Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Graphite

New member
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":

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.
Obama cannot commit such evil acts unless people grant him the authority and power to do so. If nobody votes for him at all, he's just a regular "Joe Four-Pack" (of wine coolers, that is) not much different from you and me. But, if given power and authority by voters, he will exercise that power to destructive ends. And everyone who voted for him will share culpability in what he uses that power for.

Likewise with McCain. If you were to vote for McCain and I vote for Alan Keyes, and McCain is elected, the people who grant him the power and authority to kill the unborn will be the ones who are morally responsible for those murders.

If you knowingly hire an unrepentant thief to run the register in your store, you are co-responsible for those thefts. If you knowingly hire an unrepentant child molester to babysit someone's children, are you not co-responsible if those children are harmed? Of course you are.

If you knowingly hire an unrepentant murderer as the top law enforcement official and commander in chief of the United States, the chief executive in charge of protecting the life and liberty of all Americans..... then you are co-responsible.



So, I ask you -- If you knowingly hire an unrepentant child molester to babysit someone's children, are you not co-responsible if those children are harmed?
 

Jugulum

New member
I'll do two things before replying at all in-depth to your last two posts: Continue reading the debate, and ask you some questions.

1.) Do you see any merit in my original criticism of your "key" example? And by "any merit", I mean, "Do you recognize that the alleged flaw which I pointed out was really a problem? That an example where neither killer will necessarily make it into the building without your help is different from one where you know that one of them is going to?"

If not, what's your objection? Is it something like, "But in the presidential election I don't know that one of them is going to make it in"?

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?

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Jugulum

New member
Er...

OK, I was just looking at my first post, and I realized something that I somehow missed.

In your original question GG3, you actually specified, "knowing that eventually one will succeed in getting in".

So you did anticipate the flaw that I pointed out. I was wrong to say that it was pathetic. My apologies.

However, your example still suffers a flaw: Both killers could make it into the building, in your version. Helping one doesn't stop the other from getting in.

Anyway, you can ignore my question #1. However, I hope you'll answer 2, 3, and 4.
 

Jugulum

New member
TG,

FYI, I'm heading out for a vacation in the morning. I may have access & writing time at some point. But possibly not, for up to a week. So it may be that long before I can post more.

Will you be able to answer my questions while I'm gone?
 

Jugulum

New member
Graphite,

I've formulated some more thoughts about the situation. I'll post them soon.

Were you planning on replying to my questions? If not, I'll just post my major conclusions about the issue later, and limit my interaction with you to the following reply. (As far as I'm concerned, further interaction is meaningless without your answers to my questions.)

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.
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.

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.
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.)

I approve _______ to be hired for this job (elected office).
Again, I disagree with your political philosophy of the meaning of a vote.

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.
Eh? I didn't say that the million other people are not responsible for the resulting deaths. What are you talking about?

How can their sin be imputed to me? That is what puzzles me.
Then you are puzzled by something I have not argued.

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.)

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.)

So, I ask you -- If you knowingly hire an unrepentant child molester to babysit someone's children, are you not co-responsible if those children are harmed?
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.

I flat-out disagree with your "Of course you do" answers to your own questions about responsibility. I say that we are responsible for the anticipatable difference resulting from our actions. (That's assuming we limit our options to actions that don't directly violate God's Law.)
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
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.
I'd rather die than be molested.
 

Jugulum

New member
I'd rather die than be molested.
A reply in the context of this thread:

When two evils are of different type--when the difference isn't just more of the same kind of evil--then it might not be clear what you should do. That would be another kind of complication/ambiguity.

A specific reply:

Really? Even if you weren't saved yet?

And if you were saved, you would rather avoid that suffering & pain than continue a life of service to God, the Body of Christ, and the world?

I'm not sure I can say that you're objectively wrong, but I definitely don't understand.
 

Jugulum

New member
Well, I've finished the debate & the discussion thread. It really has helped me to understand the question better.

This post got a little long. So I'll start with the major bullet points, and then append the fleshing-out of each one.

1.) Do not do evil to avoid bigger evil. In your actions, words, and thoughts, do not compromise God's standards. Ends don't justify means.
2.) To figure out this question, you have to figure out what a vote means.
3.) If voting is inherently an act of approval, support, or participation in the proposed policies of your candidate, then you shouldn't vote for a candidate with any policies that violate God's law.
4.) If voting is only a tool for affecting what happens, then you should vote to have the best possible effect, according to your best judgment about what will happen.
5.) I'm not sure how to view voting. I suspect there isn't an objective answer. When Christians differ on this point of political philosophy, then they're disagreeing over disputable matters--not over the teaching of Scripture or over the demands of God's Law.


Moving on:

1.) Do not do evil to avoid bigger evil. In your actions, words, and thoughts, do not compromise God's standards. Ends don't justify means.

There's no such thing as a "little white sin". There's no justification for going against his commands, in the slightest degree. It doesn't matter if you think it would save many lives. (And this isn't about being proud of your own purity--it's about trusting God's goodness.)

Note: God's law isn't always as simplistic as some people make it. Situational ethics is bad; moral compromise is bad. And some people try to say that "killing in self-defense" is moral compromise, or situational ethics--because "justifiable homicide" does depend on the details of the situation. But that's not situational ethics--not of the kind,"I'm willing to violate the Law in some situations." Because the Law doesn't say, "You shall not kill". This is not compromising the Law--it's identifying what the Law says. (The "is it moral to lie in some situations" question is similar in nature, however you end up answering it.)

2.) To figure out this question, you have to figure out what a vote means.

What is a vote? The conferring of authority? Approval of the candidate? Approval of his policies? Support for the man? Support for his policies? Participation in his policies? Is it some kind of statement? Does it mean, "I prefer what is likely to happen with this vote, versus what is likely to happen if I don't vote this way"? Is it a tool for affecting what happens in a nation? Something else? Is it some mix of these? Is it ambiguous?

If you don't spend time thinking about this, stating your conclusion, and defending it, then you have no basis for deciding whether a vote is moral or immoral.

3.) If voting is inherently an act of approval, support, or participation in the proposed policies of your candidate, then you shouldn't vote for a candidate with any policies that violate God's law.

If a vote means, "I'm doing what the candidate does", then principle #1 applies. Moral compromise is moral compromise. But this is about evil policies, not just unwise policies. You can vote for someone with bad/unwise policies--someone you disagree with on some issues--just not for someone with evil policies. (I think so, anyway... Unless it is sin to deliberately choose to do something you know to be unwise.)

Note: Bob Enyart's slippery-slope argument in his "that abyss has no bottom" entry applies. If you want to limit this principle to grossly evil policies, then you need a different rationale than "voting is approval/support/participation". Moral compromise is moral compromise. Or, you need to explain what kind/degree of moral compromise is OK. (Do you think that moral compromise is OK on non-capital crimes?) In short, if (1) you shouldn't/wouldn't do/approve the action yourself--based on the perception that it would violate God's revealed moral will--and (2) voting is doing or approving the action, then you must not vote for such a candidate. Not for any candidate with any policies that are at all immoral.

4.) If voting is only a tool for affecting what happens, then you should vote to have the best possible effect, according to your best judgment about what will happen.

That means thinking short-term, long-term, on all the issues--making your best judgment about the actual effects of your vote. This includes the policies that will be enacted, the judges that will be appointed, the foreign affairs that are likely to come up, and also things like, "Will my vote perpetuate the 2-party system?", or "How can I vote to make it more likely that we'll get better candidates in the future?"

Thought experiments:

A.) Suppose a hostile government is about to appoint a new general. They're deciding between two people, and we know that one of them is actually incompetent. We want him, not the other guy. We know incriminating information about the better general--so we use spies to reveal that information to the hostile government. They appoint the incompetent general. Question: Was our action good?

B.) Same thing, except that the two generals are equally competent--but one is going to torture POWs, and the other is going to torture & kill them all. We plant the information to incriminate the second general. Question: Was our action good? (Bonus question: What if there was a third general that would follow the Geneva Conventions--but we're pretty certain that he wouldn't be picked, regardless of what we do?)

C.) 1930s Germany is having an election between Hitler (who is pro-choice) and a pro-choice candidate who isn't going to go on a genocidal, conquering rampage. We have the power to rig their election so that Hitler loses (though we're not able to make a third candidate win.) We do it. Question: Was our action good? (Bonus question: What if the election is between Hitler, and someone who will activate a doomsday device to destroy the earth?)

I would say yes, to all of these. And if voting is only a tool to affect what happens, and it doesn't mean "support/approval/participation", and if I had the power to vote between those people, I would vote for the incompetent general, the less evil general, and the pro-choice guy running against Hitler.

5.) I'm not sure how to view voting. I suspect there isn't an objective answer. When Christians differ on this point of political philosophy, then they're disagreeing over disputable matters--not over the teaching of Scripture or over the demands of God's Law.

As far as I know, voting has traditionally been seen as a kind of support/approval. Maybe a kind of participation. But I usually think of a vote as a tool for affecting what happens. (In other words, it's a statement of preference between outcomes--not approval of the candidate.)

This seems to be a question of political philosophy. I'm not sure if it has an objective answer. If not... Then this is a question over which Christians can legitimately differ.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
A reply in the context of this thread:

When two evils are of different type--when the difference isn't just more of the same kind of evil--then it might not be clear what you should do. That would be another kind of complication/ambiguity.

A specific reply:

Really? Even if you weren't saved yet?

And if you were saved, you would rather avoid that suffering & pain than continue a life of service to God, the Body of Christ, and the world?

I'm not sure I can say that you're objectively wrong, but I definitely don't understand.

  1. As a Christian I know that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
  2. If I were not a Christian I would not believe in God and therefore would have no problem dying and not being with Him.
  3. Children are not automatically sent to Heaven or Hell when they die, so death over molestation seems the logical preference.
 

The Graphite

New member
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.


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?
 

Jugulum

New member
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.
 

Jugulum

New member
(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.


The Graphite said:
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.
 

The Graphite

New member
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.
 

Jugulum

New member
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. :)
 

jasonwill

New member
Presidential Election 2008 - Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin? Battle Royale XIII ...........................hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm






let me think......................................hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm






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

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top