Is not Voting a sin even if there are not Good Candidates?

[createdtoworship]

God uses Satan for his sovereign will.

So what point was it you were trying to make again?

That we should be believing in anything that God can use for His sovereign will?

actually it was not in the will of God that Satan rebel.

His perfect will was that all creation obey, and be Blessed, not disobey and be cursed.

 

[createdtoworship]

some here think that things we do, that are good. But not in the Bible, are not really good.

but on the contrary....many things that we can do as good, are not in the Bible.

"helping an old lady across the street for example"

how can you help an old lady across a street, when in the Bible days their were only gravel roads, or brick roads.

not streets, like asphalt etc.

But it's still a good thing.

There are countless examples.

but Here is a good book I am reading right now. I recommend all of richard weatherill's books, on alpha publishing.com (available as pdf for free)

Here is a good quote I read this morning:

"THERE is a simple formula which, if we would apply it in all our daily affairs, would make us intelligent and keep us out of trouble: Always think, say and do what is right; refuse to think, say or do what is wrong. ...
The formula contains so much elementary truth that the average person tends instinctively to accept it. Whether he has ever thought of it as a formula or not, he tends to base his life on it. He talks about doing the right thing, getting the right answer, living right, taking time to be right, and so on through a long string of familiar phrases.
He is gifted with an inborn persistent desire to be right in whatever he thinks, says and does, and it is a desire he cannot lightly disregard.
He tries to be right in the logical sense, because only thus can he satisfy his intelligence. He tries to be right in the expedient sense, because only thus can he satisfy his desires. He tries to be right in the moral sense, because only thus can he satisfy his conscience. He knows these three kinds of right comprise the simultaneous ingredients of absolute right, and he gets confused when there is seeming contradiction among them. He gets confused because he has instinctive recognition that they cannot really be contradictory. Despite anything he says to the contrary in his moments of error when he hotly tries to prove a point that is not true, he has instinctive recognition that his failure to achieve absolute right offers simultaneous evidence against his intelligence, against his sense of expediency, and against his morals."
-Richard Weatherill, in His book "the Tower of Babel"
​

(my summary of the Above)-Based on the inward law of nature, we tend not to cut in line, and feel remorse when we do. That same remorse happens when we don't give voting an honest effort. Even if we are a non believer in the Bible's morals, this law of nature exists in every human from birth.

added to the op

 

[RDKirk]

so I fail to see your response to how voting is not ethical.

I've never said it was wrong. My question, repeated, is: What in scripture says that refraining from selecting a human king is a sin?

 

[rambot]

For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. -- Romans 14.

Really? So when I brush my teeth in the morning, I am sinning? I mean, if we're going to be literal here....

 

[rambot]

Do you know what Sin is according to the Bible?

I was still hoping you could enlighten me as to what you are certain you think a sin is according to the Bible.

 

[RDKirk]

actually it was not in the will of God that Satan rebel.

His perfect will was that all creation obey, and be Blessed, not disobey and be cursed.

You're moving the goal posts! You said before God's sovereign will. Now you're saying God's perfect will. I see what you're trying to do.

And if you don't know the difference between them, I certainly do. Everything that happens, including Satan's rebelling, is within God's sovereign will, that which He planned before creation--nothing happens outside God's sovereign will, outside God's pre-creational plan. God's perfect will, however, is what He would have--His "druthers"--that will not occur. For instance, God's perfect will is that all people be saved, but it is within His sovereign will that not all will be saved.

 

[RDKirk]

Really? So when I brush my teeth in the morning, I am sinning? I mean, if we're going to be literal here....

I answered the question precisely as given in scripture.

Oh, do you want an interpretation?

Sure, one can brush his teeth in sin, if his purpose is nestled in glorifying his flesh rather than glorifying God.

 

[willowsbible]

I was still hoping you could enlighten me as to what you are certain you think a sin is according to the Bible.

Your tone is enough to tell me what you're about. Any Christian who reads the Bible knows what sin is.

 

[rambot]

I answered the question precisely as given in scripture.

Oh, do you want an interpretation?

Sure, one can brush his teeth in sin, if his purpose is nestled in glorifying his flesh rather than glorifying God.

So for the record and just to clarify, if I rape a woman for the glory of God, I am square?

Perhaps that was just me being a syncophant.

I'd take umbrage with how you've decided to cherry pick that verse out of the Romans 14 chapter that pretty clearly lines out the "Don't judge other people" mantra. It seems like that verse was picked out of context in a very, very real way.

 

[rambot]

Your tone is enough to tell me what you're about. Any Christian who reads the Bible knows what sin is.

Honestly, it makes me sad that a fellow Christian would say something like this. I'm sorry you've prejudged my faith without knowing a single thing about me. This was our FIRST interaction on these boards and I've only posted maybe, what 120 words? Perhaps if you were to meet me in person you wouldn't find me to be so objectionable.

The reason I asked is because people have different definitions of what sin is. There are many different definitions of sin; even very, very learned and studied men sometimes disagree to its exact definition. I was hoping to hear what your definition was.

To be honest, I'm much less interested now.

Regardless though, I hope you week finishes off in joy.

EDIT:
P.S. As an aside, the only definition I received in regards to that question provided a definition of sin I have never actually seen before. I would wager your and my definition of sin may not be quite so distant from each other. MIGHT not be....

 

[RDKirk]

So for the record and just to clarify, if I rape a woman for the glory of God, I am square?

Perhaps that was just me being a syncophant.

I'd take umbrage with how you've decided to cherry pick that verse out of the Romans 14 chapter that pretty clearly lines out the "Don't judge other people" mantra. It seems like that verse was picked out of context in a very, very real way.

No, I see the verse very much in its context. That's just you making a presumption of what I'm thinking, when you don't know me very well at all.

Do you think you can rape a woman for the glory of God? Do you really? Or are you just making a cynical remark?

 

[willowsbible]

Honestly, it makes me sad that a fellow Christian would say something like this.

Thank you for contributing proof to what I suspected as your attitude.

Just so you know, I'd think you would be sad that you said something like this to a fellow Christian:I was still hoping you could enlighten me as to what you are certain you think a sin is according to the Bible.

I defer to RD Kirks observations of your attitude in this thread. Because it reads in his remarks that I'm not the only one who notices your attitude.

Your P.S. for instance:I would wager your and my definition of sin may not be quite so distant from each other. MIGHT not be....

 

[rambot]

No, I see the verse very much in its context. That's just you making a presumption of what I'm thinking, when you don't know me very well at all.

Do you think you can rape a woman for the glory of God? Do you really? Or are you just making a cynical remark?

It doesn't matter what I think. I can catagorically say I don't think that but I am not everyone and I would wager that there have been people throughout history who would, in fact, say that. You threw up that as your CATAGORICAL definition of sin. I threw out an example because it seems ridiculous to think it but does it fit in your definition.
But hey, I can understand that it is cynical/insane; like a faaaaaaaar side example.
So if you'll permit me to follow with a few more:

If I choose to vote by doing so through faith: It is not a sin.
If I choose to NOT vote and do so by and through faith: It is not a sin.

I brush my teeth because my dentist says I should and it will help keep my teeth whiter; This means that while I brush my teeth, I would be sinning then, yes?

My definition of a sin is that which goes against the laws of God or the teachings of Jesus. And I'm really not alone on that front. This idea that if you don't do something in FAITH you are sinning, doesn't make sense to me.

No, I see the verse very much in its context. That's just you making a presumption of what I'm thinking, when you don't know me very well at all.

I know you're being snarky and this is essentially a nonsequitor.
I see the Romans 14 verse as, essentially saying that we should not put stumbling blocks in front of other believers. If there are believers who believe it's not right to eat meat, then you respect that. If there are believers who think it's okay to eat me, you respect that. The point is that these convictions are planted in your OWN relationship faith and belief in God and (essentially) the verse seems to be saying that that is then between you and God and let nobody alter that. And, as I see it, the verse you are quoting then speaks to the idea that if you are acting against your own convictions, you are sinning.
I mean, other translations CLEARLY are referring to the consumption of clean and unclean food RIGHT in the very verse you are quote. So how could that verse, chipped out like that, really be considered a GLOBAL definition of sin? And how is it that it runs counter to the most common definition of sin?

 

[rambot]

.

 

[createdtoworship]

I've never said it was wrong. My question, repeated, is: What in scripture says that refraining from selecting a human king is a sin?

by not voting, you are silently allowing wicked rulers to rule, so you can't get out of it that easy.

But I see what you mean.

abstaining from voting as a Christian because, of the evils of politics....is a temptation.

yet we are called to be an example of light, and the only way you can be light, is if it's dark around.

if you take your light, and you place it amongst other lights, then your light is just hidden in a church somewhere.

we need to get our hands dirty, and get involved with society.

I am reminded by this daily as a I listen to one of my favorite songs:

be one by natalie grant

 

[createdtoworship]

You're moving the goal posts! You said before God's sovereign will. Now you're saying God's perfect will. I see what you're trying to do.

And if you don't know the difference between them, I certainly do. Everything that happens, including Satan's rebelling, is within God's sovereign will, that which He planned before creation--nothing happens outside God's sovereign will, outside God's pre-creational plan. God's perfect will, however, is what He would have--His "druthers"--that will not occur. For instance, God's perfect will is that all people be saved, but it is within His sovereign will that not all will be saved.

actually it was a different fallacy, it's called non sequitur. It doesn't follow. Moving the goal posts would be going to another topic, because I lost this one.

but a fallacy, non the less....good call.

but actually I would be wrong again, it's not primarily non sequitur, it would mostly be equivocation of God's perfect and sovereign will.

so the better response would be that While it was in God's Sovereign will, it was not in God's perfect will.

But my point still sort of stands.

none the less.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Both options suck and neither have a good character and embarassments to our country.

I don't like the third party candidates much, either.

I'm an independent, but I would be a Democrat if they were pro-life and promoted the work ethic. Those two issues are why I lean Republican, that and Israel. The GOP is a bit extreme fiscally, imo.

This is my first election and I hate all the options. I'm tempted to vote for Gary Johnson, even though I don't agree with him on alot, he's better than Trump or Hillary.

 

[createdtoworship]

Both options suck and neither have a good character and embarassments to our country.

I don't like the third party candidates much, either.

I'm an independent, but I would be a Democrat if they were pro-life and promoted the work ethic. Those two issues are why I lean Republican, that and Israel. The GOP is a bit extreme fiscally, imo.

This is my first election and I hate all the options. I'm tempted to vote for Gary Johnson, even though I don't agree with him on alot, he's better than Trump or Hillary.

a split vote, will put your worst choice in office. that's what primaries are for, and why Cruz dropped. Cruz was not battling hillary, He was battling trump, and trump won, it mirrors 2008 when Mike Huckabee lost the primary to John McCain. Christians could have turned that one too. A more conservative republican nominee will contrast the stark liberals of late. I wish more conservative leaders and christians gained nominations, but they are not what people want, so they will not win. Christians have lost their voice. We are fractioned and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, we think we know about the candidates. We didn't know obama would go this far left. But He did. And she will too. See,

the liberals aren't split. The left is the left. No split there.

we are. (my vote for trump is only a loud ringing sound in my ear of the fact that more christians need to be politicians- and thats all it means)

we are the only ones with conscience, and ethic behind us. So we feel guilty voting for trump, yet a split vote, will put hillary in the white house. What we will have is two losers, trump and gary. And one winner, Hillary.
So now is the time to start finding things we like in Trump, not the opposite. At least Trump is not married to a sexual predator, and a rapist, and lies under oath for their spouse to cover their tracks. Clintons have a horrid rap sheet. A whole book is out on their lascivious lifestyle. Which I speak in another thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/hillary-threatens-sex-abuse-victims-of-her-husband.7938027/

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

I figured I'd reluctantly vote for Trump.

I liked Carson and Kasich, but unfortunately, Trump got nominated.

 

[createdtoworship]

I figured I'd reluctantly vote for Trump.

I liked Carson and Kasich, but unfortunately, Trump got nominated.

tomorrow pro-family leaders, christian leaders, etc, will meet with trump.

While trump is a moderate to loose conservative, He will hear our the requests of these groups.

depending I hope, on the percentage that vote for him, his constituents will hopefully be heard and aided.

(please pray for that meeting)