Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by avatar382 View Post
    All human morality is ultimately conditional/relative, because we cannot determine the morality of an act without understanding the circumstances in which it occurred. That is, an act, performed twice different mens rea each time may well have a different moral value.
    Like I said before, you think this because your morals are flexible.
    The average moral absolutist will read this and say: "You have completely missed the point, absolute morality means that we get our moral directives from a single unchanging eternal source and no matter what time and place we are in, we apply those directives as we were told, all the time."
    You have completely missed the point!
    Absolute morality means that we base our moral principles on what a single LIVING eternal source would find acceptable for the time and place we are in, period.


    Romans 14
    16Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
    17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
    18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

    Comment


    • Look, I'm fed up with this whole discussion! I don't want any more psychobabble. If you either cannot address my argument or don't want to address my argument, then don't address me at all on this issue. I don't want to talk about it any more unless you intend to directly answer the question I've asked which is as follows...

      How does a conservative that votes for a third party that has no chance of winning or stays home and doesn't vote at all, not make it easier for the worse of two evils to win the election? How does my choosing to fight the lesser enemy not make me the ally of the greater enemy?

      And

      If you concede that it does make it easier for the worse of two evils to win, how do you justify that course of action?

      Now I'm serious. If you don't want to answer those questions directly and substantively then I'm just going to ignore anything else you have to say. I've heard it all anyway, and in fact have made the very arguments you've been making myself more times than I can count. None of them address the question I'm asking.
      Clete: Sorry for responding so late...was very busy...

      Just curious about a few things (sincerely):
      1) Do you feel your questions were answered directly by Bob? or indirectly?
      2) Who will you vote for and why?

      Jonathan

      Comment


      • Learn from history

        This is from a letter to the editor by an old ex-Cuban man.

        A warning from one who's been where we are now
        Last edited by nicholsmom; October 27th, 2008, 07:48 AM. Reason: backward

        Comment


        • Originally posted by avatar382 View Post
          Just to make sure I understand you fully, tell me if the following accurately summarizes your argument:

          Stealing is forbidden by immutable apodicitc law, yet it not required by apodictic law to procure food for a starving sibling (or otherwise intervene to save the life of an innocent)

          So in a situation where one has to choose between following the mandate to not steal and one's obligation to save the life of an innocent when one has the power to do so, the moral choice is to not steal, because apodictic laws (not stealing) trump "doubtful things" (doing what you can to save a life)
          I would never steal even food. I would seek other means of obtaining food (charity for instance) & if there were none, I'd go to a great feast in Heaven quite hungry.

          I must ask you what you mean by an "innocent" - is that a baby who's had no chance to sin, a child who cannot be held accountable for sin, or someone who is "good" by your estimation? The only other alternative for "innocent" is one who has been justified by the blood sacrifice of Christ and so bears the righteousness, not of self, but of Jesus.

          Comment


          • IF McCain or Obama wins, was it God's will?
            Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

            But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

            What are my fruits today?

            Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

            "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Lion View Post
              NW said;

              I think you have already lost the argument here. You admit abortion is murder every time (except when trying to save both mother and child but technology prevents saving the child at that time).

              And you admit that John McCain allows for abortion in the case of incest and rape. So how can you say it would be moral to vote for a man that would place his stamp of approval on the murder of innocent children?

              I would conclude that if you do you fall under the condemnation of Romans 1:32
              A vote for McCain is NOT in anyway shape or form a vote in support of choice for victims of rape and incest. Given the fact that voters do not have another option, a vote for McCain is a vote in support of life, regardless of McCain's own personal opinions regarding victims of rape and incest.

              What other choices do we have? We can choose not to vote, but that is also a choice that impacts our country. There is no such thing as not choosing. We can choose a different candidate, but I believe that voting for a candidate or party that has zero chance of winning is like not voting at all, because it is a refusal to enter into the battle against abortion.

              Not voting for McCain impacts the direction our country goes and is helpful to Obama, a man who will see that the pro-choice agenda is alive and well and will continue to promote the killing of countless unborn babies every day. Just ask Obama himself. If you are unwilling to vote for him, I am quite sure he would rather you didn't support McCain either. He will take your help despite your intentions.

              If we don't wish to support Obama, we are left to do the only thing we can do to save as many lives as we possibly can and that is to support McCain. I ask all pro-life people NOT to support Obama, and I believe this is exactly what some of you are doing when you spread the message that pro-lifers should not support McCain.

              Is voting for McCain immoral? Ask yourselves why you are voting for McCain. If it has nothing to do with his opinion regarding choice for rape and incest victims, and you are voting for the lesser of two evils, then you are voting in good conscience and you are not commiting a sin against God.

              Regarding Romans 1:32, there is a lot I would like to say, but I will just say this: When I vote for McCain, it is not to give my approval for his sins against the unborn. It is to assure that my approval and help is NOT given to the man that I believe has absoltuely no regard for God when it comes to the lives of the unborn. I do not wish to help Obama by NOT voting for McCain.

              Furthermore, McCain may be misguided, but can we really judge his intentions? In other words, is he acting without regard to God's will, or is he truly acting in a way that he believes is in accordance with God's will? Intentions matter when it comes to a person commiting a sin against God, and I think the previous passages to the above mentioned verse as well as this verse itself makes that quite clear. For example, can we really call McCain full of envy, wickedness, evil, greed, and malice? Is he ruthless and heartless? In verse 32 we read, "although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." It seems to me, that before one can be considered evil in the eyes of God, he has to KNOW the will of God, and despite knowing better, act contrary anyway. Willful intention must be involved in an evil act in order for it to be considered a sin against God. I cannot believe that McCain has evil intentions against God despite the fact that he knows God's will. I think he is misguided and not thinking out his position carefully. When I vote for McCain, I do not believe that I will be voting for a man who willfully engages in pactices against God. I will be voting for the lesser of two evils.

              Again, I ask you, what choices do we have in this election? There is no such thing as not making a choice. Not voting is a choice. Every choice we make short of voting for McCain is a choice that supports Obama and his pro-choice agenda.
              Last edited by hollyivy; October 31st, 2008, 06:47 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jsmiller View Post
                Clete: Sorry for responding so late...was very busy...
                Don't worry about it. I'm up to my eyeballs myself.

                Just curious about a few things (sincerely):
                1) Do you feel your questions were answered directly by Bob? or indirectly?
                Very directly.

                2) Who will you vote for and why?

                Jonathan
                I don't know.

                It is likely that, assuming that something dramatic doesn't happen to cause me to make a firm decision one way or the other, I will decide to defer to him whom I call my pastor (i.e. Bob Enyart) and follow his guidance and vote for neither McCain nor Obama. In that case, I will probably not vote at all since there is no third party candidate on the ballot in Oklahoma (that I know of) and write ins are, in my estimation, a complete waste of time.

                Resting in Him,
                Clete
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • Originally posted by hollyivy View Post
                  A vote for McCain is NOT in anyway shape or form a vote in support of choice for victims of rape and incest. Given the fact that voters do not have another option, a vote for McCain is a vote in support of life, regardless of McCain's own personal opinions regarding victims of rape and incest.

                  What other choices do we have? We can choose not to vote, but that is also a choice that impacts our country. There is no such thing as not choosing. We can choose a different candidate, but I believe that voting for a candidate or party that has zero chance of winning is like not voting at all, because it is a refusal to enter into the battle against abortion.

                  Not voting for McCain impacts the direction our country goes and is helpful to Obama, a man who will see that the pro-choice agenda is alive and well and will continue to promote the killing of countless unborn babies every day. Just ask Obama himself. If you are unwilling to vote for him, I am quite sure he would rather you didn't support McCain either. He will take your help despite your intentions.

                  If we don't wish to support Obama, we are left to do the only thing we can do to save as many lives as we possibly can and that is to support McCain. I ask all pro-life people NOT to support Obama, and I believe this is exactly what some of you are doing when you spread the message that pro-lifers should not support McCain.

                  Is voting for McCain immoral? Ask yourselves why you are voting for McCain. If it has nothing to do with his opinion regarding choice for rape and incest victims, and you are voting for the lesser of two evils, then you are voting in good conscience and you are not commiting a sin against God.

                  Regarding Romans 1:32, there is a lot I would like to say, but I will just say this: When I vote for McCain, it is not to give my approval for his sins against the unborn. It is to assure that my approval and help is NOT given to the man that I believe has absoltuely no regard for God when it comes to the lives of the unborn. I do not wish to help Obama by NOT voting for McCain.

                  Furthermore, McCain may be misguided, but can we really judge his intentions? In other words, is he acting without regard to God's will, or is he truly acting in a way that he believes is in accordance with God's will? Intentions matter when it comes to a person commiting a sin against God, and I think the previous passages to the above mentioned verse as well as this verse itself makes that quite clear. For example, can we really call McCain full of envy, wickedness, evil, greed, and malice? Is he ruthless and heartless? In verse 32 we read, "although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." It seems to me, that before one can be considered evil in the eyes of God, he has to KNOW the will of God, and despite knowing better, act contrary anyway. Willful intention must be involved in an evil act in order for it to be considered a sin against God. I cannot believe that McCain has evil intentions against God despite the fact that he knows God's will. I think he is misguided and not thinking out his position carefully. When I vote for McCain, I do not believe that I will be voting for a man who willfully engages in pactices against God. I will be voting for the lesser of two evils.
                  You should read post 338 and see if it changes your mind any. I'd be interested in your response.
                  sigpic
                  "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    Don't worry about it. I'm up to my eyeballs myself.


                    Very directly.


                    I don't know.

                    It is likely that, assuming that something dramatic doesn't happen to cause me to make a firm decision one way or the other, I will decide to defer to him whom I call my pastor (i.e. Bob Enyart) and follow his guidance and vote for neither McCain nor Obama. In that case, I will probably not vote at all since there is no third party candidate on the ballot in Oklahoma (that I know of) and write ins are, in my estimation, a complete waste of time.

                    Resting in Him,
                    Clete
                    Wow! you are correct! I looked up a sample ballot for Oklahoma and there are no 3rd party candidates listed.

                    In Indiana we have a load of them

                    Bob Barr - L
                    Wayne Allen Root
                    Michael L. Faith - AI
                    Darrell Castle - CON
                    Cynthia McKinney - G
                    Chuck Baldwin - CON
                    Lawson Mitchell Bone - I
                    Kevin Mottus - I
                    Ralph Nader - I
                    John Leroy Plemons - I
                    Lou Kujawski - R
                    Brian Moore - S

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                      Wow! you are correct! I looked up a sample ballot for Oklahoma and there are no 3rd party candidates listed.

                      In Indiana we have a load of them

                      Bob Barr - L
                      Wayne Allen Root
                      Michael L. Faith - AI
                      Darrell Castle - CON
                      Cynthia McKinney - G
                      Chuck Baldwin - CON
                      Lawson Mitchell Bone - I
                      Kevin Mottus - I
                      Ralph Nader - I
                      John Leroy Plemons - I
                      Lou Kujawski - R
                      Brian Moore - S
                      That's more than we had last time. The only third party then was Libertarian.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • I just found this debate, and haven't finished it yet. While I'm still reading, I thought I'd drop in the thoughts I already have:

                        If you think of the alternatives like this, then you'll probably think it's immoral to vote for McCain: "Am I going to vote on principle, lending my support to the right man in order to get him into office?"

                        If you think about it this way, you'll probably think you have a moral obligation to vote for McCain: "Am I going to use my vote just to make a statement? Or am I going to vote in order to affect what happens? Am I going to vote in order to help divert our country from an evil path toward a better one?"

                        (Of course, that assumes that McCain's policies will involve fewer acts of evil than Obama's.)


                        Another thought: Question GG3 was simply pathetic.
                        GG3: Two men are trying to break into a school. One wants to kill all the kids in the school and the other only wants to kill some of them. Neither one is personally threatening your life. You have a key to get into the school. Which one are you going to support, knowing that eventually one will succeed in getting in? To whom do you give your key?
                        In that situation, neither one will necessarily get into the building unless you give them your key.

                        Try a situation more like this:
                        Two men are running toward a school. One wants to kill all the kids in the school and the other only wants to kill some of them. Whoever gets there first will lock the door behind him, preventing the other from gaining access. You have to opportunity to trip one of them. (Or, you have the opportunity to remove a roadblock from in front of one of them.) Are you going to do nothing? Or are you going to act so that it's more likely the second one will make it there first?
                        Check out my blog, Through A Glass, Dimly (aglassdimly.com)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jugulum View Post
                          I just found this debate, and haven't finished it yet. While I'm still reading, I thought I'd drop in the thoughts I already have:

                          If you think of the alternatives like this, then you'll probably think it's immoral to vote for McCain: "Am I going to vote on principle, lending my support to the right man in order to get him into office?"

                          If you think about it this way, you'll probably think you have a moral obligation to vote for McCain: "Am I going to use my vote just to make a statement? Or am I going to vote in order to affect what happens? Am I going to vote in order to help divert our country from an evil path toward a better one?"

                          (Of course, that assumes that McCain's policies will involve fewer acts of evil than Obama's.)


                          Another thought: Question GG3 was simply pathetic.

                          In that situation, neither one will necessarily get into the building unless you give them your key.

                          Try a situation more like this:
                          Two men are running toward a school. One wants to kill all the kids in the school and the other only wants to kill some of them. Whoever gets there first will lock the door behind him, preventing the other from gaining access. You have to opportunity to trip one of them. (Or, you have the opportunity to remove a roadblock from in front of one of them.) Are you going to do nothing? Or are you going to act so that it's more likely the second one will make it there first?
                          Your example doesn't work, because in an election, there's no such thing as voting against a candidate. One only votes for someone, not against someone else. There is no lever or button that says "Not Obama." Hence our example of providing a key.

                          However, that whole analogy and question of ours was soon abandoned since our opponents conceded the debate in such away as to make the school analogy totally moot. Our opponents freely conceded that it is immoral to vote for any candidate that wants to keep abortion legal and who funds abortion. These two points were incredibly easy to prove. So the school question became totally irrelevant.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Graphite View Post
                            Your example doesn't work, because in an election, there's no such thing as voting against a candidate. One only votes for someone, not against someone else. There is no lever or button that says "Not Obama." Hence our example of providing a key.
                            And hence my alternative, "Or, you have the opportunity to remove a roadblock from in front of one of them." (I thought about removing the "trip up" version entirely, but I assumed that if anyone objected like you did, they would still pay attention to the parenthetical alternative.) I think that would match up with the election.

                            Or, if you don't think "remove a roadblock" is active enough, we could replace it with a more active form of "help one of them get to the door first".

                            Either way, your question still suffered the flaw that I pointed out. By providing a key, you let someone into the building who might not have gotten in otherwise. That example doesn't work.

                            And whether or not it turned out to be moot for your debate, I'm curious what your answer is. Would you help the "kill some people" person get to the door first? Or would you choose inaction and allow the "kill everyone" person to get there first?

                            However, that whole analogy and question of ours was soon abandoned since our opponents conceded the debate in such away as to make the school analogy totally moot. Our opponents freely conceded that it is immoral to vote for any candidate that wants to keep abortion legal and who funds abortion. These two points were incredibly easy to prove. So the school question became totally irrelevant.
                            Hmm, I hadn't gotten through the entire debate yet. I'll watch for that concession.

                            At the moment, I'm puzzled as to why they would concede it. Because I would have answered GG2 with, "Depending on who's the other party's candidate, yes."

                            Suppose the two candidates were (1) Adolf Johnson, who intends to start a government-organized Holocaust of Jews, black people, and the elderly, and (2) Jack McKain, who intends to make it legal to lynch black people (and he'll even fund the ropes). As my wife and I are walking past the polls, we find out that all the other votes have been cast, and Johnson is up by 1 vote.

                            We can choose to:
                            1) Keep walking. Johnson will win, and millions upon millions will be slaughtered.
                            2) Walk in and vote for McKain. McKain will win, and the vast majority of those millions will be spared.

                            By your argument, our moral mandate is to keep walking. To choose a course of (in)action that results in the deaths of millions, when it was in our power to choose a course of action that prevents most of them from dying.

                            And that puzzles me.

                            I suppose I could understand it if you view a vote as "endorsing or partaking in the actions of the candidate". (I wouldn't torture a baby, even if someone threatened to blow up the world unless I did.) But I don't see why you should view a vote as anything other than, "I prefer the results of this action to the results of my other options."


                            P.S. I voted for Chuck Baldwin. But I live in Texas, which is solidly McCain. If I lived in a swing state... I'm honestly not sure what I would have done. My decision was less complicated than that.
                            Check out my blog, Through A Glass, Dimly (aglassdimly.com)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jugulum View Post
                              And hence my alternative, "Or, you have the opportunity to remove a roadblock from in front of one of them." (I thought about removing the "trip up" version entirely, but I assumed that if anyone objected like you did, they would still pay attention to the parenthetical alternative.) I think that would match up with the election.

                              Or, if you don't think "remove a roadblock" is active enough, we could replace it with a more active form of "help one of them get to the door first".
                              The road block is no different from tripping them. There is no "roadblock" button (or equivelant) in the election booth. The only meaning a vote has in a positive one - giving approval to one person (or issue). It carries no negative meaning at all regarding any other choices on the ballot.

                              For example, if you have 5 candidates, and 3 of them are wicked, and two of them are great, wonderful men, but one has a month more experience in his previous elected office than the other, so you vote for him... does that mean you disapprove of the other good man? Does that mean you're trying to trip him up? Or putting a roadblock in front of him? No; you'd be wonderfully happy to see him in office. But how would the state know this when tabulating your ballot? They can't. They don't know anything about who you dislike or oppose. They only know one person whom you support - the one you voted for. Nothing else.

                              So, you might be outrageously opposed to all 4 other candidates, or you might love your second-favorite guy on the list quite a lot.... but your vote doesn't say anything about that. It only says one thing.

                              I approve _______ to be hired for this job (elected office).

                              You have authority over Obama and McCain; you are a member of an organization's hiring committee that is delegated the authority to hire someone new for the job (of president). You're the one with authority, therefore you should use it wisely. So, if you're hiring someone as an office clerk, and he tells you up front that he occasionally takes money from the till, do you share responsibility if you hire him knowing that, and then money is stolen? Of course you do. If you are on a committee to approve a new pastor for your church and a candidate has a record of having affairs with married women in the congragation in 3 previous churches, and he is not even repentant of this... if you hire him, are you partly responsible if it happens again at your church? Of course you are.

                              There's nothing wrong with giving approval to candidates who are more or less qualified. But intentionally hiring someone you know is evil, who is a thief, a philanderer, a liar... a killer... makes you responsible for what they do with the authority that you gave them. You gave them the power to do that. Therefore, you are culpable.

                              And whether or not it turned out to be moot for your debate, I'm curious what your answer is. Would you help the "kill some people" person get to the door first? Or would you choose inaction and allow the "kill everyone" person to get there first?

                              Hmm, I hadn't gotten through the entire debate yet. I'll watch for that concession.

                              At the moment, I'm puzzled as to why they would concede it. Because I would have answered GG2 with, "Depending on who's the other party's candidate, yes."

                              Suppose the two candidates were (1) Adolf Johnson, who intends to start a government-organized Holocaust of Jews, black people, and the elderly, and (2) Jack McKain, who intends to make it legal to lynch black people (and he'll even fund the ropes). As my wife and I are walking past the polls, we find out that all the other votes have been cast, and Johnson is up by 1 vote.

                              We can choose to:
                              1) Keep walking. Johnson will win, and millions upon millions will be slaughtered.
                              2) Walk in and vote for McKain. McKain will win, and the vast majority of those millions will be spared.

                              By your argument, our moral mandate is to keep walking. To choose a course of (in)action that results in the deaths of millions, when it was in our power to choose a course of action that prevents most of them from dying.

                              And that puzzles me.
                              My course of action doesn't cause those deaths. Both of those candidates cause those deaths. It doesn't make any sense to say that if a million other people vote for these two killers, and I vote for a pro-life conservative, that they're not responsible for the resulting deaths.... but that I somehow am. That is perverted and utterly backward. I voted for a good man, and they voted for either of two killers. How can their sin be imputed to me? That is what puzzles me.

                              I suppose I could understand it if you view a vote as "endorsing or partaking in the actions of the candidate". (I wouldn't torture a baby, even if someone threatened to blow up the world unless I did.) But I don't see why you should view a vote as anything other than, "I prefer the results of this action to the results of my other options."

                              P.S. I voted for Chuck Baldwin. But I live in Texas, which is solidly McCain. If I lived in a swing state... I'm honestly not sure what I would have done. My decision was less complicated than that.
                              You will see our argument really brought out in the second half of the debate, as you'll soon see. I look forward to further input.

                              Comment


                              • I see that you've replied again, but I only have time at the moment to post a quick comment in reply to something you said in the debate, answering a question about the definition of "voting":
                                QQA-NWQ6: We basically agree, with two exceptions. First of all, some immoral stances are far worse than others and therefore function as litmus test issues. If a candidate is right about every other issue except that he advocates slavery, then he is unfit for office, no matter how wicked his opponent is.
                                I agree with that statement. However, I do not agree that it is immoral to vote for a person who is unfit for office.

                                That is because of the way I defined a vote: "I prefer the results of this action to the results of my other options."

                                Note: I am also implicitly assuming that this vote is not an act of participation in the policies that the candidate enacts. If I became persuaded otherwise on that point, I would change my view about the morality of voting for an unfit candidate. Because then it would be a matter of committing an evil act in order to achieve a well-intentioned end.
                                Check out my blog, Through A Glass, Dimly (aglassdimly.com)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X