I think your example doesn’t match teh question.
Its not voting his will; its not his will but his leaders.
Maybe we should wonder, how much will you obey if they ask it of you? When do you draw the line?
Should we vote our will, or whats fair?
Good question - what if a particular religion (pick one, any one) said to its flock (as was alluded to earlier in this thread), “There is a referendum on the ballot to outlaw all other religions - vote for it.” Should you? Would you? Is it right? Is it right to do so in the name of your chosen religion? Do you care that it infringes the rights of others?
Just a thought.
Esprix
Well, you can’t outlaw a religion. People would still believe it, I guess they’d either be in jail or dead becasue of the law.
No, its not right! How could anyone think it was?
Don’t we have freedom to choose any religion we want?
Isn’t there a separation of church and state?
As regards Tracer’s comment on another thread and those here, I don’t think there is any moral ground for holding others to the moral standard you feel you yourself should follow. But there is moral ground for holding someone to the implications of the moral standard he himself claims to espouse.
If Chaim Keller or zev steinhart (to use two prominent and sincere Jewish posters for example, not to attribute views to them specifically) asserts that America should execute homosexuals, on the basis of Leviticus, he may be taking an obnoxious viewpoint but is morally justified in holding the view vis-a-vis his faith. But if a Christian – any Christian – claims that it is his right to stand in judgment over homosexuals, he is flying in the face of his own Lord’s commands.
Wherefore I disagree with the generic concept that “our laws should reflect those of the Bible” – unless you happen to mean the rather libertarian viewpoint that each man is responsible for his own behavior, and should not be restricted by law other than by common consent to restrict the use of force or other compulsion, which I could make a case for the Bible, taken as a whole and interpreted on its own principles, as saying.
Now, in the case in point in the OP, we have a person who is sincerely following the teachings of men whom he believes to “have a hotline to God” – to be led by him as regards their prophetic utterances. And that puts him in the same position as the Jews – if he holds to “what God said” through them, he’s within his rights.
Within his rights, yes, if he beleives that God actually is speaking through them.
So since he disagrees with what his own prophets say, he is then doing whatever they say, against his own beleifs.
This is dangerous.