Evidence for God from Science

I think Christians need to get in the real world about choosing a president. Given a much preferable scenario, in which we had at least one good/qualified Christian candidate to choose from, I could see why one would not vote for Romney. However, it would appear that Obama is a Christian in name only, as it seems to be just a convenient religious identification that has no spiritual significance, and only political usefulness. And so are we saying that a man MUST be a Christian before we will vote for them?

A pilot of a small, high-tech jet has died of a heart attack while flying a dozen people across country - of which all but one are Christians. It looks certain that it will crash unless someone can effectively take over and land it. Amazingly, there is ONE person on board who has significant experience being a pilot of a similar aircraft. But it turns out that this one available pilot happens to be a MUSLIM (or a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness - you fill in the cult follower). Would you refuse that one person qualified to do what ALL on that aircraft need (safely land the aircraft) just because he's a Muslim? Or would you gather, pray and lay hands on one of your most-respected, good Christian brothers (who has absolutely no piloting skills) and insist he be the one to take the controls instead? Not a chance - UNLESS you wish to be a part of "death by flying fish."

I've said it many times: We must choose to ride the best horse God provides us - not the one we WISH He had provided. God Himself has powerfully used unbelievers throughout history to accomplish His purposes, and time and again to help/defend/save His people from certain disasters. We ride down roads, cross bridges, eat foods, drive cars - all of which are often provided or produced by unbelievers. Do we refuse use of these things because they are not produced by fellow Christians? No!

Romney is not running for a spiritual office, but a secular one. Although far from perfect, he has experience we need and a good leadership and track record, in many (but not ALL) areas. Obama has a horrific track record, and clearly has a destructive political and financial philosophy. He knows nothing about business or finance. A non vote is decision that might have helped the less-preferable candidate win. And I don't think God wants us to refuse to choose amongst the choices He has provided, UNLESS one is just as bad as the other in all important areas. That is not the case between Obama and Romney. Why is it that when God gives us a "horse" to ride, we always want to know whether or not it is a Christian horse?

Without a more desirable candidate, why do some think it more honorable and spiritual to not vote at all? So God can and has always used non Christians to achieve important things, and yet we supposedly should not at least be discerning and evaluate the best choice AMONGST THE CHOICES WE ACTUALLY HAVE? Really? Why?

Philip, do you personally know any Christians who won't vote for Romney because of his religion? I know the media keeps talking about it, but I certainly don't know any. And I come out of a staunch Southern Baptist background (graduated twice from a school that formally lines up with the SBC on doctrinal issues and every professor is a practicing Southern Baptist)!

I'm pretty sure those conservatives refusing to vote for Romney (like myself) have very different reasons. Considering that I know a lot of conservatives who won't vote for him, and I know their reasons (as we've had long talks about what they are and they are not), I'm just skeptical that very many Christians who would have otherwise voted for him won't on account of his religion. I'm sure you can find a couple in a country this big . . . but I really, really, really don't think it's anything like a sizable portion of the electorate.

Yes, I do know of some. Have come across quite a few online. And I myself have worries about Romney. But I fear another 4 years of Obama FAR worse.

But, to me, the real question is, IF Romney is an overall much better candidate than Obama, why would anyone not vote for him, even if you have many problems with him? Unless one truly believes it really doesn't matter which one of them becomes president. And I think one would have to be pretty blind to not see a huge difference between what their political/economic/societal/governmental/constitutional views are. The same people who refuse to vote for the "lesser evil," make other choices between two disappointing things every day - it's called being in the REAL world. But these same people suddenly turn idealist when it comes to political choices.

Philip wrote:Yes, I do know of some. Have come across quite a few online. And I myself have worries about Romney. But I fear another 4 years of Obama FAR worse.

But, to me, the real question is, IF Romney is an overall much better candidate than Obama, why would anyone not vote for him, even if you have many problems with him? Unless one truly believes it really doesn't matter which one of them becomes president. And I think one would have to be pretty blind to not see a huge difference between what their political/economic/societal/governmental/constitutional views are. The same people who refuse to vote for the "lesser evil," make other choices between two disappointing things every day - it's called being in the REAL world. But these same people suddenly turn idealist when it comes to political choices.

I'll take your word for it that you know such people. Again, I don't, and I frequent several boards.

As to your other comments, different people just have different value systems. I've argued elsewhere on these boards (I think) why I won't be voting for Romney. I said in this thread early on I'll be voting for Virgil Goode. We all have to vote our consciences, sir. For you, the issues may be black and white. I don't know that it's either wise or entirely appropriate to assume that those who see shades of grade are somehow "pretty blind" or misguided in their values. Regardless, it's certainly not charitable.

Romney is not running for a spiritual office, but a secular one. Although far from perfect, he has experience we need and a good leadership and track record, in many (but not ALL) areas.

Philip,
I won't be voting for Romney, precisely because of his track record. Remember, I lived in Massachusetts when he was governor. He also is a flip flopper. He's a typical politician, and chooses a side in an issue, if that side gains him political power. His pro abortion stance, while in a very liberal Massachusetts, is a prime example. His belief in Mormonism, really has a minimal impact on my vote. And if I felt Romney would do a good job as president, his Mormonism wouldn't keep me from voting for him.
I believe we all need to vote our consciences. Some of our consciences allow us to vote the lesser of two evils. And some of our consciences don't allow us to vote that way. It's between each, and his own conscience.

I believe we all need to vote our consciences. Some of our consciences allow us to vote the lesser of two evils. And some of our consciences don't allow us to vote that way. It's between each, and his own conscience.

Rick, I hear you. And, believe me, I am no big Romney fan. Like all politicians, certainly to a significant extent, he's surfing the views of the majority, whatever those might be. But my question is, do you not find Obama FAR more dangerous than Romney? From an economic/financial perspective alone, Obama's perverse views of the appropriate role, intrusion and expansion of government, his misunderstandings of economics and finance, his failure to grasp the enormous threat that further expansion of our debt and living far beyond our means - and failure to address it - are all extremely scary. And here's the thing: not voting for Romney is essentially voting for Obama. So would you rather have Obama as president?

So, to you, it doesn't really matter which one of these two becomes president? Either would have an equally bad impact?

Philip wrote:not voting for Romney is essentially voting for Obama.

No it's not. That's so ridiculous. I hear that all the time, and every time I hear it, I think it's ridiculous.

Not voting for Romney is just that. Not voting for Romney. If Rick doesn't vote for Romney, but enough people do and Romney wins, would you say that Rick's essential vote for Obama wasn't enough to put him in office the same way as you would someone who actually cast a vote for Obama? Of course not.

It is true that those of us not voting for Romney are not helping him defeat Obama. But not helping Romney win is not essentially the same as helping Obama win. That's just a silly equation people make who are trying to guilt others into voting for their candidate. I could say, for instance, that in voting for Romney, you are really voting for Obama since you aren't helping Virgil Goode. And if you objected that Romney really has a chance, I could argue that I don't think he does, and that if people like you voted your principles, then Goode would have a chance. But all that's absurd. Or take it back a step further. Suppose I think that Romney doesn't have a chance (and many think just that). Suppose you voted for Romney in the primary. What would you say if I told you that a vote for Romney (now or in the primary) was a vote for Obama because Romney didn't have a chance? Again, you would object, and rightly so.

For all these reasons, the charge that abstaining from voting or voting third party is essentially a vote for Obama is not only absurd, it is offensive. Obama supporters may as well say that my abstaining from voting or voting third party is really just a vote for Romney. The whole notion is just silly, philip. It's also offensive, because it ridicules someone's principled stance in attempt to get them to violate their consciences. Try another approach.

Let's put it a better way: COLLECTIVELY, the effective IMPACT/END RESULT of those not voting for one candidate may well mean that the other candidate will win (depends upon the majority amongst those actually voting). And thus, collectively, non voting has a consequence in which one person wins and one is defeated. Principles are important, but just because you must make a tough, perhaps even unpleasant, decision to vote for one candidate, doesn't mean you have abandoned your principles; it just means that you are a realist who understands that there are measurable and significant differences between two undesirable candidates. And if one candidate has the strong potential to cause far more harm than the other, to not vote is really unconscionable. IF, however, it truly doesn't matter, then that is another thing.

Take the abortion thing: Romney's past views are disturbing. But he now strongly asserts that he is pro-life, would not be for a Supreme Court nominee(s) who had pro-abortion views. It would now seem highly unlikely that Romney would ever pick a nominee that has such views. We all know Obama's "it's above my pay grade" views on abortion. So do differences like these not matter? They could well impact the potential lives of millions. And this is but one example.

Is a man clueless about business, economics and finance just as okay to become president as one who well understands these? We make hard decisions about a variety of things, often from amongst far-from perfect choices, everyday. How is this different?

People who assert that no candidate meets their standards, and so thus they refuse to vote, also refuse to admit that there will likely be many real-world ramifications resulting COLLECTIVELY from those same non voters. Only if there are no significant differences between the candidates does it seem reasonable to not vote - and clearly there ARE highly significant differences between these two.

I believe God gave us democracy, a right to vote, a choice amongst candidates, and a brain with which to discern the best choice we can possibly make. And we must ride one of the ONLY horses put before us, as one we truly desire is unavailable/nonexistent. And it would strongly appear that both horses are obviously not even close to being the same. So does your idealism mean that you'd rather ONLY OTHERS select which horse you are going to ride, or would you like some input on the matter. And, clearly, you've been GIVEN the input. And make no mistake about it: you WILL be riding one of these two horses. So does it not matter a wit which one we ride? I think it does. And that it is naive to believe otherwise.

Of course, we collectively make a decision. You can't start from a collective basis and then say that as individuals my NOT doing X is actively promoting Y. Again, that's just absurd.

If you really believe that God gave us democracy, then you should thank God that people like me and Rick are exercising our democratic right to support the candidate of our choosing, even if it doesn't have the result YOU want. Trying to guilt people into supporting YOUR candidate or accusing them of REALLY supporting Candidate Y when they have expressly said they do not, and in fact actively vote for X (or abstain from voting all together) is just dishonest.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Romney; not Goode, not Johnson, not Obama, not anyone else. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama; not Romney, not Johnson, not Goode, not anyone else. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson; not Romney, not Obama, not Goode, not for anyone else. A vote for Goode is a vote for Goode; not for Romney, not for Obama, not for Johnson, not for anyone else. In other words, a vote for X is NOT a vote for Y. That premise is just obviously absurd on its face.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell every Romney supporter who gets on to me for not voting for him. You knew very well there were a LOT of us who would not vote for him in the general election but who would have willingly supported any one of the other Republicans. either you went ahead and supported him in the primary, or you just ASSUMED we would change our mind and didn't fight AGAINST him in the primaries. I told the RNC and Romney's campaign and everyone who would listen that I would NOT be voting for Romney in the general. They knew what they were doing when they nominated him. So. You Republicans made your bed and then you put Romney in it. You enjoy your relationship. I'll have no part of it. If Romney wins, I'll say exactly the same thing I did when Obama won: good for him and his supporters. I hope he does well and takes the country in the right direction. I'll say the same if Obama wins. And if you think Romney can't win without the support of people like me, then you all should have thought about that before supporting him in the primaries.

So by YOUR logic, nominating Romney was really a vote for Obama for POTUS. Assuming you think my refusing to vote for Romney makes it harder for him to win . . . if you don't make that assumption, then you don't need my vote. If you don't need my vote, then my voting for Goode or Mickey Mouse doesn't hurt Romney's chances one bit and so isn't a support for Obama. You can't have it both ways.

Concretely, the horse I've chosen is Goode. I'm sorry if that upsets you. He is closer to my principles than either Romney or Obama, so he has my vote.

Jac3510 wrote:

Philip wrote:not voting for Romney is essentially voting for Obama.

No it's not. That's so ridiculous. I hear that all the time, and every time I hear it, I think it's ridiculous.

Not voting for Romney is just that. Not voting for Romney. If Rick doesn't vote for Romney, but enough people do and Romney wins, would you say that Rick's essential vote for Obama wasn't enough to put him in office the same way as you would someone who actually cast a vote for Obama? Of course not.

In our two-party system, if you live in an area where your vote will actually matter, not voting for Romney/Obama IS a vote for the opposite candidate. It's simply a failing of our election system in the winner take all method.

Here's a video that will help explain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=plcp

You should vote for the two-party candidate whose position most matches your own in our current electoral system UNLESS your vote will not matter to begin with (non-swing state). Then you should vote for whoever you want to give them support.

Rubbish. I've already explained why.

Jac3510 wrote:Rubbish. I've already explained why.

Mathematically, it is IS the same, although it's not when considering the larger complexities of the human mind. It's just idealism versus pragmatism. I'm not much of a pragmatic myself, either, and I understand you. But the video lays out pretty clearly why a vote for a third party candidate hurts your most similar two-party candidate. It's not a vote for the other candidate, but it's close. You can create a computational model that uses AI algorithms and game theory to model the first-past-the-post system and you will always end up with a two-party system (this doesn't account for changing ideologies, but I think I could find a way to move those into the model).

I've voted independent (Constitution Party) in the last three elections, and will be again. Likely to be Goode. I think it is rubbish that Americans feel forced into voting for either one of these crooks, when a viable Constitution candidate is in play. People are just being drug around by the mainstream media thinking there is no escape from the two party system. If the people disenchanted with Hopenchange and the horrific GOP nominee would unite for a Constitutionalists, then guess what?

A Romney win just leads to more division and more politics. Same with Obama. Bad policies and practices will abound. Enjoy, my fellow citizens.

The assumption, BB, is that I would or ought to want to vote for a candidate "most similar" to the third party candidate I am voting for. You can't make assumptions about motivations. Further, suppose a substantial block of the Republican leaning electorate said, "We are not voting for Mitt Romney" and then did not. He would lose for sure. Now suppose that during the next primary season, that same portion of the electorate said, "We will NOT vote for Candidate X in the general election." Would the "powers that be" be more or less likely to promote Candidate X? I say less, precisely because they have an interest in gaining and maintaining power.

For me, this has much more to do with the direction of the Republican party and the country as a whole than it does between Obama and Romney. The video you linked to is based on short term thinking and for that reason, it draws flawed conclusions.

edit:

Need a like button for J's post.

Personally I don't think ANY candiate should serve with LESS than 51% of the votes of registered voters.
Mathematically speaking for a second:
300 million people in the US
100 Million voters
the highest vote winner gets 40% of all the votes = 40 million, which means that 60 million people do NOT want him.
SO you have 300 million people being ruled by a guy that 40 million people voted in.
Democracy?