That is over the line. Who is anyone to know what another's conscience dictates?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I've Decided I'm Going to Vote Twice for President
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
That is over the line. Who is anyone to know what another's conscience dictates?
I don't see Trump as bad as Clinton. I think he is liberal, but at least he is taking a position that is supposedly in opposition to Clinton.
s I think not voting is doing just that. But that's just my opinion, I admit that freely. I believe Obama is in office because many voted their conscience in the last election. They didn't vote because he was a mormon, and offered up the same reasoning being given here. Well, we got Obama, but their conscience is clear, lol.
Wonder how they feel about what Obama has accomplished. Certainly not their fault, right?
Because...he's a Politician, lol.
I've seen him try to act like he knows something about it. Anyone that says One Corinthians instead of First Corinthians...lol.
God bless.
Oh, great Logician, pray tell how not supporting either candidate means I'm for Hillary?
Well, if that's the kind of logic offered--if you don't support Trump you are supporting Hillary--one can understand why I don't want to play.
If that's the case then Christians should never vote unless a markedly Christian candidate is running. Right?
Let's see, now who is the last candidate that made it clear they were born again believers? I can think of Herman Caine, for one.
What if they're Catholic? As Baptists, should we not vote for Catholics?
God bless.
Last edited:
I’m sorry if you are perceiving the logical evaluation of your (non)vote and your claims to be supporting a moral decision by choosing non-possibility as a personal attack. But it is a debate board so perhaps you should try addressing the issues rather than me if you don’t like my conclusions because I can’t help if you get your feelers hurt while I attempt to draw out and expose the truth in your arguments' reasoning.
Wow, you have high standards,
Yes, the GOP needs to find better candidates.
Nope. Just like it won't be our fault when Hillary wins. The GOP has failed their base.
It's not really a matter of being "for" Hillary, ITL, it's a matter of being decidedly against her. Trump is the only way to place a positive vote against her.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would think Trump is as bad as her. Not realistically. The woman truly disgusts me.
Trump is a chump, no doubt, but Hillary is undisguised evil.
And I really like the idea of Mexico paying for that fence, lol.
God bless.
I'm not foolish enough to think that because a political candidate says he is a Christian that he actually is.
So you are right, I have much lower standards for a secular office. God has used godless rulers in the past, no reason why He cannot do so in the day and time.
I'm a little concerned for the direction they are taking. The Liberal Agenda has become very strong, even to the point where we might see the GOP catering to certain voting blocks. Right now, with Trump, they are targeting the airhead reality TV crowd.
And if Clinton reestablishes partial birth abortion?
Will you at least admit that a vote for trump makes it less likely Clinton will win?
Do you really see no difference in the potential future regardless of who wins?
God bless.
Here you go, try and see if you can do better than blah, blah, blah, this time eh?
"What purpose is a vote if it intentionally has no value? If your vote does have any sort of value (moral or otherwise), the only value that I have seen you place on this vote is to be on a mission about withholding it from Trump. Since there are only two logical possibilities for a victor in this election and the only value you have demonstrated is your commitment to take away your vote from one of them then that only leaves one logical conclusion (X or Y) to which logical possibility you value more.
(You said its value is a moral issue, which is all you could possibly be left with, but I've asked you to examine the effect and roots of that conscience decision.) :
If you want to claim moral consequentialism as your value, then in your “conscience” it would be wise to examine the only logical value you could have placed on your (non)vote has been laced in an one sided agenda to take it away from one of the only logical choices and this done so with far more conviction than taking it away from the other. This demonstrates your true choice between the only two logical possibilities, hence, what you logically value most. When you try to convince regular Republican voters likewise to abandon their party you demonstrate this conscious value even more so.
No, you've missed the point (post #7) that I must only demonstrate where you logically place the value of YOUR ONLY vote in regards to the easily demonstrated agenda YOU have undertaken on this board and then directly relate it to the only other logical conclusion for a victor in the upcoming election. This demonstrates your choice/vote, morally ...or otherwise, Mr. 2 Vote Man.
.Logically, such a demonstration gives very good cause to believe that my argument of your choice (vote), if it has any possible value whatsoever, that value would be logically observable as a preference for Hillary is a valid conclusion to come to since there are only two humans in this election to pick from as your country's leader in this world."
Last edited:
No. If you believe it would be sin to vote for Trump, then for you it would be sin, and no-one has the right to try to change your mind, because if someone did, someone else might come around and change it back after you have voted.
Whether it is sin, or no, is a heart issue. For me, I will vote for Trump because I look at it as the only possible course of action we, as Christians, have in the effort to stem the Liberal Agenda. Since Obama has been in office, which I view as a result of so many staying home, we have seen some major advancements for them. Hillary will be even worse.
She keeps talking about not letting the "progress we have made so far" being lost. This means she is on board with Obama's sympathy for homosexuality, abortion, and Islam.
She is going to have to do something radical to leave behind a similar legacy. That's something to worry about.
Trump? Better a non-Christian who isn't pretending to be a Christian like Obama and Clinton than two people who are, and convincing other Christians that these issues are...a Christian worldview.
At least Christians know where they stand with a secular president.
God bless.
Your premise:
You start out by making a conclusion about the value of my vote. I reject your premise. All your bluster from this point on is futile.
You see, I'm not voting for Trump and I'm not voting for Hillary. However, the value of my vote is that, like in 2012, the GOP will have to come to the conclusion that they are putting out lousy candidates. When they see the carnage of their loss and the drop in votes for Trump as compared to just four years ago with Romney, THE ONLY CONCLUSION they can come to is that they've got to field a candidate that appeals to conservatives. Hence, my non-vote has value, albeit it is taking a long view.
Bravo. You're starting to get it.
Yes, but I don't care who wins because my non-vote is all about effecting change within the GOP. I'm not voting, therefore I'm not voting for a victor.
You're getting warmer...
There you go again. My true choice in candidates is "none of the above".
All of that flailing about and your conclusion is that I support Hillary?
I don't want Trump.
I don't want Hillary.
If I vote for neither of them, neither of them get my vote and I validate my true choice. Neither.
You start out by making a conclusion about the value of my vote. I reject your premise. All your bluster from this point on is futile.
You see, I'm not voting for Trump and I'm not voting for Hillary. However, the value of my vote is that, like in 2012, the GOP will have to come to the conclusion that they are putting out lousy candidates. When they see the carnage of their loss and the drop in votes for Trump as compared to just four years ago with Romney, THE ONLY CONCLUSION they can come to is that they've got to field a candidate that appeals to conservatives. Hence, my non-vote has value, albeit it is taking a long view.
Bravo. You're starting to get it.
Yes, but I don't care who wins because my non-vote is all about effecting change within the GOP. I'm not voting, therefore I'm not voting for a victor.
You're getting warmer...
There you go again. My true choice in candidates is "none of the above".
No, you've missed the point (post #7) that I must only demonstrate where you logically place the value of YOUR ONLY vote in regards to the easily demonstrated agenda YOU have undertaken on this board and then directly relate it to the only other logical conclusion for a victor in the upcoming election. This demonstrates your choice/vote, morally ...or otherwise, Mr. 2 Vote Man.
Logically, such a demonstration gives very good cause to believe that my argument of your choice (vote), if it has any possible value whatsoever, that value would be logically observable as a preference for Hillary is a valid conclusion to come to since there are only two humans in this election to pick from as your country's leader in this world."
All of that flailing about and your conclusion is that I support Hillary?
I don't want Trump.
I don't want Hillary.
If I vote for neither of them, neither of them get my vote and I validate my true choice. Neither.
I never said, nor do I plan to avoid voting in November.
My conscience is the issue. Perhaps you should accept that not everyone sees the choices like you do, rather than passing judgements about others' sense of right and wrong.
I ask again, because you did not answer my question in Post 60: Would you have me commit sin by casting a vote that I believe is morally wrong? Simple yes or no answer will suffice.
I remember when Ross Perot ran, my dad and brother voted for him. Clinton won. I was too young to vote, and probably wouldn't have anyway at that point in my life.
So who would you vote for, if you don't mind me asking? And do you think that casting that vote will impact the election?
God bless.
Spurgeon never said that:
https://jennysstool.com/2016/05/19/spurgeon-or-not/
what he did say was:
“Let us, whenever we shall have the opportunity of using the right of voting, use it as in the sight of Almighty God, knowing that for everything we shall be brought into account, and for that amongst the rest, seeing that we are entrusted with it. And let us remember that we are our own governors, to a great degree, and that if at the next election we should choose wrong governors we shall have nobody to blame but ourselves, however wrongly they may afterwards act, unless we exercise all prudence and prayer to Almighty God to direct our hearts to a right choice in this matter.”
and that would apply today IMO.
https://jennysstool.com/2016/05/19/spurgeon-or-not/
what he did say was:
“Let us, whenever we shall have the opportunity of using the right of voting, use it as in the sight of Almighty God, knowing that for everything we shall be brought into account, and for that amongst the rest, seeing that we are entrusted with it. And let us remember that we are our own governors, to a great degree, and that if at the next election we should choose wrong governors we shall have nobody to blame but ourselves, however wrongly they may afterwards act, unless we exercise all prudence and prayer to Almighty God to direct our hearts to a right choice in this matter.”
and that would apply today IMO.
Darrell - I haven't answered your question because the only answer to it is: Clinton *may* try to overturn it, but she won't be successful. Otherwise, it has no bearing on this election.
Ever hear the saying "past performance is not an indicator of future outcomes"?
Trump faces the same exact problem Obama did: mainstream republicans don't like him, which will make working with them problematic. Democrats hate him, and will probably enact an obstructionist strategy like the republicans did to Obama.
Unless Trump finds some way to work with both sides--better yet, unite them, which is highly unlikely considering the problems he's having uniting the republicans--he will have to resort to much of the same strategy as Obama, and executive orders will be the primary tool available to him.
Secondly, Darrell, you keep centering your statements around "not voting"; so far, ITL is the *only* one that has mentioned not voting.
As I said way back in post #11, one of the possible outcomes is that Trump will be a good, possibly even great president. And, as I also said, I'll publicly post my "yeah, y'all were right and I was wrong" if that outcome occurs.
Ever hear the saying "past performance is not an indicator of future outcomes"?
Trump faces the same exact problem Obama did: mainstream republicans don't like him, which will make working with them problematic. Democrats hate him, and will probably enact an obstructionist strategy like the republicans did to Obama.
Unless Trump finds some way to work with both sides--better yet, unite them, which is highly unlikely considering the problems he's having uniting the republicans--he will have to resort to much of the same strategy as Obama, and executive orders will be the primary tool available to him.
Secondly, Darrell, you keep centering your statements around "not voting"; so far, ITL is the *only* one that has mentioned not voting.
As I said way back in post #11, one of the possible outcomes is that Trump will be a good, possibly even great president. And, as I also said, I'll publicly post my "yeah, y'all were right and I was wrong" if that outcome occurs.
Appreciate the clarification.