Apparently![]()
Well I expect it to get much more intense as we get closer to election time. Figured a little humor now could help.
Apparently![]()
One side threatens communism (rme). The other side threatens peoples faith.
Nah, I'm not voting for either.
Well, yes, voting is pretty moot at this point, even a protest vote. What's prophesied to happen will happen no matter how one votes, even a vote in protest.
But look at what's prophesied to happen:
A one world government
Christians thinking they can stop the one world government by voting 'for the lesser evil'
Christians voting for the lesser evil being duped into abandoning Christian mores
Some Christians taking it so far as to lose their faith.
THATS what it's really about. I don't want to see any of my brothers and sisters being duped and risking their faith by supporting the perceived 'lesser evil'
Because that's all it is, a perception. Or as scripture calls it, a deception
So you can use government to force people to live according to your rules, you can use government to force women to have children who will grow up hungry, sick, and unloved,
but you can't use government to step in and take care of these things when the church refuses to (where's THEIR compassion? Why are they not stepping up?). Seems a bit hypocritical, but that too is something the republicans are great at.
It's funny, the self-esteem, me-me-me, only I matter thing was a liberal teaching. Yet in their hatred of all thing libtard, conservatives have embraced this one and raised it to an art form.
A Christianity that seeks a politician/political answer to a spiritual problem is a Christianity that no longer believes Jesus is it's savior.
Voting none of the above is an odd strategy. You do realize that someone will win anyway, right?
Yeah, what he said.I'm gonna have to go with Cameron's view on this.
If you want to abstain for purely personal reasons like "I just don't want to participate", I guess that makes sense... at the very least it's your right to do so.
But the moment you try to rationalize it, and give some kind of justification for abstaining, the argument seems to immediately fall by it's own weight.
It's pretty hard to come up with a logical argument for not voting.
Final Thoughts:
1.) I don't think voter abstinence is a position that can win a debate, but it's certainly within someone's rights to abstain from voting.
2.) Conscience: even though I think it's a bad position; if you are sincerely convicted that abstaining is the thing that most pleases God, and you sincerely feel participating in an election is sinful... then you should go with your conscience. That would seem to be the biblical thing to do.
.
.
Do you see how I said one thing and JTB twisted it round to mean something completely different to whatnow I see the issue between you and Magenta.
I hope you count yourself among the offenders. Doubtful you do.You aren't the first for this to happen to, doubtful you'll be the last.
Do you see how I said one thing and JTB twisted it round to mean something completely different to what
I'd said? Somehow me pointing out the truth of what I'd said to him makes me evil in his eyes, while he
refuses to admit his error or acknowledge his false accusations. So much hypocrisy it's disgusting.
My posts to him had nothing to do with the government, although I have seen quite a few of his posts about it. He gave a link to something, so I briefly looked at it and said it needed editing. Twice he asked me about that, so it seemed he really wanted my input on the matter, and so I mentioned the spelling of a particular word, clarifying that it was fine if he was aiming to be folksy and informal, which he twisted to saying my meaning was that being folksy and informal was unChristian. So he basically took me saying it is okay to be folksy and informal to telling me I had claimed it was a sin. Unbelievable! And that was after me being very clear, that I had said no such thing. But no, off he goes, tearing me down and telling me what a rotten Christian I am because I stick to my original meaning and call him out on his error, which he refuses to acknowledge so he can use it as leverage to repeatedly falsely accuse me. I hadn't had much of any memorable back-and-forth with him before, so it came as a bit of a rude awakening surprise to find out how dishonest he was.Yeah, after pounding on all of us about the evil of all gov't, then to turn completely around and not expect to be called on it is rather immature. But I had that happen in another thread where I pointed out that they lied about their faith and they got bombastic. People usually lose it pretty fast in here when you point out they are being hypocritical, or twisting your words. But they don't mind doing it to you. smh
You and I have already discussed the steps I take to make sure I'm not twisting words or being hypocritical (as opposed to others who rely upon their own understanding). So no, you get the red X.Yeah, after pounding on all of us about the evil of all gov't, then to turn completely around and not expect to be called on it is rather immature. But I had that happen in another thread where I pointed out that they lied about their faith and they got bombastic. People usually lose it pretty fast in here when you point out they are being hypocritical, or twisting your words. But they don't mind doing it to you. smh
Yet somehow you twisted me saying, If your intention is to be informal and folksy, then there is not a problemYou and I have already discussed the steps I take to make sure I'm not twisting words or being hypocritical (as opposed to others who rely upon their own understanding). So no, you get the red X.