Is someone in a coma or under general anesthesia a person?
Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Is someone in a coma or under general anesthesia a person?
I posted twice to you in this thread and never heard back.
Clete, if Obama runs in four years against a more evil Republican...
Clete, if Obama runs in four years against a more evil Republican...
Clete, I'm going to reply to your post before I read it, and then, after I write this, I'll read your post, and see if I have answered your questions. All I know right now is that you disagree with the anti-McCain team of Will Duffy and Jim Scofield in Battle Royale XIII, and that after I posted congratulations to them in the Granstands here, you posted a question to me. Clete, you know that I have a great love and respect for you. So it is with fear and trepidation that I write this.
1. A person who denies the right to life to the innocent and advocates, defends, and funds the intentional killing of an innocent person is guilty of murder.
2. John McCain is such a mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
3. Christians should not support mass murderers, even if they are afraid of other mass murderers.
4. Our standard of behavior should be based upon trusting and obeying God, not fearing some alternative evil.
If our justification for supporting some evil is fear of a greater perceived evil, then there is no depth of depravity and atrocity we will not support, as long as we can fear some supposed darker alternative.
That's my answer to your post. Now Clete, I'm going to read your post...
***************************************************
***************************************************
So Clete, I just read your post, and I have answered your question. Your entire argument is that you fear that Obama is worse than McCain, and therefore, you will support a mass murderer, whereas Jesus taught us to not fear those like Obama who can kill the body, but to fear God.
Question: If Obama runs in four years against some Republican that you judge more evil than Obama, will you support Obama?
By the standard of fear Clete, if you judged the Republican in four years more evil than Barack, you probably would support Obama then, unless of course that standard of fear is actually a mask for a standard of competition in the political arena.
In Christ to my dear friend,
-Bob
Clete, if Obama runs in four years against a more evil Republican...
Clete, I'm going to reply to your post before I read it, and then, after I write this, I'll read your post, and see if I have answered your questions. All I know right now is that you disagree with the anti-McCain team of Will Duffy and Jim Scofield in Battle Royale XIII, and that after I posted congratulations to them in the Granstands here, you posted a question to me. Clete, you know that I have a great love and respect for you. So it is with fear and trepidation that I write this.
1. A person who denies the right to life to the innocent and advocates, defends, and funds the intentional killing of an innocent person is guilty of murder.
2. John McCain is such a mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
3. Christians should not support mass murderers, even if they are afraid of other mass murderers.
4. Our standard of behavior should be based upon trusting and obeying God, not fearing some alternative evil.
If our justification for supporting some evil is fear of a greater perceived evil, then there is no depth of depravity and atrocity we will not support, as long as we can fear some supposed darker alternative.
That's my answer to your post. Now Clete, I'm going to read your post...
***************************************************
***************************************************
So Clete, I just read your post, and I have answered your question. Your entire argument is that you fear that Obama is worse than McCain, and therefore, you will support a mass murderer, whereas Jesus taught us to not fear those like Obama who can kill the body, but to fear God.
Question: If Obama runs in four years against some Republican that you judge more evil than Obama, will you support Obama?
By the standard of fear Clete, if you judged the Republican in four years more evil than Barack, you probably would support Obama then, unless of course that standard of fear is actually a mask for a standard of competition in the political arena.
In Christ to my dear friend,
-Bob
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
How about supporting blatant idolaters (Keyes)?
Exodus 20
3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Does God hate murder more than idolatry?
It isn't about being afraid, it isn't about supporting the lesser of two evils, its about fighting against the worse of two evils in the most effective way possible!
First of all, before going further, I want to thank you for addressing my post. It is unfortunate that you've not had the opportunity to read the exchange I've aldready had on this point because the result is that you've failed to address my actual argument and instead responded to me as though I'm just another Christian Republican that has not heard nor made the exact same argument himself a thousand times.
In fact, the argument you've made here was made during the Battle Royal! I wonder what made you think that repeating it was going to answer my objection when I made it as clear as I knew how that my objection hasn't been addressed up to this point?
I understand that you are exceedingly busy with a lot of things that are a lot more important that online debate forums and so I'll understand if you are unable to respond but I want to try one more time. This time, rather than going on and on like I did in my previous post, I will simply ask the question in as straight forward a way as I know how.
How does a third party splitting the conservative vote (or conservatives refusing to vote at all) not make it easier for Obama to win?
If you concede that it does help Obama win, how do you justify such a course of action? If helping a the lesser of two evils win is unjustifiable then how is helping the worse of two evils win any better?
The point I am making here is that your idea of choosing C when A and B are unacceptable isn't a choice that really exists in this election. Choosing some arbitrary C option is really only choosing A through the back door. It might feel better but the result, while indirectly achieved, is the same.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. There's nothing you could ever say to me that would cause me to turn my back on either you or your ministry and so please, if you do have the time to respond, give it to me straight and don't worry about my feelings getting hurt. I've got pretty thick skin and I understand where any harsh words from you would be coming from anyway. - May God bless you!
You all seem to be ignoring the Supreme Court, which is in control and the only way to change it is with conservative judges
The only way to get conservative judges is by voting republican
The Democratic Party platform supports free and legal abortions and they are committed to blocking any attempts to change this.
It only takes 41 votes to block a conservative judge and only 34 to block a right to life amendment.
The answer is clear, vote republican
The only way to get conservative judges is by voting republican
The Democratic Party platform supports free and legal abortions and they are committed to blocking any attempts to change this.
It only takes 41 votes to block a conservative judge and only 34 to block a right to life amendment.
The answer is clear, vote republican
Clete:
Taking your words at face value, if fear is not the primary motivator for your argumentation; then I agree w/ Bob that perhaps there is some possibility that your primary motivation is likely that of competition; to win in a way that prevents the greater of two evils from winning in the short-term; i.e., the 2008 election.
Another alternative is that I sense that your motivation may be coming from a good place in that "you" are wanting to see less evil over the next 4 years. However, it may trouble you deeply to know that God's principles are not designed for the short-term, but for the long-term.
I believe your struggle lies in the fact that you are viewing this in the short-term and not in the long-term combined with the fact that you either may not fully know, trust, or believe that God's principles are designed for and will eventually work in the long-term in a way that honor's not only Him but yourself as well by not having to support evil for short-term gains.
You seem to be convinced that you would be helping Obama to win by not voting for McCain. In a very simplistic sense, this is true. In a mature, wise, Godly, and long-term sense, it is not true!
If we quantify the "evil of abortion" by the total number of abortions between now or today and the day in which abortion is finally criminalized and outlawed; then God's principles (whether you agree or understand them or not) should always lead to more righteous.
You seem to struggle because God's principles of "don't do evil that good may come", like voting for Keyes, could result in a temporary increase in evil in the short-term sense (in the next 4 years). However, if McCain loses this year, then will the republican party pay more or less attention to the pro-life base in the next election?
And if we Christian’s dedicate ourselves to God’s righteous principles, then the total quantity of evil will be less as measured in the long-term. Under your guidance, we could possibly limit or regulate the current quantity of “evil” from increasing over the next 4 years by voting for McCain; however, it will also lead to unending abortion; though in lower numbers but for a seemingly unending period of time.
God’s principles and way may lead to a temporary surge in abortions; however, God’s way also promises an end to it as long we follow His way and not our own way. Lean not on your own understanding…but honor God by learning, committing to, and following all of His principles even when then may not make total sense to you.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Satan is the god of this world today. Heaven is silent. God is not dealing with nations today. The only purpose in this dispensation is to fill up the Body of Christ. Our purpose is not to change the present evil world. Only the 2nd coming of Christ will accomplish that.
I don't have to. McCain is no different than Bush.
I bet you said the same thing when Bush ran, didn't you?:rotfl:
nicholsmom
New member
Chicken, or lazy. Which is it?
I respectfully submit that everything you said up to this point was altogether irrelevant. Hopefully you go on to substantiate this claim, but the not so funny part is that it is short term thinking that I think is the problem on your part, not mine. We're talking about a lot more than a mere four years here. You assumption that all I'm focused on is a single Presidential term is incorrect and tacitly assumes also that I am somehow afraid of Barrack Obama. I assure you I am not. I has nothing to do with Obama. McCain could just as easily be running against Hitler and my argument would still remain intact.
You argument is basically that we are not to help evil "that good may come of it" but you not only contradict that argument, you can't help but to contradict that argument. That's why I think the argument is fallacious. No matter what you do in that election booth this November, the only thing you will be doing is helping Obama win unless you vote for McCain and so you choice is, do I help the lesser or the worse of two evils. You think there is a third option but there isn't. There is no third party that is capable of winning and so anything conservatives do other than vote McCain is one conservative vote that Obama need not concerning himself with countering. We, as the enemies of McCain become the friends of Obama.
The criminalization of abortion will not happen in either of our lifetimes and don't beg the question. It is precisely the godly nature of Bob's tactics that I am questioning. Not that I doubt the sincerity of Bob's intent to be as godly as he knows how to be, I just am questioning whether this particular course that he's chosen is in fact the wisest course. It may be but you will have to prove it and not merely assume it in order to make your argument.
So you are willing to allow Obama to win so that the Republicans will pay closer attention to you. Sounds like doing evil that good may come of it to me! Do you see how this sort of argument is all just question begging rhetoric?
In case you don't see it, or don't understand what question begging is, you "beg the question" when you make and argument in support of your position that would not be valid unless your position was true.
If you think that we will ever do anything other than merely limit the number of abortions in this country without having an outright revolution, you're nuts. This nation is not getting better, its getting worse. The church's influence is not getting greater its getting more and more marginalized. And that's the only direction things are going to go so long and the majority of the people in this country are the ones making the decisions. There's nothing mysterious or mystical about that, its exactly what you'd expect out of any Democratic based form of government. The more influence the people have, the more quickly the society will become depraved. That's because the majority are evil and that will remain so until God comes back and changes things permanently.
Then why not vote for Obama? I mean the result is the same. The Republicans still lose because the religious right didn't vote for them and Obama wins the election just like he would if we allowed some hopeless third party to split the conservative vote. If you're going to help the worse of two evils win that eventual good will come of it then why not pull out all the stops and come right out and vote of the worse of two evils?
Resting in Him,
Clete
nicholsmom
New member
Is McCain as evil as Hitler?
If you believe that McCain is as evil as Hitler, then you believe that not noticing or caring about the death of some child somewhere in the nation is the same thing as building concentration camps, disarming the public, stripping away personal liberty and personal property, and forcing the people to either be complicit in mass murder or to be among the murdered.
If you believe that McCain is as evil as Hitler, then you really must drive out the unrepentant McCain voter from among you because he will usher in cruelty & horror on a scale not seen since... well, I guess it's happening right now in China & in some of the countries of Africa ... but not so publicly as in Nazi Germany.
If you believe that McCain is as evil as Hitler, then you must also believe that our last several presidents, including Ronald Reagan himself, are as evil as Hitler. So tell me: where are the concentration camps? Where are the soldiers being forced to murder innocents? Where are people being arrested for failing to turn in an innocent person for scheduled murder? Whose property is being taken for failure to be complicit in the rounding up of the innocent for slaughter? Why are any children left at all?
If there have been Hitlers in the White House since RvW, then we should have no children left at all - all would have been forcibly slaughtered in the womb.
As far as I know, there have been no government-required abortions in the USA to date. So no Hitlers here.
Obama might just change that.
If you believe that McCain is as evil as Hitler, then you believe that not noticing or caring about the death of some child somewhere in the nation is the same thing as building concentration camps, disarming the public, stripping away personal liberty and personal property, and forcing the people to either be complicit in mass murder or to be among the murdered.
If you believe that McCain is as evil as Hitler, then you really must drive out the unrepentant McCain voter from among you because he will usher in cruelty & horror on a scale not seen since... well, I guess it's happening right now in China & in some of the countries of Africa ... but not so publicly as in Nazi Germany.
If you believe that McCain is as evil as Hitler, then you must also believe that our last several presidents, including Ronald Reagan himself, are as evil as Hitler. So tell me: where are the concentration camps? Where are the soldiers being forced to murder innocents? Where are people being arrested for failing to turn in an innocent person for scheduled murder? Whose property is being taken for failure to be complicit in the rounding up of the innocent for slaughter? Why are any children left at all?
If there have been Hitlers in the White House since RvW, then we should have no children left at all - all would have been forcibly slaughtered in the womb.
As far as I know, there have been no government-required abortions in the USA to date. So no Hitlers here.
Obama might just change that.
Last edited:
So, it's personal attacks is it?
It's apathy. I.e. I don't care what the article has to say. Because McCain is no different than Bush. McCain even asked Bush if he believed abortion should be allowed in the cases of rape, incest and health of the mother, on national television. Bush said, "yes." Guess what McCain's position is...
Hint: It's the same.
That is so completely, and utterly stupid I don't even know where to begin with how dumb it is.
Did you know that China forces its citizens to have abortions, because they are only allowed to have one child per couple? And did you also know that the current government is in bed with China? And that's with a Republican as President. McCain is a Republican. Bush has not done one thing to reduce abortions, let alone put a stop to them, since he took office. Why do you think McCain will be any different?
And why do you think apathy is better than actively enforcing abortion, which you [idiotically] think Obama will do?
Abortion being allowed is better than it being forced? That's ludicrous. It's patently ridiculous. And you're a moron for thinking it.
And to top it off you admit that King David was a murderer, and yet you say McCain would not be one as President.:doh:
Last edited:
Clete
There is a very good chance that you are right when you say: The result is the same. (Obama wins)
However, your conclusion that my moral culpability is the same for all voting choices since the outcome would be the same is absolutely wrong.
You indicate that helping Obama "indirectly" by voting for a good Godly candidate that cannot win has the same moral culpability as voting "directly" for Obama himself. You said this at least twice in different ways.
I believe this to be wrong because of God's moral principle to "Not do evil that good may come". When God provided us this principle in His Word, He is teaching that the moral culpability of multiple choices that lead to the same outcome do not all have the same moral culpability contrary to what you suggest.
Said another way, as a result of God putting this principle in His Word, He is counseling me and you and everyone else to "not fool ourselves" (an easy thing to do given the emotionalism of babies being ripped to pieces in horror) into feeling that moral culpability is the same for the choices stated above just because the election result may be the same.
I thank God for providing this principle in His word so that I do not have to violate my conscience by giving "direct" support to someone like McCain that I know will support evil while knowing that God will not hold me morally culpable for supporting Obama "indirectly". To do so would be unjust, for God would have to punish me for the actions of others who chose to violate his principle.
Praise God for His Righteousness, Justice, and Mercy and providing a principle that illuminates the correct view of moral culpability on such an emotional topic as this one.
Jonathan
PS - The real acid test of God's principle is to test it on yourself as I will attempt to do here. What if both Obama and McCain were to both promise to kill my wife Cristina, my kids Melanie (8 yrs old), Joshua (5), and Caleb (2). The only difference is that Obama promises to kill my family in his first 100 days of office, but McCain agrees to kill only 1 of my family members per year such that I may have 1 family member alive at the end of his 4 year team.
I would rather be dead than to vote for either Obama or McCain. I would vote for the 3rd-Party Godly candidate if one existed knowing that Obama may still win and do everything within my power and within God's principles of righteous to thwart Obama from killing my family in his first 100 days of office.
By the way, I do understand that this is easy to say and not so easy to do. I hope that ever such a situation were to actually arise in this form or something similar that I would have the wisdom to pray to God for strength (as Jesus counciled Peter just before he failed) and that God would provide me the needed strength.
There is a very good chance that you are right when you say: The result is the same. (Obama wins)
However, your conclusion that my moral culpability is the same for all voting choices since the outcome would be the same is absolutely wrong.
You indicate that helping Obama "indirectly" by voting for a good Godly candidate that cannot win has the same moral culpability as voting "directly" for Obama himself. You said this at least twice in different ways.
I believe this to be wrong because of God's moral principle to "Not do evil that good may come". When God provided us this principle in His Word, He is teaching that the moral culpability of multiple choices that lead to the same outcome do not all have the same moral culpability contrary to what you suggest.
Said another way, as a result of God putting this principle in His Word, He is counseling me and you and everyone else to "not fool ourselves" (an easy thing to do given the emotionalism of babies being ripped to pieces in horror) into feeling that moral culpability is the same for the choices stated above just because the election result may be the same.
I thank God for providing this principle in His word so that I do not have to violate my conscience by giving "direct" support to someone like McCain that I know will support evil while knowing that God will not hold me morally culpable for supporting Obama "indirectly". To do so would be unjust, for God would have to punish me for the actions of others who chose to violate his principle.
Praise God for His Righteousness, Justice, and Mercy and providing a principle that illuminates the correct view of moral culpability on such an emotional topic as this one.
Jonathan
PS - The real acid test of God's principle is to test it on yourself as I will attempt to do here. What if both Obama and McCain were to both promise to kill my wife Cristina, my kids Melanie (8 yrs old), Joshua (5), and Caleb (2). The only difference is that Obama promises to kill my family in his first 100 days of office, but McCain agrees to kill only 1 of my family members per year such that I may have 1 family member alive at the end of his 4 year team.
I would rather be dead than to vote for either Obama or McCain. I would vote for the 3rd-Party Godly candidate if one existed knowing that Obama may still win and do everything within my power and within God's principles of righteous to thwart Obama from killing my family in his first 100 days of office.
By the way, I do understand that this is easy to say and not so easy to do. I hope that ever such a situation were to actually arise in this form or something similar that I would have the wisdom to pray to God for strength (as Jesus counciled Peter just before he failed) and that God would provide me the needed strength.
Immoral ??????
Immoral ??????
Immoral ???? What is up with that ?? Why didn't he use the word Sin? That is the word he used with me long before this debate started. He called me a sinner for choosing to vote for Mc Cain/Palin.
I wrote a well thought out note, I believe lead by the Holly Spirit, a very short note to Bob Enyart (as I know he is extremely busy) saying with the appointment of Palin, and the statement that life begins at conception, one should seriously think about supporting them. Perhaps Mc Cain has had a change of heart? I am not sure exactly who has responded to me Bob or his surrogates but since they are his surrogates, they are one in the same as is this Battle Royal, it is Bob talking.
And in return epitaphs were hurled in my direction, PRO ABORT , I was a , SINNER , that is who I was , nothing but a PROABORT SINNER ........ After 35 years of support for pro life causes across the country. I was now reduced to a murderer , because of a vote I plan to make? WOW
Look, as I told the Bob's , I am fully prepared to be called, foolish, naive , wrong, dumb, crazy you pick the demeaning term , if it turns out that Mc Cain has not changed. Those words may very well apply, I am often wrong. But I will not be called a Murderer , I will not be called a pro abort and I not sinning by showing a preference over a few candidates, only God knows my heart.
Over the years I have contributed 1000's of dollars to Bob, but at this point he is a zealous for the law, so I have withdrawn my support.
Bob is in the battle fighting very hard every day for the unborn and often is very effective in stopping abortion. Other times not so much but overall good job Bob! That is why I have supported him and on the whole, I believe it has been money very well spent. But to tare apart the Body of Christ, just to win an argument? To zealous for me, as I don't think it advances the Body. But you do need all parts and I by no means want to cut off any part of the Body.
I support a Clinic here in Las Vegas, they stop about 100 abortions per month, so I will increase my support for them, for no other reason then I believe at this point it is a better return for my investment in life.
A vote is only a preference, nothing more. I prefer John Mc Cain a Christian over Obama who I believe is not a Christian. Now the surrogates would say you don't have to choose A or B choose C. OK fine , in that case make your case for C, don't throw epitaphs at those who disagree , make your case for C, I will listen perhaps I will change my mind and choose C. But they never made their case for C, indeed never even attempted, instead they attacked me for my choice. So again make your case for C. This reminds me of Kristi Burton, she made a choice , while Bob and his surrogates were attacking on all fronts, an 18 year old, Kristi Burton made them look like fools. She "perhaps" has done more to advance pro life agenda then all of these full time antiabortion activist combined ? They should be behind her and not wasting there time with choice C and attacking people like me.
If Hitler were poised to win an election against Mc Cain and the Bob's Vote would make the difference , they would vote for Mc Cain. They would, they just wouldn't admit it. Too proud. Gota win the debate, reminds me of my wife. (don't blame her she is an ex lawyer)
So to Bob and Bobs surrogates , say what you said to me in private, say it to all. Call people who vote for Mc Cain Sinners and call them Pro aborts ............... or apologize in public to me for your epitaphs, which you know are not true.
I don't have the time nor the desire to read the debate, I have a family and business to run.
For me it comes down to this, I say you are not sinning by voting for Mc Cain, God knows your heart not me.
The Bob's will not answer these questions ............ Is it a sin to vote for Mc Cain?
Are you a murder for voting for Mc Cain?
Are you a pro abort for voting for Mc Cain?
But they will cowardly use rhetorical language to hide behind there true beliefs. Are you a pro abort?
Are you a Murderer?
Are you a Sinner?
Insinuations are not tools of Christians. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
No, it is not a Sinn to vote Mc Cain
No, your are not a murder if you vote Mc Cain
No, you are not a pro abort if you vote for Mc Cain
How about this?
Lets say that Kristi Burton has decided to Vote for Mc Cain................. I gotta 1000 dollars to Bob's favorite Charity LOL that he won't call Kristi Burton a Murder? Or a Pro Abort? Or in any way question her motives in public!
Any takers?
Mike Tieman, Las Vegas , NV
Immoral ??????
Immoral ???? What is up with that ?? Why didn't he use the word Sin? That is the word he used with me long before this debate started. He called me a sinner for choosing to vote for Mc Cain/Palin.
I wrote a well thought out note, I believe lead by the Holly Spirit, a very short note to Bob Enyart (as I know he is extremely busy) saying with the appointment of Palin, and the statement that life begins at conception, one should seriously think about supporting them. Perhaps Mc Cain has had a change of heart? I am not sure exactly who has responded to me Bob or his surrogates but since they are his surrogates, they are one in the same as is this Battle Royal, it is Bob talking.
And in return epitaphs were hurled in my direction, PRO ABORT , I was a , SINNER , that is who I was , nothing but a PROABORT SINNER ........ After 35 years of support for pro life causes across the country. I was now reduced to a murderer , because of a vote I plan to make? WOW
Look, as I told the Bob's , I am fully prepared to be called, foolish, naive , wrong, dumb, crazy you pick the demeaning term , if it turns out that Mc Cain has not changed. Those words may very well apply, I am often wrong. But I will not be called a Murderer , I will not be called a pro abort and I not sinning by showing a preference over a few candidates, only God knows my heart.
Over the years I have contributed 1000's of dollars to Bob, but at this point he is a zealous for the law, so I have withdrawn my support.
Bob is in the battle fighting very hard every day for the unborn and often is very effective in stopping abortion. Other times not so much but overall good job Bob! That is why I have supported him and on the whole, I believe it has been money very well spent. But to tare apart the Body of Christ, just to win an argument? To zealous for me, as I don't think it advances the Body. But you do need all parts and I by no means want to cut off any part of the Body.
I support a Clinic here in Las Vegas, they stop about 100 abortions per month, so I will increase my support for them, for no other reason then I believe at this point it is a better return for my investment in life.
A vote is only a preference, nothing more. I prefer John Mc Cain a Christian over Obama who I believe is not a Christian. Now the surrogates would say you don't have to choose A or B choose C. OK fine , in that case make your case for C, don't throw epitaphs at those who disagree , make your case for C, I will listen perhaps I will change my mind and choose C. But they never made their case for C, indeed never even attempted, instead they attacked me for my choice. So again make your case for C. This reminds me of Kristi Burton, she made a choice , while Bob and his surrogates were attacking on all fronts, an 18 year old, Kristi Burton made them look like fools. She "perhaps" has done more to advance pro life agenda then all of these full time antiabortion activist combined ? They should be behind her and not wasting there time with choice C and attacking people like me.
If Hitler were poised to win an election against Mc Cain and the Bob's Vote would make the difference , they would vote for Mc Cain. They would, they just wouldn't admit it. Too proud. Gota win the debate, reminds me of my wife. (don't blame her she is an ex lawyer)
So to Bob and Bobs surrogates , say what you said to me in private, say it to all. Call people who vote for Mc Cain Sinners and call them Pro aborts ............... or apologize in public to me for your epitaphs, which you know are not true.
I don't have the time nor the desire to read the debate, I have a family and business to run.
For me it comes down to this, I say you are not sinning by voting for Mc Cain, God knows your heart not me.
The Bob's will not answer these questions ............ Is it a sin to vote for Mc Cain?
Are you a murder for voting for Mc Cain?
Are you a pro abort for voting for Mc Cain?
But they will cowardly use rhetorical language to hide behind there true beliefs. Are you a pro abort?
Are you a Murderer?
Are you a Sinner?
Insinuations are not tools of Christians. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
No, it is not a Sinn to vote Mc Cain
No, your are not a murder if you vote Mc Cain
No, you are not a pro abort if you vote for Mc Cain
How about this?
Lets say that Kristi Burton has decided to Vote for Mc Cain................. I gotta 1000 dollars to Bob's favorite Charity LOL that he won't call Kristi Burton a Murder? Or a Pro Abort? Or in any way question her motives in public!
Any takers?
Mike Tieman, Las Vegas , NV
Show the principle in Scripture that teaches that we are not morally responsible for the intentional indirect support of evil?
I do not understand, if your position is correct, why none of you will address my argument! Why, if you're on the moral high ground here will you address anything and everything other than the arguments I've made? I get told I'm scared, afraid and petrified but no one ever addresses the argument! Is it perhaps that I'm not really the one that's afraid here?
It isn't just simply that the result is the same if you vote for Keyes or some other hopeless third party candidate but that your vote actually makes it EASIER for the worse of two evils to win! It's that you are knowingly taking an action that makes it easier for evil to achieve a victory in our society. And more than one person on your side of this debate has actually argued that they are willing to allow Obama to win in order to get the Republicans to repent! That is they argue that they are willing to allow evil to have a victory in order that good may come of it, which is precisely the argument they present AGAINST my position! Can you tell me how it is that the position that is supposedly the godly position, the Biblical position, is self-contradictory and hypocritical? Is that the way the truth is supposed to work?
Look, I'm fed up with this whole discussion! I don't want any more psychobabble. If you either cannot address my argument or don't want to address my argument, then don't address me at all on this issue. I don't want to talk about it any more unless you intend to directly answer the question I've asked which is as follows...
How does a conservative that votes for a third party that has no chance of winning or stays home and doesn't vote at all, not make it easier for the worse of two evils to win the election? How does my choosing to fight the lesser enemy not make me the ally of the greater enemy?
And
If you concede that it does make it easier for the worse of two evils to win, how do you justify that course of action?
Now I'm serious. If you don't want to answer those questions directly and substantively then I'm just going to ignore anything else you have to say. I've heard it all anyway, and in fact have made the very arguments you've been making myself more times than I can count. None of them address the question I'm asking.
Resting in Him,
Clete
nicholsmom
New member
Which is better: for a nation to be a communist state or to be a free nation trying to keep communication flowing with a communist state in the hopes of influencing them for the good?
Obama wants to turn our nation into a communist state, whereas McCain wants things to continue as they are. Which is better? Do you want our nation to turn into one where people are required to abort after X number of children? That is Obama's dream - do you realize that Hitler's Nazi party was elected into power by a democratic German populace? The people of the USA are turning to the Obamessiah to save them from the big, bad depression - and third party voters are helping him gain the Oval Office.
But when Obama takes over, you can sit on your high horse & say "Well, I didn't vote for him." But aside from being able to make this claim, you will be just as well off if you'd voted for Obama in the first place.
You are helping to put a socialist into the most powerful office in the world. Do you even have the remotest idea of what that means???
For those who are not as lazy as Lighthouse, please check out this history lesson about Hitler's rise to power.
We all now know that Lighthouse intends to keep hiding his head in the sand & has no clue whatever the evil he is helping to promote by way of chosen ignorance. Don't be like him.
Last edited:
That abyss has no bottom
That abyss has no bottom
Hello Clete! You asked: "How does a third party splitting the conservative vote (or conservatives refusing to vote at all) not make it easier for Obama to win?"
Clete, that abyss has no bottom.
I may have missed it. Did did you answer the question of whether you would support Obama in four years if you judged the Republican candidate to be even more deadly?
You are thinking your question is not answered because you a priori are assuming that there is no moral standard that can make your question irrelevant. I'll give examples of what I believe you are doing in this email. If someone is robbing a bank to pay for an operation for his dying son, and you stop the robbery, and someone says, "Now this innocent child will die because of you. There were only two likely outcomes: the proceeds of this bank job would pay for the operation to spare this child; or he would die a terrible death. And look what you've done. How does your action not make it easier for this disease to tear apart this child's body? Do you realize the horror that you are now responsible for? This could have been prevented if it were not for your holier-than-thou attitude and actions."
That abyss has no bottom.
But you say what? How do you justify intervening with the result that that the innocent child dies? The fact that the innocent child may or may not die is not relevant to the moral issue. The moral issue is: Do not steal. Does that sound cruel and uncaring and unsophisticated? Well, undermining Do not steal for some supposed benefit is sophistry or wrongheaded at best.
That abyss has no bottom.
How would Germans have applied your principle and the Duffy/Scofield principle?
German with your principle: "In my district, the Marxists are polling ahead of every other political party, so, even though I am a Christian, and I can see that the NAZIs want to kill the Jews, I judge (and history eventually proves correct) that the Marxists may end up killing more people than the NAZIs, so I am going to campaign for Hitler."
That abyss has no bottom.
German with Duffy/Scofield principle: God said Do not murder, and if I support a politician who acknowledges his past actions and ongoing plans to kill innocent people, I will be disobedient to God and responsible for the coming bloodshed. So, even though my nation is being torn in pieces, I will oppose the Marxists and the NAZIs, even though in my district they are the two parties that will share an absolute majority of the vote.
Clete, you're demonstrating that you cannot see it, but the principle you espouse is based on fear (of the alternative), and it functions via moral relativism (I am justified supporting my murderer because otherwise their murderer who is worse will gain power).
That abyss has no bottom.
Your standard is not God's righteous command, but impossible political calculations that end up justifying support even for murderers, even for the most horrific mass murderers, as long as we can be convinced of a greater impending alternative evil. Can't you see that Clete?
That abyss has no bottom.
If someone argues that embryonic stem cell research has far greater promise than adult stem cells, and that will save millions of innocent children from torture and suffering and death: that argument (like yours) is Not relevant in the moral calculation of what course of action to persue. It's like comparing the rates of return in your family's retirement plan between a money market account, a certificate of deposit, or a gun pointed at the teller's head. The gun may far and away procure the best rate of return ($350 gun / $8,400 return in 24 hours). But the financial calculation is irrelevant; just like the medical research calculation is irrelevant when killing embryos as John McCain advocates; and just as the political calculation regarding Obama is irrelevant when considering the morality of supporting a mass murderer to lead a nation.
That abyss has no bottom.
-Bob Enyart
That abyss has no bottom
Hello Clete! You asked: "How does a third party splitting the conservative vote (or conservatives refusing to vote at all) not make it easier for Obama to win?"
Clete, that abyss has no bottom.
I may have missed it. Did did you answer the question of whether you would support Obama in four years if you judged the Republican candidate to be even more deadly?
You are thinking your question is not answered because you a priori are assuming that there is no moral standard that can make your question irrelevant. I'll give examples of what I believe you are doing in this email. If someone is robbing a bank to pay for an operation for his dying son, and you stop the robbery, and someone says, "Now this innocent child will die because of you. There were only two likely outcomes: the proceeds of this bank job would pay for the operation to spare this child; or he would die a terrible death. And look what you've done. How does your action not make it easier for this disease to tear apart this child's body? Do you realize the horror that you are now responsible for? This could have been prevented if it were not for your holier-than-thou attitude and actions."
That abyss has no bottom.
But you say what? How do you justify intervening with the result that that the innocent child dies? The fact that the innocent child may or may not die is not relevant to the moral issue. The moral issue is: Do not steal. Does that sound cruel and uncaring and unsophisticated? Well, undermining Do not steal for some supposed benefit is sophistry or wrongheaded at best.
That abyss has no bottom.
How would Germans have applied your principle and the Duffy/Scofield principle?
German with your principle: "In my district, the Marxists are polling ahead of every other political party, so, even though I am a Christian, and I can see that the NAZIs want to kill the Jews, I judge (and history eventually proves correct) that the Marxists may end up killing more people than the NAZIs, so I am going to campaign for Hitler."
That abyss has no bottom.
German with Duffy/Scofield principle: God said Do not murder, and if I support a politician who acknowledges his past actions and ongoing plans to kill innocent people, I will be disobedient to God and responsible for the coming bloodshed. So, even though my nation is being torn in pieces, I will oppose the Marxists and the NAZIs, even though in my district they are the two parties that will share an absolute majority of the vote.
Clete, you're demonstrating that you cannot see it, but the principle you espouse is based on fear (of the alternative), and it functions via moral relativism (I am justified supporting my murderer because otherwise their murderer who is worse will gain power).
That abyss has no bottom.
Your standard is not God's righteous command, but impossible political calculations that end up justifying support even for murderers, even for the most horrific mass murderers, as long as we can be convinced of a greater impending alternative evil. Can't you see that Clete?
That abyss has no bottom.
If someone argues that embryonic stem cell research has far greater promise than adult stem cells, and that will save millions of innocent children from torture and suffering and death: that argument (like yours) is Not relevant in the moral calculation of what course of action to persue. It's like comparing the rates of return in your family's retirement plan between a money market account, a certificate of deposit, or a gun pointed at the teller's head. The gun may far and away procure the best rate of return ($350 gun / $8,400 return in 24 hours). But the financial calculation is irrelevant; just like the medical research calculation is irrelevant when killing embryos as John McCain advocates; and just as the political calculation regarding Obama is irrelevant when considering the morality of supporting a mass murderer to lead a nation.
That abyss has no bottom.
-Bob Enyart
Last edited:
From what others say, you're a busy guy, but should you find time, could you answer a few questions for me? In the meantime, maybe anyone who agrees that it is immoral to vote for McCain can answer.
I'm assuming someone guilty of one part of this charge is guilty of the entire charge? Anyone who funds the intentional killing of an innocent person is guilty of murder by this charge, correct?
Planned Parenthood is an organization that exists for the purpose of providing access to and performing abortions. Would you say that anyone who funds, in any amount, Planned Parenthood, is guilty of the above charge? Could you further say that if a corporation, maybe a retailer, contributes even a penny to Planned Parenthood, that it is guilty of the above charge? Could you also say that if a corporation does business with or purchases products or materials from a vendor or provider who contributes even a penny to Planned Parenthood, it is guilty of the above charge? Could you not further say that any patron of a business of any sort that contributes to Planned Parenthood is guilty of the above charge?
How far do you take it and how well do you do avoiding the funding of Planned Parenthood, and are you willing to say that it is immoral to do business with anyone who contributes to this organization?
I know that some people do believe the lie that planned parenthood doesn't really preform abortions. Others give to the United way believing the lie that none of their money will go to planned parenthood! I guess it is fair to say that such people are only guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
- Status