Christians voting for Romney or Giuliani

I vote for the person that I want to win the race. Just curious, do you have a problem with that, PL?

 

I do as well. The problem comes in when someone helps elect the person we don't want to win by voting for someone who cannot win. That, IMO, is a gross dereliction of duty to this country. It has no redeeming merit whatsoever aside from a pseudosalving of a person's conscience at the expense of the greater good. So I have a problem with people who would rather satisfy themselves than see the country protected from far worse damage. So I vote for who I want to see win among the candidates who are able to win.

 

I totally disagree with your stance. I submit that it is voters following your stance that has caused these United States to be in the awful shape we are in today with Big Nanny Government.

IMO, it is a gross dereliction of duty to one's country to not vote for the person that a voter wants to win the election.

Personally, I will continue to vote for the person that I want to win and leave the outcome in God's hands.

 

I have biblically answered it many times and what good would it do to teach you any further on the passage? You have not acknowledged the truth as of yet and I don't presume another lesson would persuade you any different.

So you have expressed many times without biblical support. You have every right to your opinion.

Scripture applies to the Christian's life in every deed they do. You cannot seperate your "church" life from your "in the world" life. We represent Jesus Christ in EVERYTHING we do. And that would include voting.

There is no "more" glorifying. ANYTHING that goes against God's word is NOT glorifying in the least. Both examples given are non-glorifying to God but only because of the "unbelieving" part. Jesus taught liberty as well as conservate. As long as it lines up with God's word.

Hello! I am the one sayimg you cannot seperate polotics from God's word on the matter.

The "lesser of two evils" is the cop out. There are candidates running who are not violating the word of God. ANd if there wasn't you could write one in.

Vote for those who do not violate God's word and let God decide who He wants to be President. Your vote is only important to God, it will not change the country and happy ye will be that you don't have to see it against you at the JSOC.

God Bless and Merry Christmas to you brother! It has been good deliberating with you! :thumbs:

 

Steaver, can you give an example of a candidate this year that you believe is a choice that would glorify God and meet the standards of His Word?

 

AMEN!:thumbs:

What if everyone IGNORED the "Oh he cannot win so don't waste your vote" ??

Then just maybe God would bless this country once again with an honorable man to lead us.

The ONLY reason voters decide a certain person cannot win is because they believe just what the media tells them . Why don't they just pray and measure the person up to God's word ,and as Ken said, leave the outcome in God's hands?

Tell me, what forms one's opinion that any particular person cannot win? Why it is the "polls" and the "lack of money" the talking heads pound into our heads day after day after day. So what do they have all the voters doing? They all just begin drinking the Kool-aid and go along with those being polled rather than going with who God would place on their heart.

They have gotten to you also Larry. Go with God, vote as one who must give an account some day to God.

God Bless! :wavey:

 

Well, so far Huckabee is looking pretty good. I don't think Ron Paul has any biblical problems and I am sure there are others. I really haven't gotten to serious about it yet. I will have to dig a bit and come up with a list I suppose.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Not following my stance. My stance is that we should vote for the best person who can win. In the primaries that is quite often someone different than in teh general election.

As will I.

 

You have yet to show how voting in a political election is a "yoke" in biblical terms. That is a key omission on your part.

My opinion has biblical support in the teaching about yokes and inequality. A yoke is when two people are bound together in a relationship of equality. When you envision a "yoke" you will see what is being talked about. The inequality is because you have two people going different ways. But in an election, we are not yoking with anyone. Your point may stand if you get involved in a political campaign, but not merely in a vote.

I agree. that's my whole point is that you are separating your voting from your relationship with Christ, it seems to me. You cannot use the Bible wrongly to support your views. You can't abandon your Christianity and your civil responsibility just becuase there is no perfect candidate.

Short of Jesus Christ running for an election, I am not aware of someone who does not violate the Word of God. All votes for humans are votes for the lesser of two evils.

Yes, and what if your vote for a third party candidate helps to elect a liberal who makes appointments to the SCOTUS that solidify Roe for another 30 years, when you could have voted for someone who may have appointed a more conservative justice? How will it sound at the JSOC to say, "Well, at least I satisfied myself"? I don't think it will sound too good.

And same to you.

 

I am sorry to say, PL, that you don't. You have already stated that you have eliminated some candidates from your vote based on your criteria/belief that they cannot win and that their victory would not be an outcome that God can bring about. In essence, you are narrowing the field in which you think that God will act.

 

If everyone ignored it, then he (whoever he is) could win.

No. A person can't win becasue they can't get enough votes.

That's what I have said. But that doesn't negate civil responsibility to prevent the most harm from being done.

That's what I intend to do. I must give account, so I best treat my vote with more care than simply satisfying my own selfish interest. There is more at stake than that.

With the current make up of SCOTUS, the next president will have 2 and perhaps 4 nominations. With your approach to voting, you will help to elect a liberal who will appoint liberal justices. With my approach, we will elect someone who is more conservative, who may appoint conservative justices. Then the blood of babies won't be on my hands by voting for someone who cannot win. That is the problem I see. Voting for someone who can't win is of no use whatsoever to anyone but yourself. And to me, that is too self-centered. At times, I have to bite the bullet of self and do what is best for others.

 

There you go - attempting with your two party paradigm to restrict what you think that God can do.

 

You are wrong.

I have eliminated about 299,999,993 people based on my criteria that they cannot win and you have done the same. There are only about seven people that I would consider voting for (rough number, I haven't actually counted). You have actually narrowed it even further. You have decided that God cannot bring about his will by voting for Romney or Guiliani. That is certainly your right. But my field is quite a bit larger than yours. So don't tell me I have narrowed the field of victory.

 

No, not at all. I would love to have a third party. But as you can tell, there is no viable third party. Even Ron Paul thinks that, or he would be running differently than he is.

What will you say when your vote helps to solidify Roe for another 30 years? That's what I mean by "all or nothing." If you don't get the candidate you want in teh general election, you will not vote. (Voting for a third party that cannot win is the same as not voting.) I disagree with that. I think Roe should be overturned, and I think a Democratic president will ensure that that doesn't happen. With a Republican, there is at least a chance, and we must have the courage to give it a chance.

 

1) Something which you cannot know until after the polls close on election day.

2) There you go - you assume that the Democratic and Republican candidates are the default position for each person's vote. Your position is a wrongheaded one. The two party paradigm has brought us the Big Nanny Government that we have today. By continuing to operate within in by voting against candidates instead of voting for candidates we will continue down the socialist path.

 

Yes, I admit that is true. Your field includes liberals/socialists merely because you think that they are at least some less liberal/socialistic than a competitor might be.

 

1) First off, I reject that by not voting for the Republican nominee for president, just for example - Rudy Giuliani, that I am helping to solidify Roe for another 30 years.

2) You have, in essence, just spit on the grave of every brave American soldier who gave his life protecting our liberty, including the right to vote, by making what has to be the most asinine statement ever posted on Baptist Board.

 

Only if you are out of touch beyond any reasonable level. I can be quite sure that I won't win on election day, and that you won't. And by following the election news, you can be quite sure who will not win.

This is nonsense. I assume that the default position is for the person who is closest to our views who can win. I guarantee you that my positions are closer to yours than anyone running, but I am quite confident that you won't vote for me, and for good reason. I can't win. Pitting voting against vs. voting for you are creating a wrongheaded dichotomy. We are doing both. By voting third party, you are casting a vote against the Dem and the Republican. So no matter how you vote, you are voting against someone and voting for someone else.

I am not aware of any liberals or socialists in my fields, unless you are using a non-standard definition of liberal or socialist (which is entirely possible). But the truth is that you don't even know who is in my field. I don't even really know. I am not paying that much attention to it yet.

I think what we disagree on is whether or not we have a responsibility to try to preserve a future for our children in this country. I do. You seem not to.