Billy Graham's dark secret revealed

It is always easier to tear down a good man of God than to BE a good man of God.

 

It's easy to be a Holy Man on top of a mountain.

 

But how can you do this without discussing abortion?

But in order to convince someone that it's wrong to vote for a "pro-abortion" candidate, wouldn't you first have to convince them that abortion, itself, is wrong?

But you haven't told us why.

So far, we know that you're against abortion, that you're against candidates who are for abortion and that anyone who votes for a candidate who's for abortion is going to Hell.

If I'm a part of the audience you're trying to convince, what part of your argument am I supposed to find persuasive.

I have to be honest with you and tell you that I tend to tune out at the mention of "baby killers", because I know now that the argument is based on emotion and not on a ration, persuasive argument.

Part of the problem here is that you're slinging the "baby killer" accusation at people who are not.

Don't you think that you would be able to help more pro-choice folks avoid Hell if you would stop a minute and talk to them like human beings?

Is your aim to offer hope in Christ to these people, thus, avoiding Hell? Or are you just here to call names?

Have you ever heard the saying, "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem"?

You're not showing me any solutions here.

I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the nature of Roe v Wade and the parameters within which Congress is bound to act.

 

"opiate"...I had to look that one up! Hey, i learned something today.

Interesting theory, but I think abortion could change if all Christians would vote for pro-lifers. Remember that this was a 5 to 4 supreme court blunder. Whe need to have godly men and women in place as representatives when the time comes to replace these judges. Men and women who understands that God hates these murders and that they must appoint judges who are willing to stop the madness.

I "personally" believe that not only will our votes be reviewed at the judgment seat of Christ but also any lack of willingness to vote at all. Even though my vote may never change one policy on earth, it will be to my credit or to my debit at my judgment. Afterall, God gave me the right to vote here in America. Maybe He will ask.."did you even try to make a difference?". Maybe He will at least say I tried.

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]I looked up opiate as well, although I was pretty sure it came from opium and knew basically what it meant.

I would have to agree that voting does tend to be an opiate but that doessn't make it wrong to vote.
As for Billy Graham and voting democratic, I hardly think that is his greatest problem. He has continually weakend the Gospel throughout his ministry to the point that there is practially nothing left of it now. He himself is a politician of religion.

I would take the "opiate" theory further though and suggest that the republican party is what has become an opiate to Christians in general. They can sit back and say that they voted for someone that is verbally pro life etc but we really never see a change.

Also, to the ones that say they wish to vote for a candidate that "has a chance to win" then I would say that most likely, if all that say that would simply vote for a third party candidate that now has no chance to win, he would then do quite well.
The problem is that Christianity now seems to believe in general that Christians are responsible for the outcome. How ever, it is obedience rather than final result that God demands.
If we would then all vote for the right, rather then for the "chance to win" I would guarantee that we would then begin to see a change in our country.
As long as we have evangelists like Billy Graham that weaken the gospel to gain a larger audience, we will have voters that vote on the basis of winning alone.

"1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."

I believe that this verse is of course talking about salvation but it applies to other areas of life as well. Voting is no different, we should vote for the best candidate but it is God who sets the rulers over us.
The same God that places us under Bill Clinton placed our ancestors under George Washington etc.

Until we get our eyes off the ratings, we will never get out of the rut of the "lesser of two evils"

Just my 2¢

 

Oh, I might add that abortion could and would change if christians would stop voting the lesser of two evils. We are so evil today that the greater of the evils opposes the prohibition of abortion vocally and the "lesser" of the two evils doesn't care enough to actually change anything. Of course that is on a presidential level but it seems that people want to vote from the top down with a party so the local candidates get lumped in with their presidential candidate even if they don't agree.


Also, on the topic of what is most important, Bush has involved himself and our country in open idolatry (one example was the multi god prayer service after the 9-11 attacks)

Last time I checked, "Thou Shalt Have No Other God's Before Me" came before "Thou shalt not Kill". They are both important but the first is foundational. If a candidate doesn't believe in our God, how can we expect him to value the law of our God?

Since this was originally about Billy Graham, he has aided in this compromise and has been a disgrace to the Gospel of Christ by taking away from the perfect work of Christ and adding simple works in its place.

Ok, I had better quit before I ramble on to much.

We all need to study more and rant less (me more than anyone)

 

Yep, then we'd have the worst of the worst in 'power' and abortion in drive thru clinics. No waiting!

 

So then, they should believe that it's wrong simply because you say that it is?

But isn't this a cop out on your part?

You can't make an argument, so you challenge someone else to make an argument, then, when they don't answer your challenge to your satisfaction, you ignore the fact that you weren't able to make your argument in the first place?

That seems like your entire case is based on distraction.

I see...

If you know they are supporting murder and you vote for them anyway, you are supporting murder as well. If murder is an issue that doesn't take number one priority in your vote, then God help you at judgment day. No murderer has any part in the kingdom of heaven. I would say that supporting the murderers is no different than performing the murder yourself.

[Referring to those who vote for pro-choice candidates]Unrepentive murderers do go to hell. The Word of God states so. Truth always irritates the unwilling to repent crowd.

The problem is that you haven't (and won't, evidently) show that anyone has done this.

Obviously, but you still haven't demonstrated that this is murder.

Ah, the old, "they're not rejecting me, they're rejecting the word of God" fallback.

The problem is that you're assuming that I know that this is murder.

But it's not. I'm asking you to show me and all you're doing is just taking a couple of verses out of context.

And I'm asking you to understand why "you're killing babies" is not the best way to make your case to people who don't necessarily believe that abortion is killing babies.

Perhaps.

No. You make an attempt to demonstrate your case first and then, if you cooperate, I will attempt to answer your challenge.

The problem is that you're assuming that voting for a pro-life candidate will "save a life" or that the foetus is a life to begin with.

Perhaps, but that wasn't my question, was it?

Not at all, but then, there's quite a bit of difference between what Jesus was saying and the way that He said it and what you're doing.

But you're not calling anyone to repent.

To say, "You're a baby killer. You're going to Hell!" is nothing more than the rhetorical equivilent of the flaming pile of dog crap in the paper bag, thrown on the neighbor's doorstep by a twelve year old who rings the doorbell and then runs to hide in the bushes.

The problem here is that you're assuming that voting pro-life will necessarily "save some children's lives".

That's not true.

The second problem is that you're assuming that the congressman who might be pro-choice, will not vote to "save children's lives" in other areas.

Technically, no.

The best that Congress can do, as far as outlawing abortion, is to turn it back over to the states to decide.

Do you believe that Jesus told His followers to respect Caesar's authority and to be obedient to the Roman government?

 

Steaver said,

(bolding mine)

So casting a political vote will send a saved, born again, redeemed by Christ christian to the doom of hell.

Casting a political vote.

Oh my.

Mike

 

Steaver,

Steaver, this "hierarchy of evils" thing you are on is not helping you one bit.

We are not discussing "What is the greatest evil in the world"? We are discussing your view that if someone votes...for any reason...for any candidate that supports abortion that person is therefore a hell bound murderer.

Regarding your "hierarchy of evils", Jesus said if someone has lust in their heart towards someone inappropriate they are guilty of adultery.

If someone has inapropriate anger in their heart towards someone they are guilty of murder.

Have you ever had inappropriate anger towards someone?

What does that make you?

And I'm also curious, do you believe we are justified in Gods eyes by our embracing of Jesus Christ through faith alone, as the scriptures proclaim...or do you believe we are justified by our works? Being "good enough" to go to heaven?

God bless,

Mike

 

I don't think politics occupy a great deal of Billy Grahams time.My opinion, He is one of the greatest preachers of all time.

 

I agree, and couldn't have stated it better.

PJ

 

Are you sure? I think you know the character of God from the scriptures and I don't think you really believe that Jesus would lead His child, when asked mind you through prayer, to support another person who supports murder.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there are a several of people on this board who voted for Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan (by your standards, they both "supported murder" by "not doing enough" to end abortion). Many of those who voted for them will say unequivocably that they made their voting choice after prayer and meditation, allowing themselves to be led by the Holy Spirit on whom they should vote for.

I have a cardinal rule. I never dosclose my voting choices with other people. It's my personal and private decision, and no one has any business knowing whom I voted for. I have never disclosed to anyone here who I voted for in elections past. If, however, I told you whom I voted for, I'm sure you'd take issue with at least some of them for one reason or another. That does not, however, give you moral or scriptural authority to condemn my voting choices. You may personally disagree with them, but make a moral judgement? Sorry, Scripture does not give you that authority.

I wasn't aware that some individual liberties were less important than others.