Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

[Redfin]

You clearly have not read our post.

To the contrary! I would never post such a question without having read everything available.

One of the first things I do when reading debates is look for a definition of terms. How else can one know the actual issue at hand?

The closest I've seen you come to defining "immoral" is this statement -

"After careful thought and consideration we have come to the opinion that the only instance in which voting could be definitively considered an immoral act is if a vote is cast for someone who God himself would not command us to obey as a legitimate authority."

What you have actually done here is defined "voting" as immoral under the stated circumstances, without telling us what "immoral" itself actually means.

Aside from this, I think you've made the better argument in Round 1. :thumb:

 

[chatmaggot]

He put them under Nebuchadnezzar to punish them for turning away from Him and to get them to repent and turn back to Him, according to the prophecies.

He put them in Egypt to save them from the famine.
He put them under Pharoh to show His mighty power and to force them to leave Egypt so they could go into the land flowing with milk and honey that He promised to give to them.

I believe He put them under Hitler to cause the world to bring forth the nation of Israel in a single day to fulfill the prophecy.

So it doesn't matter WHO we vote for...whatever God wants to happen is going to happen right?

 

[Clete]

Stay tuned, Clete. We're not even halfway. And we will address your concerns in due time. We can't address every person's concern immediately in the first post.

To everything, turn, turn, turn...

I'm glad to hear it.
I'll try to be patient! :up:

 

[Clete]

Clete,

Let's suppose there were three people running for president. Someone who believes a certain wicked act should be legal, another who thinks that said wicked act is ok in certain circumstances, and the third who is a Christian Godly man believes that said wicked act is immoral and should never be done.

Without the benefit of the media (tv, newspapers, web, etc...) who continue to post polls indicating who is leading at the moment...and you had no idea who everyone else was voting for (everyone kept their vote a secret) would you vote for person #2 or #3 in my scenario?

If your vote isn't for #3, why?

If your vote is for #2 (and #2 wins), do you believe that you are or are not somewhat responsible for the said wicked acts committed during person #2's time in office (having known full well that the acts would continue prior to voting and knowing your vote helped elect the person)?

All things being equal I would vote for the godliest man, of course.

But, unfortunately, we don't live in a universe where all things are equal and the fact is that we are all very much aware that things are not equal. It is literally impossible for Alen Keyes to win the White House during this election cycle. It's not just unlikely, its utterly and completely impossible. Even if he got 100% of the vote in every state that has him on the ballot, he would still do nothing at all but guarantee the White House to Obama.

As far as this particular battle for the White House is concerned, Keyes is a bigger enemy of McCain than he is of Obama. All Obama has to do to win Colorado is to understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Obama was smart he'd find a way to pump some money and energy into the Keyes campaign in order to further split the conservative vote.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[chatmaggot]

All things being equal I would vote for the godliest man, of course.

But, unfortunately, we don't live in a universe where all things are equal and the fact is that we are all very much aware that things are not equal. It is literally impossible for Alen Keyes to win the White House during this election cycle. It's not just unlikely, its utterly and completely impossible. Even if he got 100% of the vote in every state that has him on the ballot, he would still do nothing at all but guarantee the White House to Obama.

As far as this particular battle for the White House is concerned, Keyes is a bigger enemy of McCain than he is of Obama. All Obama has to do to win Colorado is to understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Obama was smart he'd find a way to pump some money and energy into the Keyes campaign in order to further split the conservative vote.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Fair enough.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So it doesn't matter WHO we vote for...whatever God wants to happen is going to happen right?

No, it does matter WHO we vote for.

Our vote is one way that we speak out for righteousness.
If we vote for a candidate that is running on an unrighteous platform, then we are saying that righteousness doesn't matter.

If we vote for a candidate that is running on an unrighteous platform in the hopes of preventing another candidate running on an unrighteous platform from getting in office, then we are still voting for unrighteousness.

If we vote for the most righteous candidate on the ballot, or if we write in the name of a righteous person, then we are are saying that righteousness matters regardless of who actually wins the election.

 

[Stone Mason]

Keep it short and too the point

Keep it short and too the point

Getting back to the intent of this thread, i.e. Discussion of the Battle Royale XIII...

It would be better if the participants would go with the KISS method. One or two main points per post, in one or two short paragraphs, not pages and pages with over 10 subpoints. Otherwise people without a lot of time will just stop reading.

 

[OchoCinco]

Stone mason, I have to agree with you, I found that the 1st post of round 2 by GG was long winded and caught myself wanting to skip over paragraphs. That is ineffective debating.

So far I have to say that NW is doing much better.

Also,

It seems to me that according to GG’s argument, a vote for Keyes would also be immoral. McCain has in no way even hinted to any idea that he is going to make a law that forces abortion. So by their definition, McCain is immoral for not being proactive in stopping abortion. If McCain is immoral for not being proactive in stopping abortion, he is also immoral for not being proactive in stopping people from having a proud look, or by passing laws that would put people in prison for causing any kind of disunity amongst other people or by being proactive in punishing ALL who lie to anyone at any time. God hates murder, but he also hates these things as well.

So unless McCain is personally going to kill babies or he is going to pass a law that makes people kill babies, I just don’t see how it would be different to vote for Keyes.

 

[Lion]

OchOcinco said

It seems to me that according to GG’s argument, a vote for Keyes would also be immoral. McCain has in no way even hinted to any idea that he is going to make a law that forces abortion. So by their definition, McCain is immoral for not being proactive in stopping abortion. If McCain is immoral for not being proactive in stopping abortion, he is also immoral for not being proactive in stopping people from having a proud look, or by passing laws that would put people in prison for causing any kind of disunity amongst other people or by being proactive in punishing ALL who lie to anyone at any time. God hates murder, but he also hates these things as well.

So unless McCain is personally going to kill babies or he is going to pass a law that makes people kill babies, I just don’t see how it would be different to vote for Keyes.

GG’s argument is not that a candidate has to be perfect. It is that he can’t be supportive of something as vile as the shedding of innocent blood.

God hates a proud look because of what that leads to in the individual, and God has never said that this or causing disunity should be a crime, or even that lying is always wrong (in fact there are many times when God advocates and rewards lying in a just cause).

But here we are talking about something that God says should always be a capitol crime punishable by death. A crime so hideous that God says the thought of it never even entered His mind!

John McCain supports the slaughter of completely innocent children while they are in the womb. He not only advocates this, he has supported (by voting for) funding for this. And he has promised to continue this support if he becomes president.

This is immoral and a vote for him allows the innocent blood that splatters off his soul to stain yours.
:execute:

 

[Aimiel]

I voted last night. Thank God this mess of backstabbing and posturing for television to buy votes will be over about a month from now, so we can get back to complaining about regular lousy commercials.

 

[OchoCinco]

Lion

GG’s argument is not that a candidate has to be perfect.

I never said anything about the candidates being perfect, I said that GG's argument is based on the candidates being proactive with stopping abortion.

God hates a proud look because of what that leads to in the individual

What scripture do you have to back this up? According to Proverbs 6:17, a proud look is an abomination to God.


16 These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

(in fact there are many times when God advocates and rewards lying in a just cause)

What scripture do you have to support this idea?

But here we are talking about something that God says should always be a capitol crime punishable by death.

Do you have scripture for this? If you're going to quote God please include scripture.

 

[chatmaggot]

Lion



I never said anything about the candidates being perfect, I said that GG's argument is based on the candidates being proactive with stopping abortion.



What scripture do you have to back this up? According to Proverbs 6:17, a proud look is an abomination to God.


16 These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.



What scripture do you have to support this idea?


Do you have scripture for this? If you're going to quote God please include scripture.

Rahab lies to the authority about her knowledge of the Israelite spies’ whereabouts. Her action leads to her being saved from Jericho’s destruction.

 

[OchoCinco]

Rahab lies to the authority about her knowledge of the Israelite spies’ whereabouts. Her action leads to her being saved from Jericho’s destruction.

Please show me the scripture where God advocates and rewards Rehab for lying.

How do you explain Proverbs? Was Solomon lying by saying that God hates lying?

 

[reformed]

Hi guys,

Just wanted to share an MP3 file from Greg Koukl's website, www.str.org:
Check out the September 21, 2008 podcast on - Does God Take Sides in Politics?

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Radio_Archives

 

[Lucky]

Hi guys,

Just wanted to share an MP3 file from Greg Koukl's website, www.str.org:
Check out the September 21, 2008 podcast on - Does God Take Sides in Politics?

:wave: How does this relate to the current debate? Does he question whether or not God cares how evil your candidate is? I, and probably most TOLers, aren't interested in the podcast. However, if you tell us your perspective, that would be great!

 

[genuineoriginal]

Round 2 part 2 - Team NW

Team NW started out slowly and very defensively.
Their attempts at clarifying how team GG misrepresented them and what team NW's true positions are did nothing to advance the debate.

Team NW's section on Of “Doubtful Things” and Selective Morality was more damaging to their side than to team GG's side.

Because, let us be frank here, if one is to say, as a matter of principle, that a candidate's less-than-perfect stance on abortion makes it immoral to vote for him, then one would also have to say that it is immoral to cast a vote for a candidate having a less-than-perfect stance on any other issue which is addressed in Holy Scripture, or else enter into the rankest sort of hypocrisy.

This statement by Team NW says that if it would be immoral to vote for any particular candidate, then it would always be immoral to vote for any candidate, regardless of who they are.
On the other hand, if it would not be immoral to vote for any particular candidate, then would never be immoral to vote for any candidate, regardless of who they are.

Team NW rallied from their stumbling beginning and came back strong by addressing whether McCain was pro-abort, pro-gay, pro-socialism, and anti-free speech.
This was followed by a strong analysis of McCain's character.

Team NW then answered the questions posed by Team GG, proving that the questions did not have any relevance to the topic of the debate.

At the end, team NW added a few more questions to the debate:

NWQ3: Are you saying that we should elect government leaders by the standards set out for Christian church leaders?

I have to wonder what prompted Team NW to ask such a question.
Is team NW trying to say that Christians should be happy with elected government officials that cannot meet the standards listed for leaders of the Christian churches?

NWQ4: How would the election of John McCain, personally, cause you to make that choice? I will want evidence on the likelihood of this as well, rather than foundationless accusations.

(The choice between obeying God or obeying man.)
This is an excellent question.
Can anyone provide evidence that casting a vote for McCain would make someone think that they were disobeying God?

NWQ5:If he chooses to remain silent and only save those who is able to, is he committing an immoral act?

(If the person kept silent about the atrocities of the Nazis in order to remain in a position to save some Jews.)
After proving that questions like this are completely irrelevant, team NW asks it anyway.
Is anyone able to prove that McCain is able to save some babies from abortion by keeping silent on whether abortion is evil?
Did team NW forget that they said the battle was not about abortion?

In the end, though team NW did not do as good of a job this round as in the first round, they are still ahead.

 

[nicholsmom]

This statement by Team NW says that if it would be immoral to vote for any particular candidate, then it would always be immoral to vote for any candidate, regardless of who they are.
On the other hand, if it would not be immoral to vote for any particular candidate, then would never be immoral to vote for any candidate, regardless of who they are.

Without trying to draw the battle to the grandstands, I do want to mention that you err greatly in needlessly applying the corollary.

 

[chrysostom]

As long as the Democratic Party supports abortion you must vote republican

 

[genuineoriginal]

As long as the Democratic Party supports abortion you must vote republican

What do you do when both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party support abortion, homosexual behavior, and adultery?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Without trying to draw the battle to the grandstands, I do want to mention that you err greatly in needlessly applying the corollary.

I suppose that it depends on how far you are willing to go with "less than perfect" as a standard.

Is the slope starting to get slippery, or is it already covered with lard?

If you think it is worth addressing further, then a clarification on the issue might be in order in round 3.