GoldenEagles,
I understand what you mean by divine providence.
Here is my approach:
(1) I will pray for a better candidate than Romney (though I had been praying for one all along, and I sincerely wanted Cain).
(2) If God provides a last minute miracle candidate who is more conservative than Mittens, I will vote for him/her.
(3) If not, I am voting Romney.
Finally, I want to be clear on another point. I am not sure if you are a preacher (you may be!) or a arm chair preacher, but your interpretation of the Bible is your own. We humans tend to interpret things as we read them through our own eyes at that single moment. Sometimes, yes, we come back and re-evaluate our stance. It does happen.
However, unless you are a member of the Catholic church, us Protestants have a 1:1 relationship with God, where all our sins are laid bare directly to God in heaven, through Jesus Christ. When I read the Bible, I get this simple message: Christ died on the cross such that whoever believes in Him, the Father and the Holy Ghost is saved. Period. Beyond this simple message, the Bible can be manipulated to any given purpose, good or hateful. Even Satan quoted the Old Testament in the Bible.
One more point on homosexuality: Sodom is often pointed to as the example of God’s hatred of homosexuals. But God’s real problem with Sodom, in my interpretation, was the nasty way the men of the city treated the Messengers of God. They treated them like fresh meat, and the men of the city wanted to rape them.
Now the Old Testament does speak of the problem of men lying with men, however, that area of the Bible also bans shellfish, pork, and dictates all the restrictions that must be put on women who are having their period. I don’t think you can selectively say that homosexuality is banned, and yet choose not to live by the other rules. You can perhaps argue that the New Testament got rid of the food restrictions, but it lifted nothing as it relates to the female menstrual cycle. Are you obedient to the old law in every letter?
Finally, GeronL often likes to repeat the fallacy that not voting will not be a vote for Obama. Technically, yes, you are not directly incrementing Obama’s vote count.
But what GeronL does not tell his victims of his attempt to rationalize his irrational approach to the problem is that you are increasing the power of the votes that Obama receives.
Say you have a small county, 20Kilopeople. In this county, we’ll give a high voter turnout, say, 70%. Let’s say 7Kilopeople vote for Candidate A. Now if Candidate B matched all voter requirements for people who don’t normally vote for Candidate A’s ideology, he’d get 7Kilopeople, and there’d be a run off election.
However, say a key issue in the country comes up. This issue is handled by Candidate A in such a way that Candidate A’s voters will stick with him.
However, the voters who normally vote for Candidate B, are much pickier. About 10% of them definitely don’t like Candidate A’s stance on this issue, but they are not exactly approving of Candidate B’s approach either. What happens is that this 10% of likely Candidate B voters refuses to vote for Candidate B.
So what happens? Candidate A wins, because Candidate A’s number of votes from people actually casting votes is over 50%. Basically by refusing to vote for Candidate B, voters shrunk the voting pool from 14Kilopeople, to 13.3Kilopeople, and Candidate A carries over 50% of the actual cast votes.
So when GeronL tells you that, one has to wonder if GeronL is actually one of the dark agents of death you speak of.
To assert that the New Covenant lifted nothing pertaining to the female menstrual cycle is an absurd 'argument' from silence. You would do just as well to assume, were there no statute or case law about some particular subject under the Constitution, that the Articles of Confederation are still in effect. The Old Covenant Law was nailed to the Cross - in its entirety. It is not longer in force. We are dead to it. We live under the New Covenant. Period. No pun intended.
Cordially,