Posted on 10/05/2003 1:32:21 PM PDT by BibChr
You've been slammed, deservedly, because you're nasty, insulting, and disingenuous.
You are not the only one to notice this, but you say it better than most.
How can we ever make a difference when we put out tail between our legs and support every liberal candidate put fort by the GOP leadership? The only real voice I have is my vote, and the GOP Party will hear me tomorrow.
There was a joke going around after Johnson beat Goldwater....They said if I voted for Goldwater that The war would escalate and taxes would go up, well I did, and they did.
Bingo! You have the blood of the innocents on your hands.
As the thread progressed last night and I read more views on the matter, I became more and more convinced that I am right about the impropriety of Christians supporting a pro-abortion candidate over his/her opponent who has stated his/her support for the pro-life position.
I will still honor my word not to criticize or condemn BbChr for his decision, but I am now more than ever opposed to electing an avowed pro-death candidate to any office no matter how attractive he/she may be on other less vital issues. But all the polls indicate that very thing will happen tomorrow in CA, and I expect that to be the beginning of the end for the GOP pro-life platform as I explained in # 316.
But we all deserve damnation. Luckily there is the grace of God. And the admonition to forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors, so that we receive exactly the amount of charity as we dole out.
You have always been a harsh poster, so the last one was what I expected when I replied to you.
Absolutely.
Since I am the best spokes person for myself, I can assure you there was no need for emotion since the Bible clarified your twisted interpretation of it. I let the Word of God speak for me.
"Other than that, you certainly did a lot of blasting away, and every shot went wide of the mark."
Funny how you hurl broad accusations at me. I didn't have to do that. All I did was point out in no uncertain terms that you are not at all in agreement with the Bible. Even a child can see that. Instead you heat up more and get all nasty.
You "refuted" claims I never made, but didn't touch the ones I did. You read my mind time and again, and were wrong every time."
I quoted exactly what you wrote. Reading your ridiculous interpretation of Daniel was enough for me. LOL. On it's face, abortion, homosexuality and groping acts would also NOT be something the Judeo Christian God would approve of or wish a Christian to vote for.
"But you certainly gave full vent to your spleen, and now anyone who wishes to see what you feel, can do so."
Yawn. You're pride and emotionalism stop yo from admitting how far off base you are.
Prov.16:25
[25] There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
I still think Nephi put it best from a secular viewpoint:
Dan, "It would've been simpler and more honest to simply say, "Due to a lack of faith, fear forces me to reject the true conservative and align myself with a pro-gay, pro-abortion, "fiscal conservative" socialist liberal who calls himself a Republican."
"Anything more is pure rationalization."
Right on Nephi! (#65)
Rationalize away Dan. Odd how you were so hard on old bill Clinton. He's partial to homosexuality, abortions and loved to not just grope but rape women. Could it be the hypocritical partisan "Christian", Dan ? ;)
We're talking about people, and no man is perfect according to God's standard of righteousness.
That's not "moral relativism", that's reality.
So once again, to have an uncompromising standard of righteousness when it comes to politics is just unrealistic.
To say I would hand the government over to the opposition by taking an uncompromising stand in an election is to say that God is dependent on me and other voters to accomplish his will. I firmly believe it is my responsibility before God in these matters to act according to the limited knowledge of his will which I possess and allow him to produce the result he desires.
In the beginning of your paragraph you argue that God is not dependent on voters to accomplish His will....
...then you turn around and say you must act according to His will to "allow him to produce the result he desires".
Which is it?
So you equate obedience to God's known will with self rightousness? Sorry, but comprehending that notion requires a more convoluted line of reasoning than I can follow.
Of course I never attempted to equate "obedience to God's known will with self rightousness".
You missed my point entirely.
You actually have a day job?
"The "perfect is the enemy of the good" and "journey of thousand miles begins with a single step" arguments just don't work in defense of "conservative" support for Arnold. There would be nothing "good" about Arnold's victory and thousand-mile journeys don't begin with a step backwards."
Indeed. A single step in the RIGHT direction which in this situation would be to elect Tom McClintock. To vote for Arnold, the quasi leftist is a step backwards.
"The "introducing the bad apple that spoils the barrel" argument works far better in opposing his election. Except that the barrel is already so spoiled that his election probably wouldn't make much difference."
The barrel is already spoiled out there. Adding Arnold to the rotting apples will only increase the stench. Adding a good apple, Tom could slow down the rot and possibly weed out the rotten apples.
"Posted by: T. Marzen"
Never heard of him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.