Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

[Clete]

I think that would depend on how you "used" your enemy wouldn't it?

I mean.... if you actually joined forces with evil, merely to defeat another evil I don't see how that could be viewed as anything but evil.

Not simply to defeat any other evil but specifically to defeat a greater evil.

But I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know exactly what your argument is.

The comment was in the context of the U.S. using the help of the Russians to defeat the Nazis.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[nicholsmom]

Agreed!

I understand that my current position on this has to be driving a lot of people nuts. Let me just assure everyone involved that I am not entrenched here on this issue. It wasn't two months ago that I was 100% in agreement with the "Don't vote for the lesser of two evils." side of this debate. I can be back there just as quickly. And, in fact, the only reason I'm not still there now is because no one has yet been able to refute my own argument against it! I can't very well cling to a position that I've detected a major problem with that no one is able to remedy.

It is the truthful and righteous positions that have the irrefutable arguments, not falsehoods and foolishness. My allegiance is to the truth, not to any one person, group, doctrine or practice. If I'm wrong then I want someone to show me that I'm wrong but they will have to show me, not simply state repeatedly that I'm wrong and they're right.

At any rate, I know that this is an emotional issue. Indeed, it is issues such as this one that cause people are regularly advise others not to discuss religion or politics. And so, I will commit to sticking to the specific issue and to keeping personal comments out of it, and I'll also make every effort to over look when someone else fails to do the same. I have absolutely no desire to make an enemy of any of you guys.

Resting in Him,
Clete

What he said.

 

[OchoCinco]

NWQ7: Do you contend that those who intend to vote for McCain/Palin, should be cast out of their local church assemblies if they refuse to “repent” of their decision to cast such a vote?

I have to say this is a pretty interesting argument. I can't see how biblically you could ask someone to leave their local church because of a vote for Obama let alone a vote for McCain/Palin. I might find error in their thinking for wanting to vote for either but it is certainly not worthy of that kind of punishment like the immorality that Paul qualifies for this kind of punishment.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Kudos for NW on this one.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Wow. They answered YES without exception. Their commentary was not an exception to their YES, it was commentary. PLEASE read.

Oh, you mean that they answered yes to every question and ignored that their yes answer was a conditional response. Gotcha!

 

[The Graphite]

Oh, you mean that they answered yes to every question and ignored that their yes answer was a conditional response. Gotcha!

You "gotch" nothing, neighbor.

I'd like to officially start the TOL Eyeglass Fund for CM, here. Donations, anyone?


Their answers did not include conditions. They included applications. They didn't say "yes in certain circumstances." They said yes to all candidates who fulfill that condition. Their elaboration concerned the fact that they believe McCain does not meet those conditions. That isn't a condition. It's an application of the conditions to an individual.

They did agree that - yes - it would be immoral to vote for any candidate that does those things. Not sometimes, but all the time. Yes. Period. "And by the way, McCain hasn't/doesn't/won't do those things."

We certainly recognize that they said McCain isn't guilty of those things, CM! It's quite obvious. But the question wasn't whether McCain is guilty of those things. The questions we posed were whether it is immoral to vote for a candidate who does meet those criteria.

And we happily thank Team NW for affirming that they agree with us that, YES, it is immoral to do so. :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

You "gotch" nothing, neighbor.

I'd like to officially start the TOL Eyeglass Fund for CM, here. Donations, anyone?


Their answers did not include conditions. They included applications. They didn't say "yes in certain circumstances." They said yes to all candidates who fulfill that condition. Their elaboration concerned the fact that they believe McCain does not meet those conditions. That isn't a condition. It's an application of the conditions to an individual.

They did agree that - yes - it would be immoral to vote for any candidate that does those things. Not sometimes, but all the time. Yes. Period. "And by the way, McCain hasn't/doesn't/won't do those things."

We certainly recognize that they said McCain isn't guilty of those things, CM! It's quite obvious. But the question wasn't whether McCain is guilty of those things. The questions we posed were whether it is immoral to vote for a candidate who does meet those criteria.

And we happily thank Team NW for affirming that they agree with us that, YES, it is immoral to do so. :up:

Response withdrawn.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Round 3 - part 2 - Team NW

Team NW started out by trying to define voting, again:

It is simply an expression that, for a given set of reasons, one has decided to provide support to a given candidate.

Team NW tried to define immoral according to the Bible.
While they had a good start with this, they failed miserably when it comes to explaining what the Bible says about sin:

God commands the same punishment for all sins: restitution. [. . .] all sin is equally rebellion against God

This is clearly not the case.
The Bible says that some sins require death, some sins require whipping, some sins require restitution, some sins are sins of ignorance, and other sins are willful sins.

Team NW continues to stumble while addressing whether voting for a bill that contains a provision to fund abortions under limited circumstances is murder.
Their answer? Other senators voted for it, too.

Team NW recovers in addressing the appointment of Supreme Court judges:

So as a judge whose job is to interpret Constitution of the United States of America, Scalia's position is the correct one. Under our constitution, laws of that nature are to be passed and enforced at the state level. I would also imagine, if questioned directly, Scalia would contend that other criminal offenses such as a murder, theft and the like would also fall into precisely the same category. All that lies within the court's power to do is to reverse Roe v. Wade and return the decision to the individual states.

Team NW answers the questions posed by team GG, and asks questions of their own:

NWN6: Do you agree with the the definition of voting offered? If not, please give one of your own.

NWQ7: Do you contend that those who intend to vote for McCain/Palin, should be cast out of their local church assemblies if they refuse to “repent” of their decision to cast such a vote?

These two questions address the topic in a straight forward manner.
Team GG has been holding back on defining any part of the topic, and their answers to these questions will show if they are ready to actually address the topic of the debate.

NWQ8: Which candidates are on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to even have the mathematical possibility of being elected President?

NWQ9: Which candidates have the support of even a scant 10% of the US population?

NWQ10: What is the benefit of a vote cast for a candidate who cannot win?

These questions show team NW's support for a two-party system that has not produced a clearly conservative candidate with a Bible based moral system in this election cycle.
It leads me to ask, "If the Democrats nominated Joseph Stalin and Charles de Gaulle, and the Republicans nominated Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, which team would YOU vote for?"

 

[genuineoriginal]

Voting can be seen as putting your support behind the candidate you like the most.

When it comes to voting for the President of the United States, it can be seen as putting your support behind the candidate you would be willing to die for.
If a candidate for president is not worth your life, what makes you think he is worth your vote?

 

[The Graphite]

These questions show team NW's support for a two-party system that has not produced a clearly conservative candidate with a Bible based moral system in this election cycle.
It leads me to ask, "If the Democrats nominated Joseph Stalin and Charles de Gaulle, and the Republicans nominated Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, which team would YOU vote for?"

Perhaps I'd vote for the Whigs...

 

[nicholsmom]

Voting can be seen as putting your support behind the candidate you like the most.

When it comes to voting for the President of the United States, it can be seen as putting your support behind the candidate you would be willing to die for.
If a candidate for president is not worth your life, what makes you think he is worth your vote?

There are perhaps a handful of people for whom I would die. This is an absurd standard - totally non-viable.

 

[The Graphite]

There are perhaps a handful of people for whom I would die. This is an absurd standard - totally non-viable.

I must agree with NM on this point. Mere men are not our standard for our moral choices.

 

[genuineoriginal]

When it comes to voting for the President of the United States, it can be seen as putting your support behind the candidate you would be willing to die for.
If a candidate for president is not worth your life, what makes you think he is worth your vote?

There are perhaps a handful of people for whom I would die. This is an absurd standard - totally non-viable.

I must agree with NM on this point. Mere men are not our standard for our moral choices.

I don't see what makes this an absurd standard.

I was in the military, which meant I could die while following the orders of the commander in chief.
If the candidate was not worth my life, he was not worth my vote.

 

[The Graphite]

We're not all in the military. (And I say that as a veteran, btw.) You expect meek housewives to hold that standard? You expect 8-year-old boys and girls who have accepted Christ to hold that standard? A true, biblical standard will be universal.

Your standard is human. But it should be divine. Turn your eyes upward, brother, for there is only one standard - Christ.


P.S. And I don't say "meek" in a negative light, btw!

 

[Clete]

I don't see what makes this an absurd standard.

I was in the military, which meant I could die while following the orders of the commander in chief.
If the candidate was not worth my life, he was not worth my vote.

As a member of the military, your allegiance is not to the person in the Oval Office but to the Constitution of the United States. The very same Constitution that the President himself is required by law to swear an oath to protect and defend just as you did when you joined the military. You would never be asked to die for George Bush or John McCain or any other individual person in your chain of command. You might be asked to die to protect the office of the Presidency but that isn't the same thing at all. If you do not understand the difference then you don't deserve to wear the uniform you were issued.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[The Graphite]

As a member of the military, your allegiance is not to the person in the Oval Office but to the Constitution of the United States. The very same Constitution that the President himself is required by law to swear an oath to protect and defend just as you did when you joined the military. You would never be asked to die for George Bush or John McCain or any other individual person in your chain of command. You might be asked to die to protect the office of the Presidency but that isn't the same thing at all. If you do not understand the difference then you don't deserve to wear the uniform you were issued.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Amen. I sure as heck wouldn't have died for that rapist pig Bill Clinton.

 

[genuineoriginal]

As a member of the military, your allegiance is not to the person in the Oval Office but to the Constitution of the United States. The very same Constitution that the President himself is required by law to swear an oath to protect and defend just as you did when you joined the military. You would never be asked to die for George Bush or John McCain or any other individual person in your chain of command. You might be asked to die to protect the office of the Presidency but that isn't the same thing at all. If you do not understand the difference then you don't deserve to wear the uniform you were issued.

Resting in Him,
Clete

My point is that there are some candidates who don't deserve to be President of the United States.
How can any candidate be worthy of office if he is not worth the lives under his care?

 

[The Graphite]

My point is that there are some candidates who don't deserve to be President of the United States.
How can any candidate be worthy of office if he is not worth the lives under his care?

I'm not even sure what that means.... "Worth the lives under his care?"

In what sense would any president be "worth the lives under his care?" Each human being's life has immeasurable worth. Your standard is still a humanistic one.

 

[genuineoriginal]

We're not all in the military. (And I say that as a veteran, btw.) You expect meek housewives to hold that standard? You expect 8-year-old boys and girls who have accepted Christ to hold that standard? A true, biblical standard will be universal.

Your standard is human. But it should be divine. Turn your eyes upward, brother, for there is only one standard - Christ.


P.S. And I don't say "meek" in a negative light, btw!

When the Islamists attacked on 9/11, they sent one plane into each of the twin towers, one plane into the Pentagon, and the plane that did not reach its target was aimed at the White House.
The people who died were not all in the military.
Which President was responsible for giving the Islamists the idea that America was weak enough to attack?

We are in the middle of a war.
If the battle zone comes back to America, meek housewives and 8 year old boys and girls will die.
Which Presidential candidate do you trust with their lives?

 

[The Graphite]

When the Islamists attacked on 9/11, they sent one plane into each of the twin towers, one plane into the Pentagon, and the plane that did not reach its target was aimed at the White House.
The people who died were not all in the military.
Which President was responsible for giving the Islamists the idea that America was weak enough to attack?

That would be primarily Clinton and Carter.

We are in the middle of a war.
If the battle zone comes back to America, meek housewives and 8 year old boys and girls will die.
Which Presidential candidate do you trust with their lives?

Certainly not someone who advocates the murder of the innocent. So, I couldn't go with McCain. Why would I entrust the lives of innocent people in the hands of someone who advocates and funds the killing of innocent people? That is wildly foolish, imho.

I would trust Alan Keyes with that responsibility. He's not the only one, but he's my favorite candidate at this time.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That would be primarily Clinton and Carter.

That is who I thought of, and Obama promises to continue their legacy.

Certainly not someone who advocates the murder of the innocent. So, I couldn't go with McCain. Why would I entrust the lives of innocent people in the hands of someone who advocates and funds the killing of innocent people? That is wildly foolish, imho.

I would trust Alan Keyes with that responsibility. He's not the only one, but he's my favorite candidate at this time.

It looks like you understood what I was trying to say.