At 02:57 PM 1/2/01 -0800, Duane Wheeler wrote:
>*I respectfully disagree and stand by my opinion, that when such
>"words" are spoken in church it is not a mandate from God, but
>from "Man" and is something to 'think about and hold over to the side,
>like 88 reasons that Christ will return in 1988.....
I guess I see a big difference between something off-the-wall like trying to guess the
exact moment of Christ's return and an assertion that we need to pursue righteousness
with our votes as well as our other words and actions.
Yes, by all means, do test whatever a man says against the Holy Bible. I still say
that you should not be quick to judge a man anointed by God. I'm not saying that
everyone anointed by God is perfect, but it is still a serious thing to accuse a man
of God of spouting false doctrine -- something not to be done lightly.
>"Commanding people to repent..". for a political vote over one subject is
>narrow minded, and short sighted.
So you say. The particular subject at hand, however, is a serious matter of life and
death and an important moral issue that, at least to my way of thinking, overshadows
pretty much any other difference between the candidates in question.
> Many people would never vote Republican
>if their life depended on it and maintain a strong Christian testimony.
Yes, and there are also times when I, an active Republican, refused to vote for a
certain Republican candidate because of that person's unacceptable moral position.
This isn't about partisan politics. It is about morality.
> I
>voted reluctently for GW Bush, but do not feel absoved for my vote
>as I support abortion as an *option in the case of incest and rape...AS
>DO MANY! *Includeing GW Bush.
I commend you for your vote for G. W. Bush. Here I disagree with you on abortion
exceptions, although rape and incest cases are really a very small fraction of the
abortions that actually occur. The vast majority of them are for the false gods of
convenience, career, economics, etc., and have nothing to do with rape, incest, or any
credible threat to the life of the mother.
>*Think about the comment that the "blood" is on your hands..*What Folly!
Is it? If you, by some conscious voluntary action of yours, assist someone in
committing murder, then how could you consider yourself free of blood guilt? Wouldn't
this same principle apply to voting for a promoter of abortions on demand instead of a
pro-life Christian, all other considerations being either substantially equal or of
much lesser moral consequence?
>It's false doctrine to assume Americans are moraly responsible for the
>death of 2 million North Vietnamise by supporting the policy's of
>the Johnson/Nixon administration.
Is it? I would think that it depended on the intentions of the hearts of each
individual involved, just as it would in the case of the votes for the abortion
promoter vs. the pro-life Christian.
Duane, you know I love you. Your response puzzles me, though. Although I have seen
many political contests that seemed to me pretty morally neutral, sometimes the
choices are so different that I really do think that it would be wrong to vote for a
particular issue or candidate, or even to fail to vote for a particular issue or
candidate.
___
Michael Paul Johnson AKA Soaring Golden Eagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Evangel Bible Translators missionary
http://eBible.org/mpj/ Jesus Christ is Lord!
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
