Convince Me To Vote Against My Conscience

[Rolfe]

Someone try to convince me that voting against my conscience is not sin. I do not think that a reasonable argument can be made.

 

[church mouse guy]

Oh, sure. In Oliver Twist the little urchins were taught to feel bad if they did not steal something of value. Islam had any entirely different sort of conscience, as you know. No, there is no inherent conscience that leads one to conclusions about Christian morality. Civilization, as you know, is a thin veneer and the only knowledge of right and wrong comes from The Holy Bible. Man does not know right from wrong.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Someone try to convince me that voting against my conscience is not sin. I do not think that a reasonable argument can be made.

It is always sin to violate your conscience if your conscience is subject to the Word of God. Romans 14:5 teaches us that every man is to be "fully persuaded in his own mind."

When it comes to the election, I would have to weigh the greater issues in light of the Word of God. I would also have to be consistent. I do not demand 100% adherence to all that I believe when I choose a doctor, a dentist, a plumber, a dog groomer, a funeral director, etc. Granted, the POTUS is different to a degree, but probably no more impactful on my personal life than some of those that I mentioned.

Personally, I would violate my conscience if I stood by and did nothing and allowed someone who stands diametrically opposed to EVERYTHING I hold sacred to be elected to this highest office.

I have chosen to look at it as not voting for someone but voting against someone.

Just my thoughts, of course.

 

[InTheLight]

Personally, I would violate my conscience if I stood by and did nothing and allowed someone who stands diametrically opposed to EVERYTHING I hold sacred to be elected to this highest office.

So eight out of ten violations is "acceptable". Understood.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So eight out of ten violations is "acceptable". Understood.

When did "acceptable" become a part of the question?

 

[InTheLight]

When did "acceptable" become a part of the question?

When you said "I don't demand 100% adherance to my beliefs", which therefore allows for exceptions, followed by "I would violate my conscience if I stood by and did nothing and allowed someone who stands diametrically opposed to EVERYTHING I hold sacred to be elected", which implies you are willing to allow some unsacred things.

So, how many things are you willing to ignore so someone who is opposed to everything you hold sacred isn't elected?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Zaac]

It is always sin to violate your conscience if your conscience is subject to the Word of God. Romans 14:5 teaches us that every man is to be "fully persuaded in his own mind."

When it comes to the election, I would have to weigh the greater issues in light of the Word of God. I would also have to be consistent. I do not demand 100% adherence to all that I believe when I choose a doctor, a dentist, a plumber, a dog groomer, a funeral director, etc. Granted, the POTUS is different to a degree, but probably no more impactful on my personal life than some of those that I mentioned.

Personally, I would violate my conscience if I stood by and did nothing and allowed someone who stands diametrically opposed to EVERYTHING I hold sacred to be elected to this highest office.

I have chosen to look at it as not voting for someone but voting against someone.

Just my thoughts, of course.

I agree with the spirit of what you said. But I believe it's a little bit different, as you also acknowledged, with any publicly elected official. If I get to choose you to make decisions on my behalf, my behalf prefers that you love Jesus and others.

I chose my primary doctor and dentist. We attend the same church.

 

[Zaac]

When you said "I don't demand 100% adherance to my beliefs", which therefore allows for exceptions, followed by "I would violate my conscience if I stood by and did nothing and allowed someone who stands diametrically opposed to EVERYTHING I hold sacred to be elected", which implies you are willing to allow some unsacred things.

So, how many things are you willing to ignore so someone who is opposed to everything you hold sacred isn't elected?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

Good question. I don't know about Pastor Bob, but if you're fighting against God and His way, then you're fighting against me too because I'm not letting anything that goes against God to slide.

Present day, I'm curious as to what things Christians would be willing to let "slide" just because they think Hillary is diametrically opposed to everything they hold sacred? Not sure if that's to what Pastor Bob was referring or not.

But as a follower of Jesus Christ and as a Shepherd of His sheep, what would I look like supporting a man who doesn't believe he needs the forgiveness of Jesus? I might as well stop preaching the Gospel, stop doing missions work or do anything that points people to Christ.

 

[Benjamin]

Someone try to convince me that voting against my conscience is not sin. I do not think that a reasonable argument can be made.

Let’s get something straight, I would not suggest you go against your conscience but if you are a reasonable, rational and honest thinking man I might ask you to reconsider your thinking that brought you to the decisions that is currently leading your conscience being I believe your goal is choosing correctly between right and wrong.

Why is this important? For instance, concerning your vote, what if many Christians followed the thinking that the candidates were too sinful to vote for, they typically don’t approve of a candidate’s personal life so they disregard any values he/she might have regardless of any of those values lining up with their ideologies or not?

They have then removed any and all of their personal Christian influence from the electoral process. By their actions they deny having any preference between the values being expressed by the candidates, to them no preferences what so ever are worth putting in their Christian influence toward. None. Therefore they will leave the decisions of which values are preferred entirely in the hands of the secular society to decide how the earthly civilization you live in is ran. That seem to be your position, is it not?

Now, what if many, or better yet for the sake of argument, WHAT IF ALL Christians continually did the same in our society, demanding a level of superior personal Christian standards from a candidate or otherwise refusing to utilize the power of their vote to influence which values are supported in their country? The result would be that there was no Christian influence being put into which values were behind the leadership running our country. Is that not a true statement?

I had a teacher that when moral questions of conscience would arise she would want you to evaluate the “moral consequences” of your decision by asking the question, “What if everyone did it?”

With that in mind, how does your thinking to hold back your vote, which if such reasoning was universal accepted among Christians, resulting in all Christian influence being removed from the decisions of which values are leading our country by grab your conscience now?

Perhaps standing up for and arguing for the decision to remove your and all Christian influence from your country’s direction is fine with your conscience? If so, and you have honestly considered these things as a reasonable man and a discerning Christian then I leave you to your conscience. But if I disagree with your reasoning then in my good conscience I should speak up when you try to convince others to do the same as you. Is that fair?

That said, the conscience is an interesting study and here are some further things for a reasonable man to consider:

Conscience is built on a construct of thoughts which may be fallible if these thoughts are obligated to prior commitments, especially those made in pride.

When confronted with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong it is wise to consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater fails to make that distinction.

What of the possibility that your conscience is driven by illogical thought or in disregard of consequence, would you not for the sake of your conscience give ear to constructive arguments against your views in your love for drawing out the truth?

A wise man will return to his conscience and question it before his final decisions are made.

At its best conscience detects truth, at its worst it fails to detect lies.

 

[Zaac]

Let’s get something straight, I would not suggest you go against your conscience but if you are a reasonable, rational and honest thinking man I might ask you to reconsider your thinking that brought you to the decisions that is currently leading your conscience being I believe your goal is choosing correctly between right and wrong.

Why is this important? For instance, concerning your vote, what if many Christians followed the thinking that the candidates were too sinful to vote for, they typically don’t approve of a candidate’s personal life so they disregard any values he/she might have regardless of any of those values lining up with their ideologies or not?

That's a false narrative created to again make you feel good about supporting someone who is against Christ. Ain't nobody said anything about anyone being too sinful to vote for. The problem is the unrepentant sinner. The problem is the rejection of Christ that leads one to not repent.

If it's much more important for you to support that in opposition to Christ while making yourself void of a platform to witness Christ, then do you.Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. John 14:23

They have then removed any and all of their personal Christian influence from the electoral process.

Their wisdom to not support that which is against Christ is at the forefront of the electoral process.

By their actions they deny having any preference between the values being expressed by the candidates, to them no preferences what so ever are worth putting in their Christian influence toward. None.

Man please. They've told you they reject the values or lack thereof of both. If the values of both are against Christ, what Christian influence is gonna change that?

Therefore they will leave the decisions of which values are preferred entirely in the hands of the secular society to decide how the earthly civilization you live in is ran. That seem to be your position, is it not?

So you somehow seem to think that Christians have to prefer unGodly values just because that's all that's being served?

Your position seems to be let's join in and vote for the same unGodly values as will the unsecular just so that we can say we have some say. That's stupid.

Why on earth would a follower of Christ work against the interests of Christs every election cycle and then come back the next election cycle expecting something to have changed before he once again acquiesces and votes again in support of that which is against Christ?

Now, what if many, or better yet for the sake of argument, WHAT IF ALL Christians continually did the same in our society, demanding a level of superior personal Christian standards from a candidate or otherwise refusing to utilize the power of their vote to influence which values are supported in their country?

Then perhaps the level of integrity and Godliness of the candidate pool would increase?

The result would be that there was no Christian influence being put into which values were behind the leadership running our country. Is that not a true statement?

And so your answer again is to vote for the unGodly in order to make a Christian influence?

I had a teacher that when moral questions of conscience would arise she would want you to evaluate the “moral consequences” of your decision by asking the question, “What if everyone did it?”

With that in mind, how does your thinking to hold back your vote, which if such reasoning was universal accepted among Christians, resulting in all Christian influence being removed from the decisions of which values are leading our country by grab your conscience now?

ANd how does your answer of voting for the unGodly add Christian influence?

Perhaps standing up for and arguing for the decision to remove your and all Christian influence from your country’s direction is fine with your conscience? If so, and you have honestly considered these things as a reasonable man and a discerning Christian then I leave you to your conscience. But if I disagree with your reasoning then in my good conscience I should speak up when you try to convince others to do the same as you. Is that fair?

Nope. You're advocating that Christians support that which is against Christ.

That said, the conscience is an interesting study and here are some further things for a reasonable man to consider:

Conscience is built on a construct of thoughts which may be fallible if these thoughts are obligated to prior commitments, especially those made in pride.

When confronted with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong it is wise to consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater fails to make that distinction.

What of the possibility that your conscience is driven by illogical thought or in disregard of consequence, would you not for the sake of your conscience give ear to constructive arguments against your views in your love for drawing out the truth?

A wise man will return to his conscience and question it before his final decisions are made.

At its best conscience detects truth, at its worst it fails to detect lies.

Conscience that rides with the Holy Spirit is an incredible thing upon which to rest one's decision making.

 

[Rolfe]

Ain't nobody said anything about anyone being too sinful to vote for.

Certainly not me, regardless of what Benjamin thinks.

My objection to Trump is that I believe him to be little different than Clinton in his core ideology (regardless of what he says now) and that he wishes himself to play the role of Strong Man as President. I think that a President Trump would be equally as disastrous for the U.S. as a President Clinton. The evident disregard for the Constitution is why I cannot vote for either. I would be committing the sin of bad stewardship (Luke 12:48b, Romans 14:12) if I were to cast my vote for someone I believe to be profoundly bad for my country.

 

[Benjamin]

That's a false narrative created to again make you feel good about supporting someone who is against Christ. Ain't nobody said anything about anyone being too sinful to vote for. The problem is the unrepentant sinner. The problem is the rejection of Christ that leads one to not repent.

You're problem is start with a childish fallacious strawman (IOWs a lie). You're reasoning is based on a false dilemma fallacy that voting between 2 humans is either a vote for or against Christ. You continually question beg your conclusion that it amounts to being against Christ while failing to consider the simple logic of the value of preserving of preserving some Christian values is better than none.

If it's much more important for you to support that in opposition to Christ while making yourself void of a platform to witness Christ, then do you.Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. John 14:23

Again you start with another childish Ad Hominem strawman. Then you offer a proof-text while begging the question that your position of sticking your head in the sand somehow is obeying Christ and others putting their Christian influences into the process is not..

Their wisdom to not support that which is against Christ is at the forefront of the electoral process.

Still question begging on your false dilemma. Not worth reasoning with someone who is completely void of critical thinking skills.

Man please. They've told you they reject the values or lack thereof of both. If the values of both are against Christ, what Christian influence is gonna change that?

Again, you obviously have problems with following simple reasoning I gave concerning the value of preserving some of those Christian influences.

"When confronted with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong it is wise to consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater fails to make that distinction."

So you somehow seem to think that Christians have to prefer unGodly values just because that's all that's being served?

Again, you fail to put your thinking cap on to realize the difference between "all" and "none" of our Godly values being served. Afraid, I can't help you.

Your position seems to be let's join in and vote for the same unGodly values as will the unsecular just so that we can say we have some say. That's stupid.

Again, you fail to reason in full about the consequences in total and demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic simple logic in preserving some values:

"When confronted with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong it is wise to consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater fails to make that distinction."

Why on earth would a follower of Christ work against the interests of Christs every election cycle and then come back the next election cycle expecting something to have changed before he once again acquiesces and votes again in support of that which is against Christ?

You continue to fail to understand the value of some Christian influence is better than none.

Then perhaps the level of integrity and Godliness of the candidate pool would increase?

I've already gave you my opinion of your motives and

And so your answer again is to vote for the unGodly in order to make a Christian influence?

Do you even know what a strawman is, Zacc? Comprehension problems perhaps? At least that would better than offering strawman lies. My answer is to not forgo "all" Christian influence based on your false dilemma. .

ANd how does your answer of voting for the unGodly add Christian influence?

You really have a problem with the simple logic between "all" and "none" don't you, Zaac? Keep reading this and maybe it will sink in that "some" is better than "none" and usiong one's Christian discernment to choose between preserving "some" is better than burying your vote and preserving "none" (which you claim by false dilemma fallacy is against Christ) - meaning you base this on neglect of the common sense logic given in this statement:

"When confronted with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong it is wise to consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater fails to make that distinction." .

Nope. You're advocating that Christians support that which is against Christ.

Your continued question begging on this does nothing but demonstrate the lack of your ability to think critically. Can't help you.

Conscience that rides with the Holy Spirit is an incredible thing upon which to rest one's decision making.

Your conscience seems fine with all Christian influence being removed from our electoral process in some sort of fantasy that denies your responsibility to use your God given attributes and to choose between the possibilities God had put before you. Or, perhaps it is your goal to diminish the Christian influence by what you consider convincing arguments that its got to be "all' or "nothing". I'm not falling for your ploys. I will vote to preserve "some" of my Christian values. I can't help your discontent with that. You can fallaciously argue it is against Christ's way to preserve some values, but in reality it is against your way not His. At best your inaction is against all Christian influence in the current direction of our country and therefore is what is truly against Christ. And at worst your motives here are to...well, we won't go into that...

I've spent enough time trying to deal with your foolishness here, do me a favor and save it for those who appreciate you fallacious rambling on toward your agenda.

 

[Benjamin]

Certainly not me, regardless of what Benjamin thinks.

My objection to Trump is that I believe him to be little different than Clinton in his core ideology (regardless of what he says now) and that he wishes himself to play the role of Strong Man as President. I think that a President Trump would be equally as disastrous for the U.S. as a President Clinton. The evident disregard for the Constitution is why I cannot vote for either. I would be committing the sin of bad stewardship (Luke 12:48b, Romans 14:12) if I were to cast my vote for someone I believe to be profoundly bad for my country.

Leave the decision in the hands of the secular population to decide for you then. I'm sure your Christian influence is of no value whatsoever between the 2 candidates since you honestly believe all issues are inseparable and un-discernible. I'm sure the secular population appreciates you making way for their choices of their conscience for you.

 

[Rolfe]

...between the 2 candidates since you honestly believe all issues are inseparable and un-discernible.

A bit of an assumption and growling overstatement.

Evidently, my extended olive-branch of a PM last night was wasted. *laugh*

 

[Benjamin]

A bit of an assumption and growling overstatement.

Evidently, my extended olive-branch of a PM last night was wasted. *laugh*

I had to go look for your PM after seeing this post, and answered it.

The above about where you are leaving the decision is obviously full of sarcasm, but you should notice the attacks are against your position, not you personally. There I've addressed the issue and you've come back and addressed me personally in total disregard of the issues I raised. As a matter of fact you didn't address any of the issues in my lengthy post above which was directed at your reasoning, instead your only reply was to encourage Zaac, who loves to make things personal, with "regardless of what Benjamin thinks". Sorry, but I don't consider that debate. In fact, I fail to see where any of my points where acknowledged and challenged by anyone who is interested in establishing some truths regarding the "arguments". You'd think I'd learn better than to try to engage in a debate here with any other expectations than to be trolled. Silly me...

 

[Revmitchell]

So eight out of ten violations is "acceptable". Understood.

Nice innuendo. Completely unnecessary but Nice!

 

[Zaac]

Certainly not me, regardless of what Benjamin thinks.

My objection to Trump is that I believe him to be little different than Clinton in his core ideology (regardless of what he says now) and that he wishes himself to play the role of Strong Man as President. I think that a President Trump would be equally as disastrous for the U.S. as a President Clinton. The evident disregard for the Constitution is why I cannot vote for either. I would be committing the sin of bad stewardship (Luke 12:48b, Romans 14:12) if I were to cast my vote for someone I believe to be profoundly bad for my country.

AMEN!

 

[Zaac]

You're problem is start with a childish fallacious strawman (IOWs a lie).

There you go with your psycho babble again, (IOWs an excuse to try and justify your need to vote for that which is against Christ because you desire to win an election more).

You're reasoning is based on a false dilemma fallacy (psycho babble rejected)that voting between 2 humans is either a vote for or against Christ.

My reasoning is that which does not align itself with God's word is against Him. If you're supporting someone who rejects Christ and His Way, then you're against Christ. It's not rocket science.

Saul thought he was with God too but did nothing but persecute Him. Are you persecuting Christ by supporting that which is against Him as Saul did?

You continually question beg your conclusion(psycho babble rejected)that it amounts to being against Christ while failing to consider the simple logic of the value of preserving of preserving some Christian values is better than none.

And HERE we have why this whole line of thinking is so STUPID. God doesn't need your help in preserving "some" Christian values. It's that whole thinking that you're doing God a favor thing by doing things your way and "saving" some of His Christian values. Give it a rest. He's tasked us to make disciples. He didn't task us to save Christian values, so stop with the blatant idolatry of trying to make what you want to be the commission equal to His Great Commission.

You don't save Christian values by supporting that which is against Christ? What kind of backwoods foolishness is that?

That's as bad as telling your kids to not have sex before marriage, but just in case, here's a pack of condoms.

This seems to be the part that folks like you REFUSE to understand. You combat the wickedness in the world by making more disciples who make more disciples who make more disciples while standing FIRMLY on the truth of GOD. Never budging or giving an inch. Loving, but never budging or giving an inch when it comes to God's truth.

So get out of my face with this foolishness about "saving some Christian values". That's a wickedness borne of your own design and it IS NOT the Way of Christ.

Again you start with another childish Ad Hominem strawman. (psycho babble rejected)Then you offer a proof-text while begging the question (psycho babble rejected)that your position of sticking your head in the sand somehow is obeying Christ and others putting their Christian influences into the process is not..

Pure T foolishness. Standing firmly against that which rejects Christ is everything but sticking your head in the sand. And of what Christian influence do you continue to speak? That joining in with the unsecular to support the same things that they support? Do tell where you see a Christian influence in supporting the same foolishness that the unGodly support? Looks more like you're the one being influenced.

Still question begging on your false dilemma. (psycho babble rejected)Not worth reasoning with someone who is completely void of critical thinking skills.

If critical thinking means supporting that which is against Christ because you don't want the secular folks to be the only ones supporting that which is against Christ, then I tell you what. You can treat that critical thinking of yours like a pretty lil lady next to her beau on a roller coaster at the county fair holding on real tight. Yep that right there is what you need to do with your critical thinking if it makes you support that which is against God.

Not interested.
No sale.

Again, you obviously have problems with following simple reasoning I gave concerning the value of preserving some of those Christian influences.

Nope.

"When confronted with the moral dilemma to distinguish between right and wrong it is wise to consider that throwing out the baby with the bathwater fails to make that distinction."

Save the cliches. They aren't gonna make strong, mature Christians go against Christ. The weak ones, sure. As they are tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

Again, you fail to put your thinking cap on to realize the difference between "all" and "none" of our Godly values being served. Afraid, I can't help you.

Tsk tsk tsk. You fail to put your big boy Christian cap on and realize that once again Christ has not tasked you to preserve any values, but rather to make disciples who obey everything that HE commands. YOUR way fails on all counts.

Again, you fail to reason in full about the consequences in total and demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic simple logic in preserving some values:

Again you fail to reason that by you trying to do things YOUR way instead of the way of Christ, that YOUR disobedience puts you just as much at fault for destroying Christian values as does the ones who are against Christ. So stop the foolishness!

You continue to fail to understand the value of some Christian influence is better than none.

And you continue to think your "noble" gesture of "saving some Christian values" is doing God a favor.

SNAP OUT OF IT!!!

God is perfectly capable of maintaining HIS values. He didn't ask you to help with that. He told you to make disciples. The more disciples you make the more the Christian values will be maintained.

He didn't ask you to do Him any favors.

I've already gave you my opinion of your motives and
Because I just didn't care

Do you even know what a strawman is, Zacc? Comprehension problems perhaps? At least that would better than offering strawman lies. My answer is to not forgo "all" Christian influence based on your false dilemma. .

(psycho babble rejected)

You really have a problem with the simple logic between "all" and "none" don't you, Zaac? Keep reading this and maybe it will sink in that "some" is better than "none" and usiong one's Christian discernment to choose between preserving "some" is better than burying your vote and preserving "none" (which you claim by false dilemma fallacy is against Christ) - meaning you base this on neglect of the common sense logic given in this statement:

You really have a problem thinking that God needs YOUR help YOUR way to maintain His values. Sit down somewhere before He answers you out of a whirlwind and shows you how ridiculously prideful and foolish you sound.
<SNIP>
(psycho babble rejected)

Your conscience seems fine with all Christian influence being removed from our electoral process in some sort of fantasy that denies your responsibility to use your God given attributes and to choose between the possibilities God had put before you.

Your conscience seems fine thinking that you add CHristian influence by doing the same thing that the secular folks do. FOOLISHNESS.

Or, perhaps it is your goal to diminish the Christian influence by what you consider convincing arguments that its got to be "all' or "nothing". I'm not falling for your ploys. I will vote to preserve "some" of my Christian values.

Oh I know how you will vote cause I had you pegged from day one as a very prideful man. That's why you try to look so pensive and reasoning in your avatar. You're much like the intelligentsia of Jesus's day.

I can't help your discontent with that. You can fallaciously argue it is against Christ's way to preserve some values, but in reality it is against your way not His. At best your inaction is against all Christian influence in the current direction of our country and therefore is what is truly against Christ. And at worst your motives here are to...well, we won't go into that... (psycho babble rejected)

I've spent enough time trying to deal with your foolishness here, do me a favor and save it for those who appreciate you fallacious rambling on toward your agenda.

You are now in the same category as a certain poster from the west coast. You make sure you let us know how you doing the same thing as the unsecular works out for you in preserving YOUR Christian values.

 

[Benjamin]

The most basic of logic and critical thinking skills is "psycho babble" to Zaac. Speaks for itself and sums up the conclusion that Zaac isn't here for ethical debate but rather to troll in pride of his ignorance. I rest my case...

 

[Zaac]

The most basic of logic and critical thinking skills is "psycho babble" to Zaac.

Nothing but blah blah blah blah. You want to be god and do things YOUR way because you've certainly staked out camp against HIS way. Speaks for itself and totally sums up the wickedness flowing from your fingertips.

Speaks for itself and sums up the conclusion that Zaac isn't here for ethical debate but rather to troll in pride of his ignorance. I rest my case...

Well for land's sake and heavens to Betsey. I've flat out said that I don't debate God's truth. It says what it says.
You've staked out camp against what it says. Ain't no ethical debate to be had on God's truth. He has given HIS way. You want to supplant HIS way with YOUR way so that you can save some of YOUR Christian values.

Ain't nothing to debate.

You're dangerous.