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



Guys, let's be consistent. If X candidate is to be the POTUS, then our sovereign God will cause him to win in the primary. No "psychics" (as you call them) can thwart God's will, right? In the meantime, "electability" will continue to figure into my vote for the Republican candidate. (See my previous comments for the proper context of that remark.)

And I do agree with the cliff part, John. None of the Republican candidates--no politicians or Presidents--have the power to turn our country around. We are headed over the cliff no matter what, apart from all of that...because the problems with America are spiritual, not political. None of the candidates have the power to turn our country around politically, either, IMO. The state of Washington is such that any positive changes would be slow in coming and easily overturned by future leadership. Yep, we're headed over the cliff no matter what. Good thing my home's not on this earth!


May I ask a couple of questions? If you believe that, why vote? Why not just pray about this election that God's will be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the Republican Supreme Court Justices who have supported abortion and other liberal things.

Some seem to forget that the Courts are not to make law and the congress has balance check power over the Supreme Court. Congress could have passed a law at any time since Roe v Wade which outlawed abortion and stripped the courts of review power over that law. That's one of the powers of congress.


John, seems a time has come again to inject this into this topic for them, 'Conservative Republicans' are only 'Worldly Conservative,' & not even 'Christian Liberal,' let along 'Christian Conservative.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



May I ask a couple of questions? If you believe that, why vote? Why not just pray about this election that God's will be done?

If you believe that God will provide for your needs, then why do you work? If you believe that God will protect you, then why do you try to drive safely?The answer to those questions is the same as the answer to this one. The sovereignty of God does not negate the duty of men to act in obedience. Sometimes, in His sovereignty, God USES the actions of men to accomplish His will, and sometimes He works His will IN SPITE OF the actions of men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the Republican Supreme Court Justices who have supported abortion and other liberal things.

Some seem to forget that the Courts are not to make law and the congress has balance check power over the Supreme Court. Congress could have passed a law at any time since Roe v Wade which outlawed abortion and stripped the courts of review power over that law. That's one of the powers of congress.

John, the argument below is not specifically toward you but, to the question your comment calls to mind. The below is to convince others of another point of view, if that were possible in an online room of Baptisits.

We have to take actions as well as pray. The only action we can take besides assisting someone's campaign is to vote.

Since it is doubtful the legislature will change many if any laws, I want the closest thing to a conservative judicial bench as I can possibly get. I know Reagan's choices have not always sided with conservatism but none of the others have either. Here they are and who appointed them...


Scalia, Antonin Born 1936– Term 1986–present Apptd by Reagan
Kennedy, Anthony Born 1936– Term 1988–present Apptd by Reagan
Thomas, Clarence Born 1948– Term 1991–present Apptd by Bush, G. H. W.
Goldberg, Ruth Born 1933– Term 1993–present Apptd by Clinton
Breyer, Stephen Born 1938– Term 1994–present Apptd by Clinton
John G. Roberts† Born 1955– Term 2005–present Apptd by Bush, G. W.
Alito, Samuel Born 1950– Term 2006–present Apptd by Bush, G. W.
Sotomayor, Sonia Born 1954– Term 2009–present Apptd by Obama
Kagan, Elena Born 1960– Term 2010–present Apptd by Obama

I said it before, I don't want Obama appointing any more of them. I do believe that if God allows Obama to be re-elected and allows him to appoint other judges that it is his will and we deserve the results. I think the key in voting is to turn from our wicked ways; in voting it means toward the more God honoring individual for president.


2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

How wicked a judiciary are you willing to allow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best man standing right now to run our country is Ron Paul. He's the only one who predicted how we would get here blow-by-blow back in 2002, and he's the only one I believe who has the courage and principles to do what needs to be done to get us out of this mess. While I can vote for him, I will. My primary vote will be for him because I support the message of freedom and I hold dear the Constitution.

Electability is a whim of masses that changes with the wind. I intend to vote upon principles, not a whim.

Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best man standing right now to run our country is Ron Paul. He's the only one who predicted how we would get here blow-by-blow back in 2002, and he's the only one I believe who has the courage and principles to do what needs to be done to get us out of this mess. While I can vote for him, I will. My primary vote will be for him because I support the message of freedom and I hold dear the Constitution.

Electability is a whim of masses that changes with the wind. I intend to vote upon principles, not a whim.


If he is available on "super" Tuesday for Ohio's primary he will get my vote. I will lose my independent status but, I believe it's too important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for those of you who believe that "electability" should not be considered as a factor in the primary vote...Why would you vote for any of the Republican candidates on the ticket? Surely you know someone with better character and policies than all of the "official" candidates...Why not write his/her name in? Why restrict yourself to voting for someone who does not reflect your values and/or policy preferences in some way? If "voting for the best man" is your approach, why vote for any of the official Repub candidates? Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for those of you who believe that "electability" should not be considered as a factor in the primary vote...Why would you vote for any of the Republican candidates on the ticket? Surely you know someone with better character and policies than all of the "official" candidates...Why not write his/her name in? Why restrict yourself to voting for someone who does not reflect your values and/or policy preferences in some way? If "voting for the best man" is your approach, why vote for any of the official Repub candidates? Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Not all states allow write-ins.

There is also the option to vote for "none of the above".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Not all states allow write-ins.

There is also the option to vote for "none of the above".

So, I guess my follow-up question would be this: Will those of you who believe that "electability" should not be considered as a factor in your primary vote choose one of the above options (writing in or choosing "none of the above")? If not, why not? How does this idea play into the "lesser of two evils" concept? I'd love to hear from John and Rick especially on this. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning folks! Did I miss the talk on separation? Why would we ever consider voting for an unsaved person, a heathen? Neither Romney, nor Gingrich or Santorum has made repentence toward God and put his faith in Jesus Christ. Ron Paul's testimony is questionable and very shallow at best.

Romans 16:17 - "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we would consider voting for an unsaved person because the Constitution is to be our guide as the law of the land. I'd much rather see an unsaved person who will follow the Constitution than a saved person (remember Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter...both supposedly "saved" Baptists by their own profession) who will not. We are not voting on a pastor of a church, nor even on church membership. It's an entire different thing.

That said, you cannot know that none of these men haven't "made repentance" toward God. Granted, the Mormon and Catholic beliefs of Romney and Santorum pretty well show us that - but I do know some Mormons from my childhood who got saved as children, but their parents kept them in the Mormon belief and so that is what they are today (not saying Mitt is like that...just saying). I also know Catholics who got saved, but couldn't pull away from Catholicism. I know, people will say they weren't truly saved, but I personally will leave that up to the Lord. Gingrich was Southern Baptist. So, there is a good chance that he heard the truth. And although he converted to Catholicism (yes, dumb choice, I agree), he does claim to have sought forgiveness from the Lord for his sins. None of them are shining examples of any kind of Christianity. But, again: we aren't voting for a pastor. And there will never be a candidate, even if he/she is a Christian, with whom every Christian will agree.

Romans 16:17 is written for admonition within the church.

I won't vote for Ron Paul, Rick, for one very basic reason: he is into all of the crazy loon ideas that blame American government for everything. Yes, the government is corrupt in many ways. But I do not believe that the government was behind 9/11. Nor do I believe Israel was. RPaul does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "electability" argument is a fallacy on many levels:

1. Electability changes with the wind. Newt is a perfect example of this. One day he's bogging in the polls, the next day he is kicking people's heads into the ground and taking names. One speech, one debate, one blogger, one story, one commercial, one book, even one photo can rapidly swing the mood of voters and change everything. To base your vote on something that can change so quickly is ridiculous. I really should haven't to write anymore, but I will.

2. The goal is not to win; it's to win on sound principles. If all we're trying to do is win, then why don't we just have a one-party system that way we win every time. Republicans keep sending "electable" liberals out of the John McCain and Bob Dole "big tent" and they keep getting thumped by the other side. People are energized by voting for someone so much more than they are by voting against someone. This is why the “unelectable” Ronald Regan won in a landslide.

3. The electability argument guts a party of its true values. We keep sending liberals because we think they have a better shot of winning, and if they do in fact win we wind up being represented by liberals. Then the party we think is supposed to hold our values is filled with liberals that we voted for, and we're stuck voting for them election after election. Before you know it, instead of having a conservative party we have a liberal party going against a really liberal party. The voters aren't liberal, they're just chicken.

4. "Electability" in of itself is a fallacy, because it usually involves voting for a guy who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Liberal Republicans are not electable. The only reason G.W. won was because he talked like a conservative and the same thing for his dad. Ronald Regan preached conservatism and destroyed the opposition.

Next point...


Newt and Mitt are not really that electable.

Why even bother with the argument of electability when these are the two guys you have to point to. Newt is an incompetent and arrogant blowhard who has zipper problems. He's the Clinton of the Republican party, only without the charm. He can't lead, and he has enough skeletons in his closet to fill one of Saddam's mass graves. Women hate him because of his infidelity, he's a proven failure in leadership, and somehow he's supposed to be electable? The only reason he has a shot right now is because Mitt is his toughest competition.

Mitt is a plastic rich guy that no one can relate to. He's like the guy at the party that tries to be funny and everyone just silently stares at him after he tells a joke. There is nothing remarkable about his personality, if he even happens to have one down deep. He's teleprompter dependent, and the only reason he's beating Newt is because he has nice hair and isn't a gluttonous blowhard, because Newt is a much better speaker than Mitt. And he's a liberal! He's proud of his Romneycare (something Obama himself could have given birth to) and he talks about how great the New Deal was and is a supporter of gay rights.

So the electability argument is a complete fallacy in of itself, and it is even more of a fallacy when you have to consider the two guys we are supposed to think are "electable."

Lastly....


Ron Paul is principled.

He's the only candidate that knows how we got here and called it blow-by-blow back in 2002.

He's the only one that has a foreign policy that Netanyahu asked for explicitly before Congress, that is, "we don't need America's help."

The most pro-life candidate.

He's by far the best on homeschooling.

He's by far the best on the economy.

He's been married to the same woman since the Stone Age.

He's a born again Christians who doesn't use his walk with the Lord as a gadget for politics.

I was talking to a Romney supporter the other day, and I asked her what she "liked" about Romney. Her answer was not anything that she actually liked about Romney, it was that she just thought he had the best shot to win. There's nothing to really like about the guy! In her defense of why she liked Romney, she said, "One thing about Ron Paul is that you know what he believes..." That really sums up Paul. You know what he believes, and he keeps his word to uphold the Constitution. The other guys are about as reliable as William Jefferson's Gingrich's sexual fidelity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "electability" argument is a fallacy on many levels:

1. Electability changes with the wind. Newt is a perfect example of this. One day he's bogging in the polls, the next day he is kicking people's heads into the ground and taking names. One speech, one debate, one blogger, one story, one commercial, one book, even one photo can rapidly swing the mood of voters and change everything. To base your vote on something that can change so quickly is ridiculous. I really should haven't to write anymore, but I will.

2. The goal is not to win; it's to win on sound principles. If all we're trying to do is win, then why don't we just have a one-party system that way we win every time. Republicans keep sending "electable" liberals out of the John McCain and Bob Dole "big tent" and they keep getting thumped by the other side. People are energized by voting for someone so much more than they are by voting against someone. This is why the “unelectable” Ronald Regan won in a landslide.

3. The electability argument guts a party of its true values. We keep sending liberals because we think they have a better shot of winning, and if they do in fact win we wind up being represented by liberals. Then the party we think is supposed to hold our values is filled with liberals that we voted for, and we're stuck voting for them election after election. Before you know it, instead of having a conservative party we have a liberal party going against a really liberal party. The voters aren't liberal, they're just chicken.

4. "Electability" in of itself is a fallacy, because it usually involves voting for a guy who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Liberal Republicans are not electable. The only reason G.W. won was because he talked like a conservative and the same thing for his dad. Ronald Regan preached conservatism and destroyed the opposition.

Next point...


Newt and Mitt are not really that electable.

Why even bother with the argument of electability when these are the two guys you have to point to. Newt is an incompetent and arrogant blowhard who has zipper problems. He's the Clinton of the Republican party, only without the charm. He can't lead, and he has enough skeletons in his closet to fill one of Saddam's mass graves. Women hate him because of his infidelity, he's a proven failure in leadership, and somehow he's supposed to be electable? The only reason he has a shot right now is because Mitt is his toughest competition.

Mitt is a plastic rich guy that no one can relate to. He's like the guy at the party that tries to be funny and everyone just silently stares at him after he tells a joke. There is nothing remarkable about his personality, if he even happens to have one down deep. He's teleprompter dependent, and the only reason he's beating Newt is because he has nice hair and isn't a gluttonous blowhard, because Newt is a much better speaker than Mitt. And he's a liberal! He's proud of his Romneycare (something Obama himself could have given birth to) and he talks about how great the New Deal was and is a supporter of gay rights.

So the electability argument is a complete fallacy in of itself, and it is even more of a fallacy when you have to consider the two guys we are supposed to think are "electable."

Lastly....


Ron Paul is principled.

He's the only candidate that knows how we got here and called it blow-by-blow back in 2002.

He's the only one that has a foreign policy that Netanyahu asked for explicitly before Congress, that is, "we don't need America's help."

The most pro-life candidate.

He's by far the best on homeschooling.

He's by far the best on the economy.

He's been married to the same woman since the Stone Age.

He's a born again Christians who doesn't use his walk with the Lord as a gadget for politics.

I was talking to a Romney supporter the other day, and I asked her what she "liked" about Romney. Her answer was not anything that she actually liked about Romney, it was that she just thought he had the best shot to win. There's nothing to really like about the guy! In her defense of why she liked Romney, she said, "One thing about Ron Paul is that you know what he believes..." That really sums up Paul. You know what he believes, and he keeps his word to uphold the Constitution. The other guys are about as reliable as William Jefferson's Gingrich's sexual fidelity.

So, you're dodging my question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "electability" argument is a fallacy on many levels:

1. Electability changes with the wind. Newt is a perfect example of this. One day he's bogging in the polls, the next day he is kicking people's heads into the ground and taking names. One speech, one debate, one blogger, one story, one commercial, one book, even one photo can rapidly swing the mood of voters and change everything. To base your vote on something that can change so quickly is ridiculous. I really should haven't to write anymore, but I will.

By "electability," I mean "someone who has a chance of winning in the general election against Obama"....not "whoever is winning in the polls on any given day." Romney and Gingrich would fare far better against Obama than Paul or Santorum any day. It's just a fact.


2. The goal is not to win; it's to win on sound principles. If all we're trying to do is win, then why don't we just have a one-party system that way we win every time. Republicans keep sending "electable" liberals out of the John McCain and Bob Dole "big tent" and they keep getting thumped by the other side. People are energized by voting for someone so much more than they are by voting against someone. This is why the “unelectable” Ronald Regan won in a landslide.


The goal is "the lesser of two evils," as you've observed in previous posts, Rick. Whose principles are sounder: Gingrich's or Obama's? Romney's or Obama's? Obviously, both Paul's and Santorum's principles beat Obama's by a mile, too, but put either of them up against Obama, and you're definitely NOT choosing "winning on sound principles." You're choosing losing. You're choosing the greater evil.

3. The electability argument guts a party of its true values. We keep sending liberals because we think they have a better shot of winning, and if they do in fact win we wind up being represented by liberals. Then the party we think is supposed to hold our values is filled with liberals that we voted for, and we're stuck voting for them election after election. Before you know it, instead of having a conservative party we have a liberal party going against a really liberal party. The voters aren't liberal, they're just chicken.


I don't think of Gingrich as "a liberal" at all. And I don't think "a liberal" has the best shot of beating Obama, anyway.

4. "Electability" in of itself is a fallacy, because it usually involves voting for a guy who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Liberal Republicans are not electable. The only reason G.W. won was because he talked like a conservative and the same thing for his dad. Ronald Regan preached conservatism and destroyed the opposition.

Rick, I wish we had someone like Reagan to nominate...but we don't. I do agree that liberal Republicans are not electable.


Newt and Mitt are not really that electable.

Why even bother with the argument of electability when these are the two guys you have to point to. Newt is an incompetent and arrogant blowhard who has zipper problems. He's the Clinton of the Republican party, only without the charm. He can't lead, and he has enough skeletons in his closet to fill one of Saddam's mass graves. Women hate him because of his infidelity, he's a proven failure in leadership, and somehow he's supposed to be electable? The only reason he has a shot right now is because Mitt is his toughest competition.

Mitt is a plastic rich guy that no one can relate to. He's like the guy at the party that tries to be funny and everyone just silently stares at him after he tells a joke. There is nothing remarkable about his personality, if he even happens to have one down deep. He's teleprompter dependent, and the only reason he's beating Newt is because he has nice hair and isn't a gluttonous blowhard, because Newt is a much better speaker than Mitt. And he's a liberal! He's proud of his Romneycare (something Obama himself could have given birth to) and he talks about how great the New Deal was and is a supporter of gay rights.

So the electability argument is a complete fallacy in of itself, and it is even more of a fallacy when you have to consider the two guys we are supposed to think are "electable."

Lastly....


Ron Paul is even less electable than these two guys. He has proven this fact over several years, not just "today's poll." He hasn't ever been able to convince more than a very small (albeit loyal) constituency that he would make an effective leader. His views on policy do not resonate with most conservatives, let alone with the rest of the American population. He would not fare well in the general election at all, because he is viewed as a weirdo. I'm not calling him a weirdo...just saying that he has not been able to overcome that perception. IMO, a vote for Paul in the primary is a vote for the greater evil. (Notice I said "IMO"...I'm no expert on politics. My opinions are worth just what you're paying for them.) :) Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for those of you who believe that "electability" should not be considered as a factor in the primary vote...Why would you vote for any of the Republican candidates on the ticket? Surely you know someone with better character and policies than all of the "official" candidates...Why not write his/her name in? Why restrict yourself to voting for someone who does not reflect your values and/or policy preferences in some way? If "voting for the best man" is your approach, why vote for any of the official Repub candidates? Seems a bit inconsistent to me.


I do not vote for "the best man," or I'd write in Jesus Christ every time. I vote for the best candidate available. Unfortunately Jesus isn’t running or I’d certainly vote for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I do not vote for "the best man," or I'd write in Jesus Christ every time. I vote for the best candidate available. Unfortunately Jesus isn’t running or I’d certainly vote for him.

I think you're still dodging. (As we know, Jesus Christ--who is no longer on earth--is actually the One who is "running everything," no matter who is elected. Writing in His name would not be "voting for the best man." He's not American, and He's not on earth.)
What makes the official Repub candidates "available" and "the best man you know" "not available"? If you're able to write someone in, he's just as "available" as anyone else in America. If you're not able to write someone in, why not vote "none of the above," since you have to "compromise your principles" (as you say) to vote for any of the official Repub candidates? Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already said how I believe on this. Living on a sin-cursed earth, we are forced to make imperfect decisions every day. God expects us to do the best we can with what we have. I pick who I believe is the best candidate available. If Gingrich were running against Obama, I'd vote for Gingrich. But Gingrich is running against Paul, so I'm going to vote for Paul, because he's a better leader, more principled, keeps his pants on, stays faithful to the Constitution, is more conservative, doesn't flip-flop, and is a born-again Christian whose personal and public life reflects it without exploiting it.

Romney and Gingrich's so called "electability" is based on nothing but the whim of the people, so I think that over the long haul Paul is actually more electable than Newt or Mitt, because with Paul you actually have some substance behind what he's saying. I don't vote in the primary based on electability, but even if I did I'd vote for Ron Paul because I think a real constitutional conservative has a much better shot at beating Obama than a diet-Clinton or a diet-Obama does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best man standing right now to run our country is Ron Paul. He's the only one who predicted how we would get here blow-by-blow back in 2002, and he's the only one I believe who has the courage and principles to do what needs to be done to get us out of this mess. While I can vote for him, I will. My primary vote will be for him because I support the message of freedom and I hold dear the Constitution.

Electability is a whim of masses that changes with the wind. I intend to vote upon principles, not a whim.


Would it not be natural that the best man for the job, that the majority would not like him? Is he not also a Christian standing against homosexuality & abortions while believing our country has to live within its means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Would it not be natural that the best man for the job, that the majority would not like him? Is he not also a Christian standing against homosexuality & abortions while believing our country has to live within its means?


He is the against homosexuality, abortions, and is by far the best there is when it comes to the idea that we should live within our means. That being said, the best man for the job is not always despised by the masses: Regan wasn't, we was loved by the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already said how I believe on this. Living on a sin-cursed earth, we are forced to make imperfect decisions every day. God expects us to do the best we can with what we have. I pick who I believe is the best candidate available.

But what I am asking is what you mean by "available." Isn't a write-in candidate just as available as any of the official candidates? And wouldn't selecting "none of the above" be just as available as any of the candidates? Why not choose these options if you're really and truly voting on nothing but principle?


Romney and Gingrich's so called "electability" is based on nothing but the whim of the people,

The "whim of the people" (or the desire of the people) is the very essence of "electability"(although I've already made the distinction between actual "whims" and true electability). If the majority of the people won't vote for a man, he is not electable. Therefore, based on your own definition, Ron Paul is the least electable one. "The people" have never, ever shown (even in an isolated poll) that they would as a group support him. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a "write in" candidate as a real candidate. I feel the best thing to do is vote for the best candidate.

There's a difference between whim and desire. Whims come and go, but desires do not. The American people desire to have good jobs, they desire to be able to take care of their family without leaning on the government, they desire to be able to have a leader that is consistent and moral, they desire to have their troops at home unless there's a good reason to not, they desire to have less taxes, and they desire to have more freedom. Those are real substantial desires, and they are best represented by Ron Paul.

The reason Paul's followers are fiercely loyal is because they've figured this out. If Paul won the primary, people would notice and there would be a clear choice between a huge government and a small government candidate. If Newt or Mitt gets it, we'll be choosing between a big government candidate and a huge government candidate.

If Paul got it, over the course of the election process the American people would be educated to the principles that Paul embraces, and his electability would grow as a result of it. Paul's followers generally support him out of principle and real desire, which is why you don't see his ratings bounce around like crazy. The other guys are all over the map and a single news article or debate can throw them off kilter - there is no principle behind their "electability" and there won't be any when either one of them gets in the ring with Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By voting for the heathen who has the best chance to beat the other heathen we are compromising. If we did not vote for these people the political party would be forced to put forth genuine Christians with sound salvation testimonies. None of these guys is willing to shout from the mountain top that they are wonderfullly saved by God's grace and have a personal relationship with the living God who answers their prayers. They are not willing to offend the heathen and are therefore cowards.

Mrs. DePriest we know them by their fruits and it's rotten. Newt is not saved, he doesn't even have a basic understanding of bible doctrine like we do. He eats, breathes and sleeps politics and his free time was previously spent on adultery and now writing secular books.

Our failure is in not cultivating our own candidates for political office at all levels of government. We've let the heathen, the statists, take over.

Without God to answer to, the heathen only answers to their belly and definitely won't honor and defend the Constitution as it restricts their desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


So, I guess my follow-up question would be this: Will those of you who believe that "electability" should not be considered as a factor in your primary vote choose one of the above options (writing in or choosing "none of the above")? If not, why not? How does this idea play into the "lesser of two evils" concept? I'd love to hear from John and Rick especially on this.

I see Rick has already gave some good responses.

The fact is, electability is an unknown factor. JFK was once considered unelectable as president because he was Catholic. Reagan, Clinton and others were viewed as unelectable. On the other hand, one can look back to several who were predicted to be electable that were not.

If there is a worthy candidate on the ballot I will vote for them for whatever office they are running for. If there is not a worthy candidate for a particular office I will not vote for one of the unworthy candidates for that office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By voting for the heathen who has the best chance to beat the other heathen we are compromising. If we did not vote for these people the political party would be forced to put forth genuine Christians with sound salvation testimonies. None of these guys is willing to shout from the mountain top that they are wonderfullly saved by God's grace and have a personal relationship with the living God who answers their prayers. They are not willing to offend the heathen and are therefore cowards. Sadly, you are very wrong here, Swath. By NOT voting, not being involved in the political process (because Christian's aren't "supposed to" because this isn't our eternal home [note: I do not believe that, it is just common belief amongst too many Christians]), Christians have handed over control. And it wouldn't matter if they DID shout from the mountaintops that they are saved. A majority of people wouldn't believe them. Kinda like discussions we've had here before, tearing up politician's professions of faith because they don't follow the path some people think they should.

Mrs. DePriest we know them by their fruits and it's rotten. Newt is not saved, he doesn't even have a basic understanding of bible doctrine like we do. He eats, breathes and sleeps politics and his free time was previously spent on adultery and now writing secular books 1. We do know people by their fruits. And Newt has a bad history. But he has claimed that he's sought forgiveness. I choose to accept that, because I cannot see hearts. If he strays from this wife, he will prove to be a liar. And THEN we can say, "gotcha," since so many seem to be waiting to do so. 2. There isn't anything wrong with writing secular books (as long as they aren't filled with cussing and illicit sex).

Our failure is in not cultivating our own candidates for political office at all levels of government. We've let the heathen, the statists, take over. Yep. By not voting. I agree that it is a failure on the part of Christians. But it isn't because we haven't cultivated "our own candidates." What many have done is sat back and said Christians ought not to be involved. And so we've handed the political process over to the corrupt. And then we've grown complacent and quiet about what is right and what is wrong, blindly believing that all the while the corrupt government is robbing us of our liberties, we aren't to do anything but sit back and wait...

Without God to answer to, the heathen only answers to their belly and definitely won't honor and defend the Constitution as it restricts their desires. Actually this is not a true statement. The Constitution does not restrict their desires. The Constitution restricts the federal government. And that is the reason that even Roger Williams stated that, with the right legal document, even an atheist would be at the helm of government. And our founders understood as well, putting in the Constitution that there would be no religious test for federal office. If Americans, and particularly Christians, would do their duty as Americans, those in office would follow the Constitution - regardless of their religious beliefs. And our liberties would be intact.

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, 46 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...