a time machine and go back and debate yourself at 18. You might just be shocked at what you'll find. Then, at 50, go back again to debate yourself at 18, and then you'll likely be foaming at the mouth over your 2012 self's opinions. Then, let's see if you think all of those your age who shed their blood so you could have the right to vote did so foolishly and pointlessly. But as for you, right now, sadly that would appear to be the case! This is why I believe that no one should be able to serve in the military or vote before they are 21.

Philip wrote:My bad, I see Stygian is only 18 years old. No disrespect, but if I'd known that, I'd have approached our debate differently.

By that I guess you mean you'd have been more condescending? From the rest of your post, that's what it sounds like.

Philip wrote:But funny you bring up Republicans and Democrats, as what I've been talking about applies to those of both parties. I have no party affiliation. You need to quit forming your political opinions off of brain-dead websites, blogs and talk shows! And please give me the name of just one well-respected, well-known Bible-believing, Scripturally conservative pastor or theologian who advocates not voting. Just one! But you know better? And at 18?

My thoughts apply to all people as well. You've no knowledge of what websites I visit. You've no idea what blogs I often read. You've no idea what talk shows I watch (the answers is 'none'). I can be passionate, and even know more about a certain topic concerning the Bible at an early age than another. Is there ZERO chance that I understand the application of the Bible to politics better than some? Why not? That's an assumption; an unfair assumption at that. Who's to say a certain pastor isn't scripturally dead and brain dead? Who's to say the blogs and website YOU pay attention to aren't as well? I didn't. I merely said the system everyone believes is 100% necessary and God-given is the only way, and we must all conform to it, is not so.

Philip wrote:It's not that youth can't be mature in its views, but let's at least let you get to 30 and we'll see what you think then. So, at 30, get in a time machine and go back and debate yourself at 18. You might just be shocked at what you'll find. Then, at 50, go back again to debate yourself at 18, and then you'll likely be foaming at the mouth over your 2012 self's opinions. Then, let's see if you think all of those your age who shed their blood so you could have the right to vote did so foolishly and pointlessly. But as for you, right now, sadly that would appear to be the case! This is why I believe that no one should be able to serve in the military or vote before they are 21.

Because all people over 21 are responsible and educated, right? Only people who are the most informed of the populous should be allowed to decide who leads, and since there is no way to know that, the system is futile. And again with the blood shedding for my freedom... you must establish the wars that have been fought were indeed to protect freedom before you can make such a statement (most were more concerned with imperialism and alliances). You must also establish whether or not the system is something God can respect anybody fighting for. I don't exactly respect how you say I think the soldiers are fighting foolishly. They are fighting for what they think is right, and many do so in the name of God. But, there are those above them that give them a mission that is detrimental. It is not their fault; it is the fault of the human powers above them. Your statement of me debating myself is nonsensical. I guess I'm not allowed to speak about my own opinions until I'm older, and I must take your word that all people older than myself know everything better than I do? This was rather lazy of you to say, to be quite honest.

All I know is God does not require that we submit to man-made powers. Now, it is all about humankind.

I guess I'm not allowed to speak about my own opinions until I'm older, and I must take your word that all people older than myself know everything better than I do?

No, not at all. But you should carefully listen and consider their opinions because they have a lifetimes of experiences and of watching the difference between people's thinking as young adults and then later as they approach 30. And there are definite physiological reasons for that ongoing maturity. My dad sure seemed so much smarter once I reached 25. At 20 I thought he was clueless. So go figure why someone might not take a kid who thinks he's got such weighty issues all figured out, very seriously - especially when they espouse certain views. Doesn't mean they don't know a lot, but there is definitely a huge number of things they only understand superficially. And that is almost universally true of all young people.

Research it: The part of the brain which controls reasoning and impulses - known as the Prefrontal Cortex - is near the front of the brain and, therefore, develops last. This part of the brain does not fully mature until the age of 25. Insurance rates and a whole lot of other things are predicated upon this very fact - that and the real-world statistics that back this up.

Life experience: Physical and mental maturity can develop somewhat differently, depending upon the individual and their environment. But its the many years of personal experience and of watching the experiences of others that can really shape one's big-picture outlook. And spiritual maturity can depend upon a variety of factors, primarily with one's relationship with God and whether or not they are maturely discipled, and over how long a period.

Sorry, Styrian, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but just to point out that much of what just seems so clear and right to you, now, is very likely to change.

But if you do find such a pastor as I described, that advocates not voting, do let me know about it. That should be a clue about that issue.

I wish you well, my friend!

Philip wrote:So go figure why someone might not take a kid who thinks he's got such weighty issues all figured out, very seriously - especially when they espouse certain views. Doesn't mean they don't know a lot, but there is definitely a huge number of things they only understand superficially. And that is almost universally true of all young people.

I don't think I have anything all figured out. Nobody ever will, no matter how old they are. Nobody can ever have a perfect understanding of any topic. All I know, from what I've researched in History and Scripture (which are two deep passions of mine), these are the conclusions I've been led to. I can only exercise my knowledge just like I have, and continue researching.

Philip wrote:Life experience: Physical and mental maturity can develop somewhat differently, depending upon the individual and their environment. But its the many years of personal experience and of watching the experiences of others that can really shape one's big-picture outlook. And spiritual maturity can depend upon a variety of factors, primarily with one's relationship with God and whether or not they are maturely discipled, and over how long a period.

I don't rely on my own life experience for every aspect of my beliefs. Since I am young, I also form ideas based on History (which everybody ought to) and the experiences of others who share their stories. That, and the experiences of the people in the Bible itself.

Philip wrote:But if you do find such a pastor as I described, that advocates not voting, do let me know about it. That should be a clue about that issue.

I still fail to see why this makes that much of a difference. Must I only believe something that resembles the ideas of pastors? Who's to say they're right? They may know a lot about the Bible, but do they generally know how to apply Biblical teachings to politics? That's the big question.

As Larken Rose said, "If you've been told a lie all your life, it doesn't sound like a lie." For this reason, I've gone into the mode of 'question everything.' Only then can I learn. I used to be a Republican Agnostic. I'm now an "Anarcho-Libertarian" Christian, thanks to my questioning.

Philip, I'm not sure where you're going with this age/maturity thing, but I'm 43, and I won't be casting my vote for president this election, again. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama or Romney. And anyone else I'd cast a vote for besides them, is just a wasted vote. As I said before, if someone wants to vote for the lesser of two evils, and he can live with that vote, then that's fine. Until either party puts up a candidate that I feel would make a good president, I won't vote. And to use the "people went to war, and died for our right to vote" line, is just completely out of line. We in America, also have the right to not vote, if we don't have a candidate that we feel would be good for our country. As much as I disagree with the direction Obama is taking us, Romney's past is what keeps me from voting for him. He flip flops too much, and I just don't trust the guy.

RickD wrote:And to use the "people went to war, and died for our right to vote" line, is just completely out of line.

Couldn't agree more. If they really died for our democracy, they also died for our right to not vote