Christians voting for Romney or Giuliani

This is a very damning statement for your position. You have been shown the truth that the passage to which you refer has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. We are not yoking with someone in a vote. That is not what the passage means.

To some degree, yes. But not in the sense that the Bible talks about.

No, I am talking to you. You are separating your Christianity from your vote by refusing to take civil responsibility in a Christian way. I think that is wrong.

I think you have a faulty doctrine of anthropology or a bad understanding of evil if you think there is anyone who is not evil. It is called sin, and even after being saved, we are still sinful.

Then why misuse the word? That is not honoring to the Bible.

You don’t know who is a Christian. You are also basing your vote on what people say. You don’t know what anyone will do when they get in office. The only thing you can go on is what they say. And you seem to be far more trusting than me.\

Not entirely true. We do know the kind of justices Democrats will appoint. And we know the kind of justices that people who don’t get elected will appoint.

I don’t know that Rudy is pro-murder. Being unwilling to have a law against abortion is not the same as being pro-murder. I can’t imagine I would vote for Rudy, given what I know now. But most of what I know has been gained from the BB, and as we have seen, there is some faulty information floating around here.

If someone is unelectable, it doesn’t matter whether they have declared or not. I do know for sure who won’t win. People who can’t get enough support.

[quote[4) The only selfless vote would be a vote for the candidate that follows God's word. Any other vote is self motivated.[/quote]It is not selfless if your vote contains no thought for anything other than yourself. You must think of the good of the country.

Exactly my point.

It’s funny that you blast me for “knowing God’s will” when you turn around and pretend to know it. The fact is that you don’t know what God would say.

In the end, your position appealing to an unequal yoke is not a good use of Scripture. Vote for whomever you want, but when you vote for someone who is unelectable, it will be on your hands when the country ends up worse off than it would have been.

 

The best I can do is judge myself by the word of God. If that fails me then God will reveal my shortcomings at the JSOC if not sooner through the HS conviction. As of now, through much seeking and prayer, I understand yoking up to include my voting.

I find no word in the scriptures that would make me consider that voting for someone who is "unelectable" is a sin before my Lord. I do find scripture that would convince me that voting for an unbeliever or a pro-murderer is sin.

I pray God guides you into all truth. You are a pastor and that concerns me greatly. May God bless you richly!

:wavey:

 

Sure. They are not the same in other areas, and we have a duty to preserve as much as possible, rather than sell it down the river because we don't get everything we want. That is a Christian's civic responsibility, to preserve as much as possible the freedom that God has given us.

Because of his history in cleaning up NYC. Having said that, as I have said before, I can't imagine voting for Guiliani.

I agree with the statement about Democrats and Guiliani. I always have.

Romney, as we have seen, seems to be different. We don't know for sure so there is some uncertainty, but that is different than the certainty gained by voting for a Democrat, or by voting for Paul which is essentially the same thing since it accomplishes the same result. I am quite sure that Hillary, Obama, or whoever gets the Democratic nod will be happy for you to vote third party or write in Ron Paul. That is part of their game plan, I am sure.

 

Fine.

I don't either. I have never called it a sin. I think it is unwise and dangerous.

I would be interested in seeing this Scripture. And I would remind you that not wanting a law against abortion is not the same as being pro-murder. I detest it when people who profess to be Christian take liberty with the truth and slant things in such a way. We can win the argument against Rudy without calling him "promurder," since he is not.

Why does it concern that a pastor has a great concern for the way that Scripture is used? I am concerned that no one else is standing up and pointing out the wrong use of Scripture. It seems like we have so little discernment, and Scripture has become a prop to support whatever we want to support.

 

Joh 8:4 -------- Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Luk 10:37 ----------- Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Based on the way some handle Scripture, the preceding proves(?) that Jesus not only condones adultry, but even commands it!

(Where are the Bereans when you need them?)

 

Mat 25:44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mat 25:45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

Appathy for those innocent babies being slain in the wombs is sin. "pro-choice" is not a liberty given in the scriptures. Love thy nieghbor as thy self. To sit by and support the right to choose murder is the same as these Jesus spoke of in this scripture.

Amen!

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Why are these verses here? They have nothing to do with the subject at hand, so far as I can tell.

These words of Jesus have nothing to do with supporting teh right to choose murder. No one here is recommending apathy for these babies. I stand against abortion as much as you do. The question is one of our integrity. Calling a prochoice proponent a murderer is not any more accurate than calling a non-prohibitionist an alcoholic. There is a vast difference between them. And we need to be accurate.

 

I am not suggesting that we should vote for an abortionist. I am not aware of any abortionists running anyway.

 

According to the teaching of this passage, what one does or does not do according to their ability to do it, will go with them to their judgment.

Everyone has the ability to vote anti-abortion, anti-murder. To take that given right to vote and cast it in favor of the right to kill is no less than doing the killing yourself. You have yoked yourself together with the killers.

Just as Jesus makes the emotion of anger a murder, even so the consent to murder is the same as murder.

You don't seem to have any problem with Jesus making such a connection. Do I really murder my brother if I hate him?

All of those who appathetically give the right to choose murder to others is taking part of their evil deed. There just isn't anyway out of these biblical truths.

How about the woman going to the doc to have it done? Is she a murderer? Not according to your view, only the one performing the actual deed is the murderer.

Rudy will stand before Christ like these in the scripture and say..."when did I see you being murdered and did nothing in my power to oppose it?"

Yes, discernment please. We are starving for discernment!

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Um, no. That's not really the teaching of the passage.

A vote for someone who is against overturning Roe is not tantamount to doing the killing yourself. There is no legitimate way to make that argument.

Again, no. Jesus did not make anger a murder, as you can tell by the fact that anger does not carry the same penalty as murder. Jesus recognized the difference.

No, you don't.

These aren't biblical truths really. They are stretches based on misunderstanding.

No. She is a part of the murder and is liable for it. That is different than a person who might vote for someone who does not favor overturning Roe. How is it that you plead for discernment and yet do not discern these things?

 

Larry, do these beliefs cause similar-minded people to vote democrat every election?

 

What beliefs and similar minded to whom?

 

I agree. But how is that meaningful here? This is not going to be an all or nothing solution. It will be an incremental issue, which is my point. We take what we can get. And we realize that there are more issues than abortion on the table.

To any degree, even Romney and Guiliani are better than any Democrat. That doesn't make them good, but better. And I think we have a duty to seek the better, even when it is not ideal. The all or nothing approach that some here are suggesting is a recipe for disaster.

 

I agree, and that is why I stated I would vote for Romney or Guiliani against any of the current Democrat candidates.

 

If abortion was the only issue, and if there is a legitimate pro-life person running, then I would vote for that person. I think my energy should be used to do what I can. And that is why I think it is imperative to look at the issue from a more principled perspective. If we allow a liberal to get elected, it will take away the gains that have been made in teh judicial system against abortion. And that will be on teh shoulders of those who refused to vote for the better legitimate candidate. And I would hate to know that was me.

 

I am completely against abortion in all forms.

However, I am no longer a one issue voter. We have had a president that was against abortion from 1981-1992, and then again from 2000-2008 and nothing has changed.

Do I want abortion done away with? Absolutely. Do I want a President that is against abortion? Absolutely. But there are also other issues that we should be concerned about. That is why I would vote for Romney or Guiliani against any of the Democrat candidates. As a country we would be better off with either of them compared to having any of the Democrats.

I have not been happy with a lot of the things President Bush has done, but there is no doubt in my mind we are better off as a country now than if Gore or Kerry were the President.