Why don't you vote?

[Fez]

I stand on the opposite end of the spectrum as the voters because I believe it isn't Gods intention for us to vote in our leadership.

Which is a misapplication of Scripture. The Bible is silent on voting because it was not part of the culture in which the Bible was produced. There is nothing unbiblical or against God's will where voting is concerned. It is not promoted by the Scriptures, but neither does it violate or go crosswise with Scripture. To say it is goes against God's intentions is just not something you can defend from Scripture. The Bible is silent on this isue.

The bible is silent on voting for one reason I can think of. Democracy was not a practice that was "approved" by the Romans. The senate voted, but not the masses.

"The power of Rome lies not in the marble floors of the Senate, but in the dust of the Coliseum".

The Roman senate and various Emperors ignored this, and the dust choked the life out of Rome.

[AnotherSinner]

Alright, this baffles me, so clue me in on what logic you are using.

I live in a country with compulsory voting and none of the candidates are suitable. None of the candidates meet all the requirements [anti abortion, anti gay marriage, chaplains in schools, etc]. I legally must vote for someone whose ideals are different to mine, I have no choice. So I look a little different at the value of my vote.

I also know that NOT voting [or in my case, donkey voting] is in essence a vote for the ruling party, and I think it can be a bit of a cop out to not vote [or donkey vote], claim that you are not supporting immorality, when in reality your lack of vote supports that same immorality anyway. See what I mean? If none of the candidates in the upcoming American election are suitable (and from what I've read, none of them really are) then refusing to vote at all (in essence a vote for the ruling party) can be worse than voting for the least immoral candidate.

Honestly confused! If you can vote but aren't, why?

There is no place on the ballad for Jesus.

[gdemoss]

I stand on the opposite end of the spectrum as the voters because I believe it isn't Gods intention for us to vote in our leadership.

Which is a misapplication of Scripture. The Bible is silent on voting because it was not part of the culture in which the Bible was produced. There is nothing unbiblical or against God's will where voting is concerned. It is not promoted by the Scriptures, but neither does it violate or go crosswise with Scripture. To say it is goes against God's intentions is just not something you can defend from Scripture. The Bible is silent on this isue.

δημοκρατία = democratia is a greek word that was coined around 500 BC. It was the basis for the Athenian Government as I understand it. Your right in asserting that the Romans were not embracing democracy but they did have a system of voting albeit the masses had no vote.

As I have been meditating on this over the last couple of days, Peter and the replacement of Judas came to mind which is a combination of things in placing one in a position of leadership. They first collected up those who were qualified for the position. Then they appointed two. The final selection was up to God himself who knows the hearts of all men and was given by casting lots. In this I see the already appointed leaders having the role of narrowing the replacement choices down.

In Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem, we find that the final word spoken on the issues at hand was a unison agreement "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church," but it falls short of being a democratic vote.

I must at all cost try to look to the scripture concerning how I ought to act in every issue of life, even those that the scripture is silent on. In the case of voting for the leadership of secular society which is to govern both believer and unbeliever alike, I agree that it is difficult to come to a conclusion as to how to proceed.

I have to consider things like Paul appealing to Caesar and Jesus paying taxes. I have to consider that neither Jesus nor Paul or any other believer of the time was exposed to a government where they were allowed to participate in the election of officials. But where they were they took the appropriate measures to make sure that God was the one who was glorified in the selection. Jesus went up into a mountain to pray all night long before coming down to appoint 12 apostles. As was mentioned, Peter took great care to make sure that only qualified individuals were presented then let God make the final decision through the casting of lots. All the leadership of the church was ordained by those who were appointed to their positions, not by the laity but by those chose of God.

By the time we get to our present day and age the bible states that leadership is appointed by the laity and that it is not good to be done this way as they heap up unto themselves teachers having itching ears. This is the direct example with the perfect underlying principle that I see that says that I should not partake in such things as the people should not vote in their leadership.

I understand that you disagree and see my position as unbiblical and me as one who is insincere but I must stand by that which the scriptures have moved me to believe even when others think I am misrepresenting scripture. When the choice is voting between the lesser of the evil ones to be the lawmakers (moral enforcement agents) over us or not participating in the process of choosing leadership but trust that God will work all things to the counsel of his own will without my having to make an ungodly decision, I choose to abstain by reason of conscience.

The argument of not voting being a vote for the worst candidate doesn't make sense when any vote for evil is a vote for evil to rule over you.

If I did vote, I suppose I would resort to setting the candidates out before me and pray that God who knows the hearts of all men show me which one he has chosen to rule our nation, then cast lots for president, senate and representative. Albeit one of the choices ought to be none of the above so that God can show that he has not chosen any of them.

May the Lord God give you wisdom, knowledge and understanding in all that you say and do in this life.

Gary

[Guest Butero]

Alright, this baffles me, so clue me in on what logic you are using.

I live in a country with compulsory voting and none of the candidates are suitable. None of the candidates meet all the requirements [anti abortion, anti gay marriage, chaplains in schools, etc]. I legally must vote for someone whose ideals are different to mine, I have no choice. So I look a little different at the value of my vote.

I also know that NOT voting [or in my case, donkey voting] is in essence a vote for the ruling party, and I think it can be a bit of a cop out to not vote [or donkey vote], claim that you are not supporting immorality, when in reality your lack of vote supports that same immorality anyway. See what I mean? If none of the candidates in the upcoming American election are suitable (and from what I've read, none of them really are) then refusing to vote at all (in essence a vote for the ruling party) can be worse than voting for the least immoral candidate.

Honestly confused! If you can vote but aren't, why?

That is an excellent point. I couldn't have said it better. The only thing I would disagree with is that none of the candidates are acceptable. I do find Rick Santorum to be a good candidate, but he is a long shot. We will probably be faced with one horrible incumbant, and a mediocre challenger, assuming Romney is the GOP nominee? As bad as Romney is, he would be at least marginally better than Obama, so there is no question I will vote for Romney if he gets the nomination.

[~candice~]

Alright, this baffles me, so clue me in on what logic you are using.

I live in a country with compulsory voting and none of the candidates are suitable. None of the candidates meet all the requirements [anti abortion, anti gay marriage, chaplains in schools, etc]. I legally must vote for someone whose ideals are different to mine, I have no choice. So I look a little different at the value of my vote.

I also know that NOT voting [or in my case, donkey voting] is in essence a vote for the ruling party, and I think it can be a bit of a cop out to not vote [or donkey vote], claim that you are not supporting immorality, when in reality your lack of vote supports that same immorality anyway. See what I mean? If none of the candidates in the upcoming American election are suitable (and from what I've read, none of them really are) then refusing to vote at all (in essence a vote for the ruling party) can be worse than voting for the least immoral candidate.

Honestly confused! If you can vote but aren't, why?

There is no place on the ballad for Jesus.

And?

This isn't a theocracy. The fact that it isn't doesn't absolve us of our responsibility when it comes to voting.

[Guest shiloh357]

I stand on the opposite end of the spectrum as the voters because I believe it isn't Gods intention for us to vote in our leadership.

Which is a misapplication of Scripture. The Bible is silent on voting because it was not part of the culture in which the Bible was produced. There is nothing unbiblical or against God's will where voting is concerned. It is not promoted by the Scriptures, but neither does it violate or go crosswise with Scripture. To say it is goes against God's intentions is just not something you can defend from Scripture. The Bible is silent on this isue.

δημοκρατία = democratia is a greek word that was coined around 500 BC. It was the basis for the Athenian Government as I understand it. Your right in asserting that the Romans were not embracing democracy but they did have a system of voting albeit the masses had no vote.

As I have been meditating on this over the last couple of days, Peter and the replacement of Judas came to mind which is a combination of things in placing one in a position of leadership. They first collected up those who were qualified for the position. Then they appointed two. The final selection was up to God himself who knows the hearts of all men and was given by casting lots. In this I see the already appointed leaders having the role of narrowing the replacement choices down.

In Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem, we find that the final word spoken on the issues at hand was a unison agreement "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church," but it falls short of being a democratic vote.

I must at all cost try to look to the scripture concerning how I ought to act in every issue of life, even those that the scripture is silent on. In the case of voting for the leadership of secular society which is to govern both believer and unbeliever alike, I agree that it is difficult to come to a conclusion as to how to proceed.

I have to consider things like Paul appealing to Caesar and Jesus paying taxes. I have to consider that neither Jesus nor Paul or any other believer of the time was exposed to a government where they were allowed to participate in the election of officials. But where they were they took the appropriate measures to make sure that God was the one who was glorified in the selection. Jesus went up into a mountain to pray all night long before coming down to appoint 12 apostles. As was mentioned, Peter took great care to make sure that only qualified individuals were presented then let God make the final decision through the casting of lots. All the leadership of the church was ordained by those who were appointed to their positions, not by the laity but by those chose of God.

By the time we get to our present day and age the bible states that leadership is appointed by the laity and that it is not good to be done this way as they heap up unto themselves teachers having itching ears. This is the direct example with the perfect underlying principle that I see that says that I should not partake in such things as the people should not vote in their leadership.

I understand that you disagree and see my position as unbiblical and me as one who is insincere but I must stand by that which the scriptures have moved me to believe even when others think I am misrepresenting scripture. When the choice is voting between the lesser of the evil ones to be the lawmakers (moral enforcement agents) over us or not participating in the process of choosing leadership but trust that God will work all things to the counsel of his own will without my having to make an ungodly decision, I choose to abstain by reason of conscience.

The argument of not voting being a vote for the worst candidate doesn't make sense when any vote for evil is a vote for evil to rule over you.

If I did vote, I suppose I would resort to setting the candidates out before me and pray that God who knows the hearts of all men show me which one he has chosen to rule our nation, then cast lots for president, senate and representative. Albeit one of the choices ought to be none of the above so that God can show that he has not chosen any of them.

May the Lord God give you wisdom, knowledge and understanding in all that you say and do in this life.

Gary

Yeah Gary, you might want to take another look at who you are responding to as I did not raise any of the issues you addressed. I think might need to pay better attentino to who you are addressing in your posts.

[gdemoss]

I stand on the opposite end of the spectrum as the voters because I believe it isn't Gods intention for us to vote in our leadership.

Which is a misapplication of Scripture. The Bible is silent on voting because it was not part of the culture in which the Bible was produced. There is nothing unbiblical or against God's will where voting is concerned. It is not promoted by the Scriptures, but neither does it violate or go crosswise with Scripture. To say it is goes against God's intentions is just not something you can defend from Scripture. The Bible is silent on this isue.

δημοκρατία = democratia is a greek word that was coined around 500 BC. It was the basis for the Athenian Government as I understand it. Your right in asserting that the Romans were not embracing democracy but they did have a system of voting albeit the masses had no vote.

As I have been meditating on this over the last couple of days, Peter and the replacement of Judas came to mind which is a combination of things in placing one in a position of leadership. They first collected up those who were qualified for the position. Then they appointed two. The final selection was up to God himself who knows the hearts of all men and was given by casting lots. In this I see the already appointed leaders having the role of narrowing the replacement choices down.

In Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem, we find that the final word spoken on the issues at hand was a unison agreement "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church," but it falls short of being a democratic vote.

I must at all cost try to look to the scripture concerning how I ought to act in every issue of life, even those that the scripture is silent on. In the case of voting for the leadership of secular society which is to govern both believer and unbeliever alike, I agree that it is difficult to come to a conclusion as to how to proceed.

I have to consider things like Paul appealing to Caesar and Jesus paying taxes. I have to consider that neither Jesus nor Paul or any other believer of the time was exposed to a government where they were allowed to participate in the election of officials. But where they were they took the appropriate measures to make sure that God was the one who was glorified in the selection. Jesus went up into a mountain to pray all night long before coming down to appoint 12 apostles. As was mentioned, Peter took great care to make sure that only qualified individuals were presented then let God make the final decision through the casting of lots. All the leadership of the church was ordained by those who were appointed to their positions, not by the laity but by those chose of God.

By the time we get to our present day and age the bible states that leadership is appointed by the laity and that it is not good to be done this way as they heap up unto themselves teachers having itching ears. This is the direct example with the perfect underlying principle that I see that says that I should not partake in such things as the people should not vote in their leadership.

I understand that you disagree and see my position as unbiblical and me as one who is insincere but I must stand by that which the scriptures have moved me to believe even when others think I am misrepresenting scripture. When the choice is voting between the lesser of the evil ones to be the lawmakers (moral enforcement agents) over us or not participating in the process of choosing leadership but trust that God will work all things to the counsel of his own will without my having to make an ungodly decision, I choose to abstain by reason of conscience.

The argument of not voting being a vote for the worst candidate doesn't make sense when any vote for evil is a vote for evil to rule over you.

If I did vote, I suppose I would resort to setting the candidates out before me and pray that God who knows the hearts of all men show me which one he has chosen to rule our nation, then cast lots for president, senate and representative. Albeit one of the choices ought to be none of the above so that God can show that he has not chosen any of them.

May the Lord God give you wisdom, knowledge and understanding in all that you say and do in this life.

Gary

Yeah Gary, you might want to take another look at who you are responding to as I did not raise any of the issues you addressed. I think might need to pay better attentino to who you are addressing in your posts.

Absolutely amazing. I knew who I was addressing and I was addressing what is quoted. You seem to not be relating them together.

Either way, God bless.

Gary

[AnotherSinner]

Alright, this baffles me, so clue me in on what logic you are using.

I live in a country with compulsory voting and none of the candidates are suitable. None of the candidates meet all the requirements [anti abortion, anti gay marriage, chaplains in schools, etc]. I legally must vote for someone whose ideals are different to mine, I have no choice. So I look a little different at the value of my vote.

I also know that NOT voting [or in my case, donkey voting] is in essence a vote for the ruling party, and I think it can be a bit of a cop out to not vote [or donkey vote], claim that you are not supporting immorality, when in reality your lack of vote supports that same immorality anyway. See what I mean? If none of the candidates in the upcoming American election are suitable (and from what I've read, none of them really are) then refusing to vote at all (in essence a vote for the ruling party) can be worse than voting for the least immoral candidate.

Honestly confused! If you can vote but aren't, why?

There is no place on the ballad for Jesus.

And?

This isn't a theocracy. The fact that it isn't doesn't absolve us of our responsibility when it comes to voting.

Responsibility? Is it so wrong that I do not put my faith in man, but God? Either way you vote, it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils....

Edited March 15, 2012 by AnotherSinner

[~candice~]

Alright, this baffles me, so clue me in on what logic you are using.

I live in a country with compulsory voting and none of the candidates are suitable. None of the candidates meet all the requirements [anti abortion, anti gay marriage, chaplains in schools, etc]. I legally must vote for someone whose ideals are different to mine, I have no choice. So I look a little different at the value of my vote.

I also know that NOT voting [or in my case, donkey voting] is in essence a vote for the ruling party, and I think it can be a bit of a cop out to not vote [or donkey vote], claim that you are not supporting immorality, when in reality your lack of vote supports that same immorality anyway. See what I mean? If none of the candidates in the upcoming American election are suitable (and from what I've read, none of them really are) then refusing to vote at all (in essence a vote for the ruling party) can be worse than voting for the least immoral candidate.

Honestly confused! If you can vote but aren't, why?

There is no place on the ballad for Jesus.

And?

This isn't a theocracy. The fact that it isn't doesn't absolve us of our responsibility when it comes to voting.

Responsibility? Is it so wrong that I do not put my faith in man, but God? Either way you vote, it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils....

No one called you the devil. I don't know where you get the idea that voting = putting faith in man? My faith is in God. God put this government in place and we have a vote. I am going to use that voice to further His kingdom as much as I possibly can. Can we please dispense with the strawmen?

[AnotherSinner]

Alright, this baffles me, so clue me in on what logic you are using.

I live in a country with compulsory voting and none of the candidates are suitable. None of the candidates meet all the requirements [anti abortion, anti gay marriage, chaplains in schools, etc]. I legally must vote for someone whose ideals are different to mine, I have no choice. So I look a little different at the value of my vote.

I also know that NOT voting [or in my case, donkey voting] is in essence a vote for the ruling party, and I think it can be a bit of a cop out to not vote [or donkey vote], claim that you are not supporting immorality, when in reality your lack of vote supports that same immorality anyway. See what I mean? If none of the candidates in the upcoming American election are suitable (and from what I've read, none of them really are) then refusing to vote at all (in essence a vote for the ruling party) can be worse than voting for the least immoral candidate.

Honestly confused! If you can vote but aren't, why?

There is no place on the ballad for Jesus.

And?

This isn't a theocracy. The fact that it isn't doesn't absolve us of our responsibility when it comes to voting.

Responsibility? Is it so wrong that I do not put my faith in man, but God? Either way you vote, it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils....

No one called you the devil. I don't know where you get the idea that voting = putting faith in man? My faith is in God. God put this government in place and we have a vote. I am going to use that voice to further His kingdom as much as I possibly can. Can we please dispense with the strawmen?

I am sorry but I do not take lightly to be called names...even if it is as simple as being implied that I am Irresponsible. Truth be told....politics are LAST on my priority list. There are other responsibilites that come first for me. Yes, in a sense I do feel that voting is putting your faith in man after all it is a man, not God getting the vote. Sadly I have yet to see an honest politician.