Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Brother Rick

Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Recommended Posts

Is it?

I’m not into politics, because I’m not a fan of getting disappointed and my hope is in the return of Christ, not the return of conservatism (haha!) to the Republican party. At the same time I understand the responsibility to vote.

From what I've heard, Romney is a liberal, Gingrich is a tramp, and Paul doesn't support Israel. What business do I have as Bible believing Christian voting any of them?

At the same time Obama is a Communist. I enjoy having freedom, don't you?

Should I refuse to vote and then secretly breathe a sigh of relief when my state goes red (I live in Idaho), or should I vote even if it's one of the above three guys?

What's a guy supposed to do?

These are honest questions.

Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that "none of the above" is a viable option.

If we had the choice to vote for Hitler or Stalin, would it seem acceptable to vote for Hitler because he's the less of the two evils?

God is in control of the entire universe. Nothing happens without His directly causing it or allowing it to happen as it does for His own purposes.

We know from Scripture that if we do right, if we obey His Word, He will work all things together for good.

We also know from Scripture that if we try to do things in our own power, or if we try to "help" God, that things typically go very wrong.

If a Christian is presented with no worthwhile candidate to vote for, voting for none in that category is a viable option.


As to the three candidate you mentioned

Romney is a liberal trying very hard to convince voters he's now a conservative.

Gingrich has indeed been a tramp, cheating on two wives while they were ill and then divocing them for the one he was cheating with. Gingrich also isn't a true conservative; he's more of a neo-con that's will to compromise with liberals...meaning his already watered down "conservative" ideas get further diluted by the time he gets something passed.

Paul does support Israel, but not in the same underhanded way most previous presidents have done so. Paul's idea of supporting Israel is to cut off all foreign aid. Israel has said they don't really need American aid as they once did and if America were not giving billions to all of Israel's enemies, Israel would be way ahead. Paul has also said that Israel sould be allowed to determine her own internal and foreign policy affairs as Israel sees best, not having to gain American approval as has been the deal for decades now. Paul also believes that if Israel deems it in her best interest to engage any of her enemies, America should not condemn her and should allow Israel to fully pursue the engagement according to their own best interests. This in favor of how past presidents have threatened Israel and forced them to stop engagements rather than gaining the much more decisive victory they could have achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that about Paul as well, which I support that kind of thinking.

So you think it's wrong to vote for a guy who isn't really all that great, over standing by and letting diet-Satan get re-elected? I get the idea of not voting for Hitler or Stalin, but that's not the case here.

I wanted to puke after I voted for McCain, and I wish I hadn't. I said after that that I'd never vote for a liberal ever again, and so I probably won't vote for Romney if he gets it. But the truth be told, I'd much rather have Romney than Obama. So while I won't vote for Romney, inside I'd be relieved to see him get it over Obama. Isn't that hypocritical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that about Paul as well, which I support that kind of thinking.

So you think it's wrong to vote for a guy who isn't really all that great, over standing by and letting diet-Satan get re-elected? I get the idea of not voting for Hitler or Stalin, but that's not the case here.

I wanted to puke after I voted for McCain, and I wish I hadn't. I said after that that I'd never vote for a liberal ever again, and so I probably won't vote for Romney if he gets it. But the truth be told, I'd much rather have Romney than Obama. So while I won't vote for Romney, inside I'd be relieved to see him get it over Obama. Isn't that hypocritical?

It's a false idea that not voting for a particular candidate is the same as casting a vote for another.

Several of our Founding Fathers made it clear that only good Christian men were worthy of leadership. Several also pointed out the Constitution would only work if Christians were governing.

Now, we know that no candidate is perfect so that leaves us with the question of how much baggage are we willing to accept. No doubt in times past voters were not willing to accept major charactor flaws or deviation from what they viewed as solid policy stances. Unfortunately for us today, most voters don't care if the president is as flawed as the average lost soul on the streets.

So, do we accept candidates who have a history of lying...such as continual flip-flopping (not speaking of a person who has had a sincere change in their view), glossing over their failures while overinflating their successes, saying two things at once...

Do we accept those who have made mistakes, sometimes major sins, and while they admit they made a mistake they show no signs of actual regret or repentance?

Do we accept that a man can't be trusted by his own wife but an entire nation should trust him as president?

Do we accept those who say they stand for X but have a history of quickly compromising away X in favor of Z or F?

Do we accept those who say they will honour their oath of office and actually abide by the Constitution when they have a history of doing the opposite and their own platforms don't agree with that statement?

These are just some of the questions to ask ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Gingrich gets the nomination, I'm definitely voting for Obama. Obama has much more character, whereas Gingrich seems to me to be morally bankrupt.

If Romney gets the nomination, I am up in the air on who to vote for.

I like Obama's tax policy, health care policy, and international policy, but I dislike his policy on most social issues.

Edited by kindofblue1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be right about supporting the least bit of evil?

Did our Savior set an example for supporting the least bit of evil?


That doesn't make any sense.

Jesus picked Judas as a disciple. He picked Peter and Paul who were hotheads. He picked Mark who was a quitter. He picked you for the ministry, are you sinless?

Picking a president isn't the same as picking a God, spouse, or even pastor. It's below all three of them, and if you are not willing to accept some things in a person because they are human, then you should never get married or vote.

A person can't choose to not be part of a local church because we're command to, so there's no way out. The churches in the New Testament and Revelation all had major problems, yet God didn't tell the people in them to leave. Why? Because God knows we're human and he expects us to do the best we can with what we have. He does the best He can with what He has everytime He decides to use us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Adams said,
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


However, please note that he did not say Christian (many purport that he was a Christian, but he was actually Unitarian...last I heard, their beliefs aren't biblical...). He said moral and religious. I realize that Christianity is the true root of morality, so that is not the point. But the founders inserted into the Constitution the caveat that no religious test is to be applied to office seekers. That doesn't mean individuals can't make their own requirements; that means that there can be no forbidding of federal office holders due to religious belief or lack thereof (the only religion I would not include, and I don't believe our founders would either, is islam because it is a politico/religious system which is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and therefore followers of that can not truthfully promise to uphold the Constitution, but rather work to undermine it).

See, the thing that so many Americans (and it seems especially Christians nowadays) don't understand is that we the people are to be the true rulers in America. WE are supposed to hold our office holders (public SERVANTS, not rulers) to the US Constitution (for federal congress, POTUS and SCOTUS - SCOTUS can be impeached, although people think they are the final say so on everything...but they aren't, really. We the people are, Constitutionally) and to each individual state Constitution. Many states, in their original Constitutions, put in the requirement that office-seekers were to be of a religious nature (some put in that they need to believe in God and fear Him; others specify that they must believe in Jesus Christ). States can do that, because states, under the US Constitution are supposed to be sovereign, only being held to federal scrutiny where the US Constitution specifically states it (NOT where people like Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi and their ilk proclaim there is authority - you know, like in that [non-existent] general welfare clause...).

God does allow things...but to be quite honest, the responsibility for the direction this country has gone and continues to go lies squarely on the shoulders of the Christians who sit back and do nothing. YES, we are to win souls (but ARE we?), YES, we are to be a right witness (but ARE we?)...but YES we are to put our feet to work and DO SOMETHING to preserve the liberties our forefathers fought and died for. I'm so glad they weren't apathetic! I truly have no respect for Christians who gripe about government (whether federal, state, or local) who do not put feet to their supposed prayers.

That said, it is indeed a conundrum, Rick, as we look at the candidates.

Ron Paul does not really stand a chance of getting elected. With white-supremacist groups supporting him, there would be too much of a possibility of charges of racism and anti-semitism that would stick. His purported belief that Mossad was responsible for 9/11 would re-surface, too (and I did hear him answer someone who asked him why he wouldn't come out with the truth about 9/11 that he didn't need the controversy, he had too much on his plate...). My personal opinion is that RPaul isn't truly running to get elected. He is running to pave the way for his son, Rand (who I could actually get behind!). He has not said he would run as an independent if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, but he hasn't ruled it out,either. He's been quite coy about it, actually. If he does run as an independent, he will split the votes and BO will win. That doesn't sound too much like someone who is really concerned with the direction this country is going...

Romney is actually a liberal trying to cloak himself as a conservative. But I'm sure of one thing - if he were elected, the media would hold him to the fire a lot better than they do BO.

Gingrich is not completely conservative. But he is more so than Romney. There are a number of things being said about him now that aren't true - but just enough truth is in there to condemn. Do I like his serial polygamy? No. No-one with any brains would. But I also know that he has stated that he sought forgiveness for his actions, so who am I to judge? We can say that he didn't really, but how do we know?

Of the 3, I think only Newt has the capability to debate BO (and, if he gets the nomination, you watch - BO will refuse the third debate...).

BO has been allowed to do extreme damage to our country and to our Constitution. This supposed Constitutional lawyer (is anyone aware that both he and Michelle were disbarred?) has sidestepped the Constitution he swore to uphold. He has stated more than once that he will do what he wants - with or without Congress (he has NO authority to do so. NONE). And he has done it. Congress is culpable in this matter, because they have not restrained him. But we the people are also culpable. And we need to undo the disaster that was done in 2008.

Voting for one of the GOP may not seem like the ideal, but it is what we have to work with. We need to get BO out of the White House and undo most of what he's done (and that includes health care, taxes, and foreign policy).

If a person doesn't want to vote for one of the candidates, that's fine. But if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. I know, I know, people will disagree with that. But if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Apathy is very strong amongst Christians these days. Apathy towards politics. People like to quote the founders, but too often it's to excuse their own apathy (not intended toward anyone here, so don't take offense).

You posted while I was, Rick. And I think your post basically answers your OP.... :icon_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you, Rick. I don't watch the debates or Fox News or CNN or anything. From what I've observed over the years, all politicians are willing to compromise their principles in order to get elected. That's what politics is all about, after all--you don't schmooze, you lose. Politics can be a very dirty business for sure.

That said, not all "principles" are equal, IMO. So, therefore, it's up to the voter to evaluate each candidate away from all the hoopla and limelight and decide which one most reflects the values and policies that voter thinks is important.

My vote in the primary never really counts, since the candidate will have already been chosen by the time North Carolinians are allowed to vote. So, my choice is clear: I will vote for the person who is running against Obama.

The "lesser of two evils" applies in every election, since all men are sinners. Here is my take on the Republican candidates, just from my limited observation. (I do think that perhaps people like me who have had limited media interaction and therefore aren't all caught up and enamored with one candidate as a result of schmoozy rhetoric can see more clearly, because they are not affected by media spin and/or the personalities of the candidates.)

The Republican candidates are all sinners. I cannot see their hearts; some have made professions of faith. Whether or not a person is a "Christian" has little or no effect on the likelihood of my voting for them. Politicians tend to say anything they think will help them get elected. Obama claims to be a Christian...So has every President in my lifetime, as far as I can tell (maybe not Ford?). So, the "Christian" argument is moot. I would never vote for a "Christian" who would be an inept leader over a non-Christian who would effectively govern and enforce values and policies that I believe in. I'm not voting for a pastor or someone to lead me spiritually. I'm voting for a governmental leader. It stands to reason, then, that I would vote for the person who would govern the country according to biblical and sound Constitutional principles, whether or not he's aware that he's "following the Bible" in his governance.

IMO, Santorum (I know he's Catholic, but I'm using the term Christian broadly here, and he seems to be squeaky clean character-wise) fits that bill (of being a Christian that would not be an effective leader). Yeah, his character seems solid, but he wouldn't have a clue about how to govern this country effectively. Still, he'd be a lot better than Obama who is actively tearing the country limb from limb.

Romney seems duplicitous to me...the perfect politician. I have a hard time trusting him, but am open to doing so. Still, I would vote for him over Obama since I KNOW I can't trust Obama to govern the country in a way that promotes any kind of growth whatsoever.

Paul is just weird and whiny in a "muppety" sort of way. He would make a miserable President. Still, IMO his Presidency wouldn't be as miserable as Obama's (if he is able to instate at least a few of his policies, which are more solid than what we have now). He would be my last choice, but I'd still vote for him over Obama.

Gingrich has messed up morally in a big way. I'm certainly not thrilled with everything he has done over the years. Yet there's something about him that sets him apart from the other candidates. He has admitted failure. That's huge for a politician. Humility is a rare commodity in politics. Every man proclaims his own greatness in palatable little sound bites, glorifying his records, glossing over his mistakes. Newt is very refreshing in that he says, "Yup. I made some really bad mistakes. I regret those mistakes. I am calling them what they are. I'm not glossing over them or trying to pass the blame. I have asked forgiveness, and I'm moving on now, a wiser person." As a Christian who herself has been forgiven, I am so much more inclined to forgive others who have admitted failure. Now, is Newt just playing politics? Maybe. But I still think that his display of humility (even if that's all it is) sets him apart. Talk about a character trait that is essential in leadership! I'd rather have at the helm someone who has failed, admitted his mistakes, and learned from them (and who would effectively lead the country) than someone who is on some ego trip (like Obama), running roughshod over the Constitution and instituting policies that the majority of his fellow Americans despise.

Under Obama, the country is doing a collective nose-dive in every way. Under a Republican candidate, the wreck will at the very least be postponed a few more years. I guess you can probably tell that Gingrich is my favorite, although he has baggage just like anyone else does. But, as a patriotic American, I will not play the "well, God is sovereign so I don't really need to do my civic duty" card while my country goes to hell in a handbasket.

Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lean more and more towards the Scriptural principle that we are supposed to do the best we have with what we have. There is nothing incompatible with faith when it comes to that principle. As a Christian, you attend the best church you can. As a pastor, you do the best you can to reach your community with what you have. You have the best family you have with the spouse you married. You don't quit any of these situations because of inperfections.

In all these cases people have to deal with the consequences of the past. We must do the best we can because of the consequences of actions of the nation we live in, which in the end are a result of Christians not being the salt of the Earth. Once again, I believe that Scriptures are clear that we are to do the best we can with the sitution that God allows us to be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lean more and more towards the Scriptural principle that we are supposed to do the best we have with what we have. There is nothing incompatible with faith when it comes to that principle. As a Christian, you attend the best church you can. As a pastor, you do the best you can to reach your community with what you have. You have the best family you have with the spouse you married. You don't quit any of these situations because of inperfections.

In all these cases people have to deal with the consequences of the past. We must do the best we can because of the consequences of actions of the nation we live in, which in the end are a result of Christians not being the salt of the Earth. Once again, I believe that Scriptures are clear that we are to do the best we can with the sitution that God allows us to be in.

Well said, Rick. We live in an imperfect world. The "lesser of two evils" is our choice in every single area of life (except when we're talking about our perfect Savior). That's what some people have a hard time grasping. No situation, no person, no church, no school, no job, no house location, no political candidate is perfect. The logic, then, is inescapable. We MUST choose the lesser of two evils. There is no other choice for the Christian. "Not choosing" is not taking the high ground, as idealistically lofty as it may sound. It is refusing the good that is offered, and therefore allowing the evil and ugly to gain ground. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Well said, Rick. We live in an imperfect world. The "lesser of two evils" is our choice in every single area of life (except when we're talking about our perfect Savior). That's what some people have a hard time grasping. No situation, no person, no church, no school, no job, no house location, no political candidate is perfect. The logic, then, is inescapable. We MUST choose the lesser of two evils. There is no other choice for the Christian. "Not choosing" is not taking the high ground, as idealistically lofty as it may sound. It is refusing the good that is offered, and therefore allowing the evil and ugly to gain ground.


I think this can be carried to an unscriptural extreme though. Take for instance the primary. We should vote for the best man in the primary, but many weak-kneeded conservative voters will not. No conservative thinks Romney would make a better president than the other three guys, but he'll get a ton of votes from conservatives because he is "more electable" and has a better shot of beating Obama. When a person does that they ARE sacrificing their values because there ARE better choices out there. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this can be carried to an unscriptural extreme though. Take for instance the primary. We should vote for the best man in the primary, but many weak-kneeded conservative voters will not. No conservative thinks Romney would make a better president than the other three guys, but he'll get a ton of votes from conservatives because he is "more electable" and has a better shot of beating Obama. When a person does that they ARE sacrificing their values because there ARE better choices out there.

I don't know about that, Rick...I think it all depends on what you mean by the "best man." I personally think Romney would make a better President than Santorum or Paul...Christians have the liberty to disagree on that. (As I said, I'm not passionate about any of the candidates, really.) I don't vote in the general election based solely on "Christianity" or character, or even on past performance...so, why should I do so in the primary? Electability does indeed enter in; why nominate a candidate that (no matter how squeaky clean or Constitutionally correct) you KNOW will lose the general election race before even entering it? This fact plays into the whole "lesser of two evils" option. The greater evil is a shoo-in if the lesser evil has no chance to win. Christians have an obligation to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election, just as they have the obligation to choose the lesser of two evils in any other area of their lives. This will look different for every Christian. After prayerful evaluation, you might choose Santorum or Paul over Romney, and I might choose Gingrich over all the others. We're different people with different opinions. We can both be guided by Scriptural principles, and make two different selections, because no candidate is perfect.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should nominate the man who has the best chance of beating Obama. I think that man is Newt Gingrich, not Romney.. (And I like Newt anyway for the reasons I've mentioned before.) To nominate an obvious loser is to choose the greater evil.

In short, I believe it is my inescapable Christian and civic duty to choose the lesser of two (or three, or four) evils in the 2012 Presidential election. I am not choosing the lesser of two evils if I throw my support behind a candidate who will certainly lose to Obama. I am choosing the greater evil. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p> </p>
<div> </div>
<div>We have had discussions on this matter several times. If not mistake, John has stated the same thought I have, a vote for the best of 2 evils is still a vote for evil.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And one thing I have never had anyone present to me is any evidence at all that Jesus participated in politics, affairs of this world. We do know that many of them during Jesus’ days, even His chosen ones, thought He came to set His kingdom up in this world, &amp; were sorely disappointed, turning from following Him when they found out that was not His goal. And it is amazing of the faith Peter finally showed when he realized Jesus’ truths &amp; preached such a great sermon filled with His faith in Jesus on the day of Pentecost. Peter had let go of the world, placed all of his faith in Jesus. After which he &amp; the other apostles never looked back towards the cares of this world &amp; the affairs of this world, truly carrying out the works that Jesus ordained them to do. Most of them even died for the Savior, &amp; would not back off their beliefs in order to save their own life. Thus dying for the sake of Christ.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Laws, &amp; are certain people in worldly leadership position of this country will not draw people to Christ, will not help build the kingdom Jesus spoke of. That is only done by putting all of a persons faith in Jesus &amp; Him alone. Them live our life doing the work Jesus has ordained us to do. That is to go, teach, baptizing, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, &amp; of course that teachings is the teachings that’s only found in the old Book &amp; has nothing to do with affairs of this life, or this world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And yes, I know its quite hard to overcome the world, &amp; its prince, &amp; his helpers. Yet it can be done.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1Jo 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.</div>
<div>1Jo 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.</div>
<div>1Jo 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yet, if a person is surely saved, having the Holy Ghost abiding within them, greater is He that’s within you, than that wicked one that tries to get us involved in affairs of this world, &amp; away from what Jesus ordained us to do with our life. Those of the world has some great rhetoric even using Bible verses trying to convince Jesus’ brothers &amp; sisters to fall in behind the prince of this world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>How can we be a good soldier for our savior, when we are mixed up in the affairs of this life?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We can’t, we cannot please Him who has saved us while entangled in worldly affairs, for it chokes out the word of God. And politics is the affairs of this life, an not the affairs of our Savior.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mt 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr 4:19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paul spoke of Demas, having love for this present world, having forsaken him, yet worse that that, he had forsaken the Savior Jesus. And that is what happens, it even happens today, the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in (1 John 2:16), choke the word of God out of us, &amp; we can’t be a good soldier for Him who called us.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The sad part is, those Christians that are all mixed up in the affairs of this life, this world, will say that those who are truly trusting Christ, that are doing the works He has ordained them to do, are setting around doing nothing. That helps them win even more to follow to follow them &amp; the prince of this world.</div>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, Christians who are concerned about the direction of this country and who actively try to do something about it (you know, work and pray both) are not following the prince of this world. We have been given, by God, a wonderful country. One that is in tatters right now. And you would have us believe that, because Jesus wasn't involved in politics we shouldn't be. There were a number of things Jesus didn't do that we do, and it's bogus theology to say we shouldn't be involved in politics because Jesus wasn't. If God doesn't lead you to be involved in political work, so be it. But I will never believe that God doesn't want Christians to vote. We are to take our earthly responsibilities seriously, even though we are citizens of Heaven. And part of that responsibility is our country (no matter in which one we happen to live). And voting is the easiest way to take part in that responsibility. Using the responsibility of being a witness for Christ (or doing what God's ordained us to do) as an excuse to not vote is simply that: an excuse.

But it's easier to condemn Christians who are honestly seeking how to bring the most glory to God via elections.

And, yes, any time we vote it is for the lesser of two evils. Because we are all sinners. Christians are saved sinners, but sinners nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Adams said,
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


However, please note that he did not say Christian (many purport that he was a Christian, but he was actually Unitarian...last I heard, their beliefs aren't biblical...). He said moral and religious. I realize that Christianity is the true root of morality, so that is not the point. But the founders inserted into the Constitution the caveat that no religious test is to be applied to office seekers. That doesn't mean individuals can't make their own requirements; that means that there can be no forbidding of federal office holders due to religious belief or lack thereof (the only religion I would not include, and I don't believe our founders would either, is islam because it is a politico/religious system which is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and therefore followers of that can not truthfully promise to uphold the Constitution, but rather work to undermine it).

See, the thing that so many Americans (and it seems especially Christians nowadays) don't understand is that we the people are to be the true rulers in America. WE are supposed to hold our office holders (public SERVANTS, not rulers) to the US Constitution (for federal congress, POTUS and SCOTUS - SCOTUS can be impeached, although people think they are the final say so on everything...but they aren't, really. We the people are, Constitutionally) and to each individual state Constitution. Many states, in their original Constitutions, put in the requirement that office-seekers were to be of a religious nature (some put in that they need to believe in God and fear Him; others specify that they must believe in Jesus Christ). States can do that, because states, under the US Constitution are supposed to be sovereign, only being held to federal scrutiny where the US Constitution specifically states it (NOT where people like Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi and their ilk proclaim there is authority - you know, like in that [non-existent] general welfare clause...).

God does allow things...but to be quite honest, the responsibility for the direction this country has gone and continues to go lies squarely on the shoulders of the Christians who sit back and do nothing. YES, we are to win souls (but ARE we?), YES, we are to be a right witness (but ARE we?)...but YES we are to put our feet to work and DO SOMETHING to preserve the liberties our forefathers fought and died for. I'm so glad they weren't apathetic! I truly have no respect for Christians who gripe about government (whether federal, state, or local) who do not put feet to their supposed prayers.



I liked everything you said so much, I decided to leave out the part I could have written myself. But, I will further stress what you, Rick, and Annie have already said.

You've heard me say before I believe you have to be a Christian to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution. That said, The President of the United States is not supposed to interpret, or change the U.S. Constitution. By the U.S. Constitution his powers are limited to preserve, protect, and defend.

POTUS as well as any public office as established by the U.S. Constitution is a secular office.
United States Constitution, Article. VI
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So, where does that leave Christians? It leaves us picking the person who would best support Christian values. Edited by 1Tim115

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid too many of us will actually choose the greater of the evils because we do not have the gumption to really study the alternatives. Indeed to not keep oneself fully informed by studying all the facts and history of the persons and options involved is where most fall short in their duty to choose wisely among the choices. For instance those who consider watching the nightly news and reading things such as Time and Newsweek an hardly be well informed, but yet that is how the mass of voters come to their decisions on the lesser of two evils. Neither can watching the so-called debates and analyses by the so-called experts following, be considered keeping oneself informed.

Today we have a lot more information available than we did even twenty or thirty years ago. That information is available on the internet. I hesitate to bring that fact up on a christian site because I am afraid that the response will be the same here as it is at our Saturday men's breakfasts in discussions with my brother's in Christ. "The internet is filled with conspiracy theories." "The internet is unchristian."

Yes the internet is unchristian, but then again, so is the world. Yes, the internet is filled with conspiracy theories, but then again, so is the world. Indeed the internet is full of all forms of evil and ungodliness and again so is the world.
So many say they will not venture onto the internet lest they become contaminated. Should we stay away from the world lest it contaminate us? No, of course not. We are left her in the world but we are not of it.t


John 17:1-21

17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
KJV

Our heavenly Father gives us protection as we travel through this foreign country bound for a better one. The Holy Spirit gives us wisdom and guidance in making the correct decisions.
To those who will not venture onto the internet in search of whatever truth may be found there, I ask do you go to the library or to a book store? If you answer yes, do you find ungodly or evil things there?
The internet is no different than the library the bookstore or the world. There you will find an abundance of lies but also truth. Just as you must avert your eyes in your walk through this world so you must also do so on the internet.

Some say I will not go to this or that blog, news, or commentary site where there might possibly be some truth,because there are unchristian things there, may be passing up a useful bit of information they should know.

Some of the sites I go to are not christian, indeed some of them are written by agnostic or atheists. If I am going to those sites to pick up information on economics, foreign policy, politics or events of the day, which I filter through my IFB christian filter am I behaving in a unchristian manner?

Now to the original problem choosing the lesser of two evils.
When Pilate was confronted with his dilemma, did he choose the lesser of the two evils that confronted him?

John 19:10-16

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar.

16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
KJV


God bless,
Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't know about that, Rick...I think it all depends on what you mean by the "best man." I personally think Romney would make a better President than Santorum or Paul...Christians have the liberty to disagree on that. (As I said, I'm not passionate about any of the candidates, really.) I don't vote in the general election based solely on "Christianity" or character, or even on past performance...so, why should I do so in the primary? Electability does indeed enter in; why nominate a candidate that (no matter how squeaky clean or Constitutionally correct) you KNOW will lose the general election race before even entering it? This fact plays into the whole "lesser of two evils" option. The greater evil is a shoo-in if the lesser evil has no chance to win. Christians have an obligation to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election, just as they have the obligation to choose the lesser of two evils in any other area of their lives. This will look different for every Christian. After prayerful evaluation, you might choose Santorum or Paul over Romney, and I might choose Gingrich over all the others. We're different people with different opinions. We can both be guided by Scriptural principles, and make two different selections, because no candidate is perfect.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should nominate the man who has the best chance of beating Obama. I think that man is Newt Gingrich, not Romney.. (And I like Newt anyway for the reasons I've mentioned before.) To nominate an obvious loser is to choose the greater evil.

In short, I believe it is my inescapable Christian and civic duty to choose the lesser of two (or three, or four) evils in the 2012 Presidential election. I am not choosing the lesser of two evils if I throw my support behind a candidate who will certainly lose to Obama. I am choosing the greater evil.


That's where I disagree with you. If you really believe that Romney would make the best president out of all the ones available, then I believe you should vote for him in the primary. To do any less would be to compromise your own convictions. This is the thought pattern and the reason the Republican Party keeps being represented by liberals.

Here's the deal, when you claim that a candidate has "no shot" of beating Obama, you're basing that off of your own understanding and preconceptions. I'm not trying to be harsh, you know I like you, but when people start talking that way they start removing God from the picture. You're leaning on your own understanding, and not voting for the guy who you think would make the better president.

Over and over again people keep saying Ron Paul doesn't have a shot, and yet he's making a strong showing. In spite of everything that everyone is saying, he's still a contender. I wonder where he'd be if people voted based upon who they thought was right for the job and not who they thought would win. If someone contends in the primary and wins the GOP nod, anything can happen.

If we're basing our decisions off Scriptural principles, then it is clear that we do the best with what we can. But it is also clear that faith, prayer, and trust in what God can do should also enter the picture. Those latter principles are never more important for a Christian voter than during the primary, because it is at that time we can really make our voice heard. The "electability" argument is based entirely on perception, which is as unstable as water. Israel made their choice for Saul based upon electability, not on who he was, his heart, or his ability to lead. I know the other three aren't David, but the principle remains the same: pick the best available for the job based upon their ability to do the job, not their ability to get the job. Leave the getting of the job to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Gingrich gets the nomination, I'm definitely voting for Obama. Obama has much more character, whereas Gingrich seems to me to be morally bankrupt.

If Romney gets the nomination, I am up in the air on who to vote for.

I like Obama's tax policy, health care policy, and international policy, but I dislike his policy on most social issues.

So you like the charactor of a man who supports the murder of babies worldwide?

You like tax policies designed to cripple businesses and redistribute wealth?

You like a health care policy that is unconstitutional, forces folks to pay for the unhealthy choices of others, places government in control of health issues and leads to a downgrading of American healthcare?

You support international policy based upon America being "the big bad" that Obama constantly apologizes for, where policy is constantly blowing in the wind?

You supporth the Obama social issues of mass baby murder, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, ignoring the Constitution, promoting class warfare, playing the race card, the downgrading of American lifestyle to the lowest common denominator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here many people will vote for the one they think will have the best chance of beating the one they dislike most.

It is called 'tactical voting'

It works like this, (say) there are three candidates, Labour, Lib Dem, and Conservative.

'One' likes the Conservative best and the labour he hates. But the Con, is last in the polls so 'one' votes for Lib Dem, as most likely to beat labour.

On the other hand 'one' may think they are all rubbish, so vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party. Have you got one of those?

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here many people will vote for the one they think will have the best chance of beating the one they dislike most.

It is called 'tactical voting'

It works like this, (say) there are three candidates, Labour, Lib Dem, and Conservative.

'One' likes the Conservative best and the labour he hates. But the Con, is last in the polls so 'one' votes for Lib Dem, as most likely to beat labour.

On the other hand 'one' may think they are all rubbish, so vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party. Have you got one of those?


Hahahahaha... this made me laugh. Yeah, we have those. One of them is the "Green Party," they are enviromentalist wackos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who say we should never vote for the lesser of two evils, Would you vote for a man who had an affair while in office and then gave orders to end her husband to the front line so he would be killed? if not you would not vote for a man like David, a man after God's own heart. Or perhaps a man with 700 wives and 300 more women on the side? Then you would not vote for Solomon, the man God had build the temple in Jerusalem. You see if we are not willing to vote for imperfect men, we would not approve of the men God put into place. Perhap if a man who was righteous enough to be a pastor was running we could vote for him, or would we critisize him for not preaching the gospel instead!!! As to Jesus not doing anything in politics, his entire reason for coming would have been undermind if he had, as he would have had to overthrow the roman empire, and become king. Then he would not have been crusified. He WILL come again one day and set up a kingdom. Now tell me how will me voting for a man that is not perfect undermine my work here on this earth? If I feel led (which I do not) to be president, how would that destroy my work for Christ? If I was led to do so it might be that God would use it to spread the Gospel through freedom. Another thought,(I have mentioned this before) Christ did not have a home (owned or rented). He traveled from town to town preaching. Those who feel that since Jesus did nothing political, neither should we need to move out of their homes (if they own they need to sell), quit trying to be conected to this old world, and travel preaching. Some may say "I do preach" but still have a home. Christ Never Had A Home, so neither should you!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Hahahahaha... this made me laugh. Yeah, we have those. One of them is the "Green Party," they are enviromentalist wackos.


Yes we also have the Greens. They are the majority party in the local government in Brighton. We also have a Monster Raving Loony Party and they don't always come last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 776 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...