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

  • Letsargue
    replied
    ooopppsss!!

    Paul -- 101413

    Leave a comment:


  • Letsargue
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    Presidential Election 2008 - Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin? Battle Royale XIII
    GodsfreeWill and The Graphite vs. WandererinFog and Nicholsmom


    In this thread feel free to discuss Battle Royale XIII. Who's winning and why?

    ( Proverbs 8:14-17 ) --14- “Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. 15- ( By me kings reign ), and ( princes decree justice ). 16- By me ((( princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges ))) of the earth. 17- (((( I love them that love me )))); and those that seek me early shall find me”.

    ( John 14:15 KJV ) – 15- “(( If ye love me, keep my commandments ))”.

    (( John 15-19 KJV )) – 19- “ ( If ye were of the world, the world would love his own ): but because ye are not of the world , but ( I have chosen you out of the world ), ((( therefore the world hateth you )))”.

    ( Romans 3:10-12 KJV )

    ((( Who is ALL This written to )))?? – And Who is it that couldn’t care less what He says??? – Just READ IT!!, - and Love IT, - or NOT!!!! – “IT” is Him!!!

    Paul – 101413

    Leave a comment:


  • Letsargue
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    Presidential Election 2008 - Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin? Battle Royale XIII
    GodsfreeWill and The Graphite vs. WandererinFog and Nicholsmom


    In this thread feel free to discuss Battle Royale XIII. Who's winning and why?

    ( Proverbs 8:14-17 ) --14- “Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. 15- ( By me kings reign ), and ( princes decree justice ). 16- By me ((( princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges ))) of the earth. 17- (((( I love them that love me )))); and those that seek me early shall find me”.

    ( John 14:15 KJV ) – 15- “(( If ye love me, keep my commandments ))”.

    (( John 15-19 KJV )) – 19- “ ( If ye were of the world, the world would love his own ): but because ye are not of the world , but ( I have chosen you out of the world ), ((( therefore the world hateth you )))”.

    ( Romans 3:10-12 KJV )

    ((( Who is ALL This written to )))?? – And Who is it that couldn’t care less what He says??? – Just READ IT!!, - and Love IT, - or NOT!!!! – “IT” is Him!!!

    Paul – 101413

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian Liberty
    replied
    Even still, I care more about what someone supports in general than who they vote for on election day. I met a VERY strong constitutionalist who nonetheless held his nose and voted for Romney. You didn't vote for Romney, yet you are a supporter of murder. He's not evil, you are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian Liberty
    replied
    I think I'd probably take a somewhat more hard-line stance on this than I would have back in July. And I probably couldn't support someone like Gary Johnson anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he got as many votes as he did, the votes for him definitely showed that some people were at least willing to stand for something, but the man was far too liberal. I might still cast the ballot for him if that was the absolute best option (No write-in option, no other third party candidate that was equivalent) but I don't think I'd spend as much time trying to convince other people to do so as I did back then. All of the candidates in that election sucked.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick M
    replied
    Originally posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Was it immoral to vote for McCain/Palin? Or, the now relevant question, was it immoral to vote for Romney/Ryan?
    Yes on both.

    I'd say, in a limited sense, yes. Ultimately, I think this is the kind of thing that is between an individual and God, not a clear cut issue that would deserve church discipline like someone living in fornication or getting drunk every weekend or that sort of thing. There's no specific Biblical "Thou shall not."
    While you are in sin for your rejection of the gospel, those in Christ have no sin. And yes there is a prohibition against voting for evil. You shall love God with all your heart mind and soul.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian Liberty
    replied
    Was it immoral to vote for McCain/Palin? Or, the now relevant question, was it immoral to vote for Romney/Ryan?

    I'd say, in a limited sense, yes. Ultimately, I think this is the kind of thing that is between an individual and God, not a clear cut issue that would deserve church discipline like someone living in fornication or getting drunk every weekend or that sort of thing. There's no specific Biblical "Thou shall not."

    On the other hand, you're still aiding and abetting a man who WILL do things that are clearly unbiblical.

    Personally it just seems stupid as really McCain would be little different than Obama. If anything, he'd be worse, as he was an imperialist BEFORE he got into office. If you think Obama foreign policy was bad, can you imagine a McCain regime? And with the foreign policy comes our freedom and our economy. The right to life issue is very important, and McCain doesn't do much better there, but its not the ONLY issue. There's a lot to politics and I think its important to remember that.

    My dad voted for Romney in 2012. Romney was not quite as bad as McCain, but the tradeoffs are pretty similar. He's a pastor. I don't think he's unqualified to hold that position. I don't think his vote for Romney disqualifies him from that position, at least not by itself. Similarly, I don't think a vote for Obama, or McCain, would disqualify a person from that sort of ministry, at least not by itself.

    Mind you, I don't say that you can cast such a vote for ANY REASON while still being qualified. If a person says that he's going to vote for Obama, or McCain, BECAUSE they are pro-choice and they think murdering children should be legal, that's not the same as genuinely picking one or the other as a "Lesser evil."

    Assuming the best of intentions, I'd say a vote like this is more stupid than outright evil. First of all, your vote doesn't really count. One vote NEVER wins an election. So to throw it to a guy that only gets less than half the issues right is, at best, a total waste. Second of all, even if your vote does decide, it won't change much of anything anyway.

    If what you want is more of George W. Bush type Republican, by all means, vote for people like McCain or Romney. But if you want an actual conservative, or a libertarian, or something in more of that direction, voting for these sorts of people is a moral compromise without even having anything to gain from it.

    I do, ultimately, feel like its a violation of Romans 3:8. That's my personal conviction. So I won't do it. Honestly, if I actually had to DECIDE between McCain or Obama, I'd pick Obama, however reluctantly, since I fear McCain's foreign policy. But I would never actually vote for either one of them. Both are evil. Chuck Baldwin, an actual conservative, was on the ballot, and I believe that a vote for him would have been far better than anyone in 2008...

    2012 was far trickier, but nonetheless, I think Gary Johnson was the least awful of the candidates that year, and he was genuinely offering a different message. That said, he sucked on Federalism issues, so I could respect a vote for Virgil Goode either. A vote for Romney or Obama is just cowardly in my mind. Maybe not actively sinful, I guess that's a matter of individual conviction (For me it would be) but definitely stupid and cowardly with nothing to gain.

    Leave a comment:


  • jasonwill
    replied
    Presidential Election 2008 - Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin? Battle Royale XIII ...........................hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm






    let me think......................................hummmmm mmmmmmmmmm






    yeah......................................

    Leave a comment:


  • Jugulum
    replied
    Originally posted by The Graphite View Post


    Great comics, I'll have to snap those up!
    XKCD is hilarious. However, it is sometimes inappropriate. Be forewarned, if you browse.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Graphite
    replied


    Great comics, I'll have to snap those up!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jugulum
    replied
    Originally posted by The Graphite View Post
    Jugulum, I'm sorry to hear this is causing you emotional distress.
    Not emotionally distressed--just heated. Tone of rhetoric rising.

    Really, it's a combination of these two:
    clicky 1
    clicky 2

    I'll let your post be the last word, for that reason as well as because I believe I already answered the questions you just asked, here and in the debate itself.
    Well... OK. I'm also content to let our posts stand as they are.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Graphite
    replied
    Jugulum, I'm sorry to hear this is causing you emotional distress.

    I'll let your post be the last word, for that reason as well as because I believe I already answered the questions you just asked, here and in the debate itself. I'm sorry we can't come to an accord, but I do appreciate that you voted for Baldwin, and I'm sorry I assumed you voted McCain. God bless, brother. See you around the board.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jugulum
    replied
    Originally posted by Jugulum View Post
    (And we're also differing on the "responsibility to change what you can" question--which I see as related to the idea of depraved indifference. See below.)
    Whoops, I just noticed that I left this in--but I didn't post the part that I was referring to when I said, "see below". I'll go ahead and do that.


    Originally posted by The Graphite
    Based on your imaginary ideal that "we are responsible for the difference that we have the ability to make." Where are these two alleged imperitives taught in the Bible?
    I didn't say that we are responsible for the difference that we have the ability to make, period. I said that we have that responsibility, only if we can make a difference without sinning. If we have to sin in order to do it, then it's still sin. You can't engage in the moral relativism of "the ends justify the means".

    And I've been basing this idea on the assumption that when you know about a planned evil (one that you have the power to stop) then you have some obligation to do so. It's an application of James 4:17 (along with James' definition of "pure religion"), or the story of the Good Samaritan. Both seem to point to some principle of Depraved Indifference.


    Hmm... And I'll also go ahead and include one more example that I had written.

    Is It Morally Neutral?
    I think that letting an evil man into my house, by itself, is morally neutral. Even if I know that he may do evil. One case where I'm sure of that: If I know that my family is safe somewhere else, and I've got a SWAT team waiting for him, then it doesn't matter that he intended to evil--I'm doing something good. Even if he kills one of the SWAT team members while they're capturing him. The fact that I let him into the house doesn't automatically make me an accomplice to his actions inside.

    But even if I'm right there, that's not enough to prove what's the right thing to do in my examples. I could still be wrong about those cases--you could be right that my answer was wicked. But it's enough to make me question your bald assumption about how to assign culpability--your assumption about what makes you an accomplice. I haven't seen the biblical basis for your view.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jugulum
    replied
    The Graphite,

    First, a question. Did you read my other post before replying?

    Overview:

    I absolutely agree that ends don't justify means. (See #1 in my other post.) If a vote is not morally neutral by itself, then I agree with your conclusions. And if your political philosophy on the nature of a vote is right, then I agree that you should not vote for the lesser of two evils. (See #3 in my other post. Whether you can limit that to "evils of capital crimes", as you seem to want to, is another question.) If your assumptions about the moral significance of hiring someone or letting someone into your house are right, then I agree with your conclusions.

    You should only act to alleviate a bigger evil into a lesser evil if your action itself isn't evil. If you have to participate in either evil to do it, or if your action itself is a sin, then you shouldn't act. Even if you think it's going to save lives.

    I think, on that much, we agree. The major difference (for the "is it immoral" question) lies in how we see the moral significance of a vote, or hiring someone, etc. (And we're also differing on the "responsibility to change what you can" question--which I see as related to the idea of depraved indifference. See below.)

    So, in what follows, I want you to keep two questions distinct:
    1.) What is the inherent moral significance of a vote, or of hiring someone?
    2.) If you can turn a bigger evil into a lesser evil without sinning yourself, should you?

    A Clarification
    You're now equating voting "third party" (instead of McCain) with laziness and therefore a sin, but just not the same sin as that of the wicked man (Obama) who rises to power?
    No. For one thing, I voted third party. Chuck Baldwin. And I influenced other conservatives to do the same. (Though I may have voted for McCain if I had lived in a battleground state. But I was confident beyond reasonable doubt that Texas would go for McCain, whatever I did.)

    I guess I wasn't very clear, but I was emphatically not saying that if you vote third party, then it is laziness and therefore sin. I was trying to talk about one of the general principles that we should be seeking to apply.

    So, in general terms, if you fail to do good or prevent evil simply out of laziness, then you have sinned. If there are other factors involved, then it might not be sin. We have an obligation to care for the orphans and widows among us--but it's not absolute. For instance, we shouldn't steal in order to do it--but that's not laziness! As another example, if you find out about a murder and can prevent it, it's sin not to--but not if you would have to sin in order to do so. There can be overriding obligations.

    Your decision not to vote for McCain is one of principle, not of laziness. Because you think you would be participating in evil. I disagree with that part, but I agree with the underlying principle.


    The Moral Significance of a Vote

    So, earlier, I pointed out that we're differing on the nature of a vote. I offered my view of the nature of a vote--that it is only a tool for affecting the outcome. I said, "If you think that I'm objectively wrong, then you have some political philosophizing to do." You didn't comment directly at that part of the post.

    Lower down, you said, "your examples betray your misunderstanding of your role in a democratic vote." Uh, right. They were intended (in part) to illustrate the nature of a vote. They didn't "betray" anything--they showcased it.

    What I still haven't seen is a biblical reason to take your view of a vote over mine.


    And with that, I think I'm done. I already wrote response to some of the rest of your post, but I think I'm getting to involved in this. I had to stop myself multiple times from getting emotionally heated, and I've let this take up too much of my time. So, you can have the last word.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Graphite
    replied
    Originally posted by Jugulum View Post
    1.) Moot

    2.) Please answer my earlier question, about the original version of my counter-example. Would you help the "kill some people" person get to the door first? (Whether through removing a roadblock from in front of one or through impeding the other?) Or would you choose inaction and allow the "kill everyone" person to get there first?
    I would try to impede both, but if I can't, I would impede the one I perceive to be the greater threat. I would fight in whatever way available to me to prevent harm from those attacking. That should go without saying. I would not, however, help either one of them in any way. That would make me their accomplice, and I would thus become complicit in their evil.

    3.) You said that there's no "roadblock" button. Did you mean that there's no "place a roadblock" button, or no "remove a roadblock" button?

    I ask because it looks like you misread my "roadblock" comment. It looks like you thought I said "place a roadblock in front of one"--i.e. a negative action with respect to one of them. (You talked that way in your reply. You talked about "putting a roadblock".) I actually said, "remove a roadblock from in front of one of them"--i.e. a positive action with respect to one of them.
    There's no roadblock button of either kind. That is not what a vote is.

    4.) You told me that you don't think the roadblock is any different from tripping them up. The core of your reply seems to be something like, "that's not active enough of an active form of help". Even if that was because you misread my comment: Did you miss my follow-up?

    "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"."

    If your response addressed that... I'm missing it.
    Answered above.

    A request: Modify my version of the example, by replacing "trip up one of them" and "remove a roadblock" with an action that you are satisfied would actually help one of them get to the door first. ("Give one of them a key" doesn't apply. The door is unlocked, and they're headed toward the door, and one of them is going to make it first, and whoever does will lock out the other one.)

    Edit: Something like "give one of them a Rocketeer backpack" would work.
    Under no circumstances should I help either of them accomplish their goal. If I do so, I am complicit in their evil as their accomplice. I would be doing evil so that good may come of it. I would be yoked to the darkness of this world.

    In short, I would be sinning, if I did that.


    Originally posted by Jugulum View Post
    I agree that a vote has no negative meaning. You misread my post. I didn't say anything about placing a roadblock--I said something about removing one. Which I regard as a positive action. (I asked you to tweak that part of the example, if you think it isn't.)
    I don't agree that a vote inherently means, "I approve this issue/person." I think it means, "I prefer the outcome of my vote over what I think would otherwise happen." That is what I mean by my vote. If you think that I'm objectively wrong, then you have some political philosophizing to do.

    I care about the effect that my vote has. When I "speak" with my vote, I am saying something about the anticipated effect. I don't remotely care what the state thinks about the meaning of the voting totals, except insofar as that affects what happens.

    Note: One of the effects I care about is, "How will the name of Christ be viewed?" That matters quite a bit. That certainly has to be factored in. (And even if my actions don't objectively don't dishonor Christ--but people will perceive my actions that way--then I have to think about this like "causing a brother to stumble". But I might do it anyway, if there are bigger concerns. Like saving lives.)

    Again, I disagree with your political philosophy of the meaning of a vote.
    That much is clear. Where do you find this idea in the Bible, that when you vote or otherwise hire a person, that you should base your decision on "How will the name of Christ be viewed?" You say this has to be factored in. Where is this in the Bible, that it is mandatory we do this?

    I believe that we are responsible for the difference that we have the ability to make, but don't--assuming that we could make the difference through actions that are not immoral, and that we could reasonably anticipate the effects of our actions. Where there is reasonable doubt about the effects of our actions--or where there are multiple effects to weigh--the situation is more ambiguous.

    Do you agree with that much? (I realize that you don't believe voting is morally neutral action. And if you're right, then I agree with your conclusion.)
    No, I do not. Where do you get this idea that "we are responsible for the difference that we have the ability to make?" Where is this in the Bible, that the ends justify the means and giving power to a murderer is a moral choice as long as it brings about what you perceive to be a less wicked outcome? Scriptural examples?

    Either way, it's not a matter of others' sins being imputed to me. (If I fail to stop a murder through laziness, then I have sinned--but my sin isn't quite the same sin as the perpetrator's. That's how I see it, at least. If we assume it's the same sin, then maybe "imputed sin" is the right way to say it. A shared imputation, anyway.)
    You're now equating voting "third party" (instead of McCain) with laziness and therefore a sin, but just not the same sin as that of the wicked man (Obama) who rises to power?

    I'll answer you by stating what I would do with my own kids.

    If I knew that a homicidal maniac was on his way to babysit my kids, and the only course of action that would prevent it was to have an unrepentant child molester come instead--based on my best judgment in evaluating my options--then of course I would stop the killer by getting the molester to come instead.

    And if I owned a store and knew that a guy was going to steal the entire inventory, and I could stop it by hiring a guy who occasionally steals from the till, then of course I would do it.
    What a wicked thing to say, and you say it proudly. And your examples betray your misunderstanding of your role in a democratic vote.

    You had power over McCain and Obama and others on the ballot. They were applying for a job. You are on a very large hiring committee, and none of the applicants will be hired unless they receive the approval of the largest percentage of the hiring committee. You cannot control (or be responsible for) anyone else on the hiring committee. Your only responsibility to God is to do the right thing, yourself, regardless of what anyone else does. If you vote for a thief to be hired to run your store, then you will be culpable in his thefts, even if some other applicant was worse. Especially since there were applicants that aren't thieves (or murderers), at all! When you practice this form of moral relativism by basing your decision on what you assume everyone else is going to vote for, you yolk yourself to all of the other members of the hiring committee who intend to give approval to a thief (or a molester, or a murderer).

    Your statement that you would knowingly and intentionally bring the molester into your house is a confession of true evil, and you should be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing, that you would intentionally bring into your house a man you know intends to rape your children. When you begin to morally compromise in this way, there is no bottom to that abyss. By your logic, if one of the two men promised to kill your children, and the other promised to rape AND kill your children, you would knowingly and willingly aid the first killer in entering your house to do his dirty deed? The end justifying the means. You would help the first man to make some "roadblock" for the second man so he could "only" murder your children without raping them first.

    In one example, you would choose against the killer. In another example, you would choose in favor of the killer who would kill your own progeny. This is exactly the kind of moral relativism I'm talking about. All based on your imaginary ideal of being required to base your decision on how the name of Christ will be viewed. Based on your imaginary ideal that "we are responsible for the difference that we have the ability to make." Where are these two alleged imperitives taught in the Bible?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X