Politics is often a touchy subject. Take, for instance, the Trump. In the campaign season of 2016, I earned a lot of ire from friends and family because I spoke about and even blogged about what I considered to be the danger of Trump. I was so clear then that even the dreaded Dan T. linked to an entry and concurred wholeheartedly with my disavowal of my party's candidate. I remember in July, 2016, my wife and I were on a trip with my parents and were visiting my dad's brother and family. The topic of politics came up around the table and I held my peace until someone asked me directly. For the sake of honesty, I told them, "No, I won't be voting for Trump." My father was shocked and my uncle was actually angry. You see, what we knew about Trump was that he was a womanizer and bragged about feeling up women. Sure, he probably had some good economic sense and other ideas, but he had what I considered to be a deranged morality. To my family, at least, he wasn't Hillary, so any vote that was not for Trump was a vote for evil. My father said, "Sure, Trump's not a paragon of virtue, but his VP is going to be Mike Pence, and he's a Christian." "Dad," I said, "are you suggesting I vote for Trump hoping he'll get assassinated?" Isn't it interesting, then, that Trump won without my vote? Isn't it interesting, now, that nearly every Trump fan, Christian or otherwise, presented with the name, "Pence," turns up their nose in disgust? Trump castigated his own VP for failing to bend to Trump's will and hoped the mob would hang him. And his devoted fans agreed ... one of the warnings I had given about Trump. I warned that he would normalize the unthinkable for the Right and, even, for Christians, and he did.
I didn't shift in 2020. His record was mixed and he had done some good things, but any president can do some good things. His character hadn't changed and his supposed "conversion to Christianity" looked to be misinformation and I didn't think he would uphold my concerns for the nation, so I voted against him again. In neither case did I vote for the Left. My conscience wouldn't allow that, either. It didn't matter. My own friends and family were outraged again and I was the bad guy for voting my conscience. But here is the irony. While my friends were kicking me to the curb, as it were, for violating their sacred cow, the Left was kicking me to the other curb for ... being conscientious. They accused me of supporting Trump and loving Trump and still do to this day. My friends were mad at me for failing to do what my enemies are sure I did. And none of them are shifting today. I'm conversely a Trump-hater or I'm a Trump-lover (and certainly not a patriot or even a good guy). I can't win.
Can I let you in on a secret? I know, it's not fair. They won't admit it and it won't stop ... on either side ... but it's not an issue for me. I don't believe that the ends justify the means. I don't believe that it's okay to encourage wrong in the hopes of gaining something right. I don't believe that I should run my life on the lies of other people. And gaining the approval of others is not my aim in life. Let's face it, I've not been too successful at that this far in my life. Why bother now? So I will, once again, vote my conscience this year and live with the consequences ... from both sides. I'm only a little sad that voting my conscience so rarely gets anyone elected. That's either a sad commentary on my conscience or a sad commentary on my nation.
39 comments:
While I don't agree with your conclusion, I completely support you in that decision. I think that your logic can lead to never voting for any candidate that isn't "perfect", when none of them are. Every election is a vote for the candidate who is less bad at this point. Strangely enough, I am leaning toward the conclusion that him winning is the best way to get him off of the political stage and move on. If he loses, what's to stop this again in 4 years.
If I understand that it is the Christian mandate to participate in the welfare of the nation in which we live and to vote, then voting for no one cannot be an option. And, obviously, voting for only the "perfect" candidate is an impossible task, as you indicate. I have no delusions of finding any mythical "perfect candidate" because I have no delusions that I myself am not perfect, but I find it very hard to vote for Candidate X who is slightly better than Candidate Y, both of whom I'm quite sure will do serious harm to my country. In truth, I've never voted on the basis of "perfect," but, until recently, there has always been candidates who were benign enough that disaster didn't seem to be looming. No longer, I fear. So I'm arriving at "vote for less catastrophe" and telling myself that's the best I can do for my nation. My problem, of course, is that those who oppose me will continue to castigate me for beliefs I don't have. Don't I have enough objectionable views (the reliability of Scripture, the need for Jesus, the truth of the Gospel, etc.) to hold their attention?
I agree that voting no should not be an option. I also agree that there is no perfect candidate, that any vote for any candidate is a compromise on our Christian ideals. I've concluded that voting for a third party or write in is functionally a vote for the candidate who aligns with me the least, which I find unsatisfactory. I also find that voting for the one who is "less bad" is more matter of degree than anything else. So, I then have to wonder what is the line of "less bad" that I can't cross. In the current election, I believe that we're faced with a choice of one candidate who would legitimately be a disaster and one who might not be a disaster. A candidate who would do virtually noting I would say is "good" and a candidate who will likely do at least some things that are "good".
None of this is intended to castigate you for your decision. I respect the fact that one's vote is an individual choice and that they are the ones who have to make and live with that choice. I am pointing out that I, and a lot of people I respect, have reached a different conclusion. Both of which, I believe, are within the realm of correct decisions for believers.
I'm not opposing you at all. I realize that there are those who will, and I've gotten plenty of flak even though I share their basic conclusion. That I personally disagree with you conclusion, but support you in doing what you think best, is (I hope) following the principle of liberty on things that are non essential.
Yes, you (and I) do have some positions that draw opposition and don't need to defend positions that we do not hold.
I do firmly agree with you that YHWH is sovereign and that He alone rules over HIs creation. I firmly agree that it it is possible, maybe likely, that YHWH will superintend the election of a candidate as a means to bring judgement on US Christians. Mostly, I rest in the assurance that YHWH is in control and that no matter who wins in November that He remains on His throne.
Thanks for reminding us all of the bottom line: YHWH is in control.
I have never understood the argument that a vote for a third party is a vote for the side you're against. Both the Right and Left say the same thing to the same person. I admit my vote was a throw away vote, but then my vote has always been a throw away vote because I've lived in blue states where winner takes all in the electoral. But my throw away vote cannot be a vote for either side because both sides accuse my vote of being for their opponent. It is simply logically impossible. And in 2019, the gap was not small enough that two votes swayed the election.
People may not agree with my reasons, but it is impossible to accuse me of voting for your opponent when I vote for neither side.
“Ironic?” The entire topic of politics does seem to me like a “damned if I do, damned if I don’t” situation. Of course, some of us “do,” and others of us “don’t.” And all of us are damned? Perhaps so, this election.
Coincidentally, today’s post at another blog where I read daily very much relates to Stan’s for today. I highly recommend it; it is titled, Seven Thoughts on Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils, and can be found here: https://michellelesley.com/
I do not comment on politics here much at all (and I would never attempt to debate or discuss that topic here). However, I will share this perspective of mine (for what it’s worth).
Having lived in central NJ all my life until 1987, I was quite aware of Trump’s activities and behavior over several decades, as he operated in nearby NYC; Atlantic City, NJ; etc., during the 70s & 80s. A good number of people residing in NJ had a very low opinion of Trump by the end of his “real estate mogul” era--given his various failed business ventures, legal antics, marital discrepancies, pompous personality, etc. When he eventually ran for President, it was considered by many of us to be a lark--yet another venture to feed his enormous ego; when he won the election, many of us figured he was probably just as surprised as the rest of us. “Now what do I do?” Indeed. Without any formal political experience or skills, a mixed business tycoon record, and questionable character, what could we expect? We watched and waited to see. I remember being delighted at some measures he took right away to support conservative views (for example, the banning of sex-change operations and tolerance of trans-stuff in the military); happily there were many more good changes. I also noticed the massive staff turnover that was inevitable under the “toxic boss” situation he no doubt created, as one staff member after another abandoned a sinking ship, so to speak, or quit in frustration, causing an inefficient use of resources and time. The only saving grace, as I saw it, was Pence’s presence and possible influence on Trump. I prayed regularly that God would use Pence to restrain or redirect Trump’s hand, and I trust that God did in fact do that (even as I suspect that working with Trump was a huge challenge for Pence and that he was very much stymied overall). So I ended up with very mixed feelings about Trump as President (and his behavior since leaving office is a whole ‘nother story!).
David, your comment is precisely why I said our current system is a threat to democracy. "Oh, don't vote for who you like! It's not within our limited, two-party system, and you aren't allowed to like anyone else." It's like saying, "You can choose to watch anything you like ... on the only two channels you have available."
I'm with you. Most of my votes have never helped elect anyone. I don't vote for that reason. I vote to express my views, to vote for the best option I can think of, and to follow my conscience. I vote, then, as a matter of principle, not practicality.
By the way, she says it's not a sin not to vote. I'm not sure I wholly disagree, but God commanded His people to seek the best for the place where they were (Jer 29:7), and we are definitely commanded to make disciples (Matt 28:19-20). If "the best" is my silence and "no vote" can reach people for Christ, I might not protest much. I'm just not sure that's the case. (In other words, I'm looking beyond the politics or even the election outcome and considering my duty to the people around me.)
She did justify that stance at her point #2. (The article was a repost from 2016, so I was aware of her position on that and am comfortable with it.) I liked her reasoning for sorting through the three common positions she presented. I was struck at the coincidence of seeing that article this morning right before reading your post. I do appreciate your feedback on it.
Stan, just so I understand (with apologies for being dense): Are you telling us here that your conscience had led you to not vote at all in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections (and you won’t for 2024 either)? (I don’t want to misunderstand.)
David, as I see it if the goal of an election is to get more votes than one's opponent. If people fail to vote for one candidate it gives the opponent an advantage. I'm not happy about the verbiage "a vote for the other side", but there's a sense where that's the case. For example, we're seeing reports that 32 million Christians are going to sit out this next election. That's more than enough to affect the outcome (depending on the distribution) of an election.
I'm not going to suggest that you not vote however your conscience dictates. I am suggesting that your vote does have potential consequences that might be negative.
Stan,
I agree that the limits imposed by the two party system is problematic as you suggest. Yet until a robust 3rd party develops, we are functionally limited to three choices. 1. Vote for one of the candidates of the two parties. 2. Vote 3rd party.write in. 3. Don't vote.
I'd also suggest that regardless of your POTUS vote, that the down ballot races might actually be more important and should be voted on.
I fully support voting on principle, if that's your choice.
Yes, Lorna, she justified her stance, but she did it by saying there is no biblical warrant for Christians voting or participating at all. I disagree with her justification.
No, I voted in every election and will do so again this year. The last two, however, I voted for a third party whom I could actually support. Not so sure about this next one. The stakes seem ... higher. Kamala is anxious to up the rates at which our nation brutally murders the most defenseless people in the world and, while I find Trump's position -- "someone else's problem" -- insufficient, at least he's not going to push more murders on us.
Thank you for clarifying; I see that I did misunderstand. I suppose a third-party option is possibly better than the other two choices in many elections, but that wouldn’t necessarily be true each time. For example, are only Democrats pro-abortion and a third-party candidate would never be? In any case, as you say, they won't get elected, so the point would be moot.
Wow. I'll set aside a couple of outright falsehoods and try to focus on what matters: the welfare of the nation.
I, too, questioned the sense of voting for Trump in 2016. I was a Cruz guy, but Cruz didn't win the nomination. Thus it was a choice between Trump and Hillary and Hillary was definitely unworthy. Trump seemed to be as well, but at least campaigned on things more desirable than anything Hillary would ever do, particularly in the selection of potential SCOTUS personnel. I held my nose and voted expecting to wake up to President Shrillary, but the Lord was looking out for us. For though I waited for the other shoe to drop, within the first year Trump was proving himself to be more fit for the office than many even now continue to refuse to acknowledge.
I totally disliked his selection of Pence as VP, as he did not comport himself well as Indiana governor in my opinion, caving on a religious freedom bill there. Thus, he was spineless and his spinelessness manifested again in the counting of Electoral votes in 2020. He did indeed have the ability to set aside questionable ballots, and until the fake insurrection began, they were in the process of hearing from Congressional Republicans about problems with the election. Because of the questionable timing of the start of the disturbance, that process was suspended and ONLY Pence could have made a difference.
I just saw a snippet of an interview in which Trump speaks of his relationship with Pence and his attitude toward him. To suggest he would have sided with anyone truly seeking to lynch Pence is rank absurdity.
So, with that aside, it's clear to anyone paying attention that in the aggregate, the Trump presidency was an especially good one...quite good enough to justify a second term, if one truly cares about the welfare of the nation, which is the only concern any voter should have when choosing for whom one should vote. Moses was a murderer. So was David and David was also an adulterer. Clearly, some would never have voted for either of these two dudes had they been on a ballot. Yet....
There are more than three parties. There are several. But only two matter because none of the others draw enough support to matter. Thus, to vote for any but one of the two major parties is to actually vote for the party of the two less preferable. Yes. Those from both sides will say the same thing, but what matters is which is less favorable between them. If a Dem says that not voting means one is actually helping Trump, that's not a bad thing given the Democrat party these days and the candidates they put before us. The evil Trump is still the better choice for America.
Ironically, I've been unable to find anyone who can tell me how they were harmed by Trump's presidency...which of his policies hurt them personally or anyone they know. And while I can speak on policies of his I don't like, the nation was doing quite well because he was elected, and that's what matters...the COUNTRY benefited. It's likely to benefit again, though there's now more going wrong than had been going wrong before his 2016 win.
The idea that one's state leans too heavily one way or another that one's vote doesn't matter is foolish, and for those who use it as an excuse to refuse their vote or to vote third party are not only not making their voices heard, but they are indeed leaving it all to others to get it right, which is a really bad manifestation of buck passing.
The "conscience vote" sounds noble, but it's more prideful. The "YHWH is in control" response is lazy regardless of how true the claim is. Indeed, it's a moot point, because why do anything? Why feed your kids, because YHWH is in control, right? I don't think it works that way at all.
It's incredibly and blatantly easy to see the suffering of so many since the 2020 was stolen. It was only the degree to which that suffering manifested which couldn't be predicted, but suffering was guaranteed. The nation certainly wasn't going to improve under Harris/Biden. And as sorry as the state of the nation has become due to those who rejected Trump in 2020, it will not at all improve under Harris/Walz. There's no third party which is better for one's vote, if that third party can't win. How one's conscience can be clear for being complicit in this degradation is beyond me.
I guess it's just what we should expect. If I don't say what they want, they'll be mad. It will not be, "Well, you're entitled to your opinion." It cannot be, "We're just having a conversation." There are too many hills for people to die on, and Trump is one. I guess he's in the Bible ... "the last trump"?
I saw her stance as there is no direct command to vote, rather than no warrant. She left it as a matter of conscience (as I do). Also, I thought her reply to the reader who asserted that “Sitting this election out as a Christian would be sinful” was well stated.
In any case, Stan, I think that it’s a shame that your family and friends gave you grief about your voting decision. I would never presume to tell another person how to vote or to argue with them about their decision. Everyone makes up his or her own mind about this. To do otherwise is rude and obnoxious, in my mind.
I'm just curious, Lorna. Do you think it is valid to say that the best thing we can do for our nation is to not vote (at least, at times)? Or do you think the command to seek the welfare of the nation in which you live is not a command for us? Honest questions ... for information.
Since your inquiries to me here are always so respectful (and I’m oblivious to any eye-rolling that might be happening on your end :), I never mind expounding a bit.
My stance is that the degree to which one becomes involved in politics (or attempting to direct the running of the government) is a personal choice--and my choice has been to abstain. I think that “seeking the welfare of the nation in which you live” can be fulfilled in a number of ways, including praying for our nation and its leaders, participating in social improvement programs, establishing relationships where evangelism can take place, being a good neighbor or employee, etc.--living a peaceable life (1 Tim. 2:1-2). (“Welfare” can have various definitions, beyond the specific activities in which the government is active.) Helping to place public servants in government jobs (i.e. voting in public elections) is just one part of seeking to affect our society, to my mind. I figure I can help choose our leaders (and get resentful if my choice is ignored), or I can defer that to others (and stay peacefully neutral). Personally, I have never been convinced that my involvement in politics would hold any real value--to me, my neighbors, or the government; I just don’t have the desire in me to become an informed, eager participant. Perhaps I have a blind spot. Also, politics always seems so divisive that I want no part of it (in order to stay a nice person).
I realize that my views might be in the minority (especially at your blog, where I might just be your resident enigma!), but I figure my nonchalance about politics helps balance the extremists on the other end :).
Of course one is entitled to one's opinion. "Opinions" are a common topic of conversation. Sort of like what's going on here.
"Thus, to vote for any but one of the two major parties is to actually vote for the party of the two less preferable. Yes. Those from both sides will say the same thing, but what matters is which is less favorable between them." Am I the only one that didn't understand this statement?
At this point, I'm not sure who you're arguing against, Marshal. Both the people in this blog that have admitted to not voting for a Republican or a Democrat in the last two elections have outright said they plan to vote for Trump this time. Personally, I'm not voting for him because I think he'll do a good job at righting this ship (I don't think that is actually possible for anyone at this point), nor because I somehow find him a less detestable human that I don't want representing us to the world. And even the most arguably best thing he did (getting Roe overturned) simply showed just how deserving of judgment this nation is. Most of the politicians that were pro-life before have turned out to actually be pro-less-abortion. You can go ahead and keep touting all the great things he did, but he is going to have to spend the next 3 years undoing what Biden did, his 4th year will simply be a lame duck, and at best he'll get things back to early 2020. But I'm not even hopeful he'll be able to do that because he has no control over Congress to make them stop increasing the national debt year over year. He has no power to minimize the completely bloated administrative state that we have clearly seen is the real power of the Federal government. Yes, he'll probably be able to rein in some of the global conflict. But at best, domestically, he's going to make things slightly less bad than they are now, as opposed to Harris that will ramp up the degradation, and even if Trump wins, I have no hope that the Democrats won't win the next one and ramp things right back up and beyond. You can keep your hope in the President.
Thank you, Lorna. I understand your approach.
I have one quibble. At the end you say that you avoid politics because it seems so divisive. And I agree it is. But is that any reason to avoid a rather important part of life? People say the same thing about sex and sexuality, gender, religion, and a whole host of important topics. "I avoid X because it's divisive." Maybe they are so divisive because they are important things to wrestle with. Even Paul said that division was important because it separates the correct from the incorrect. There is a balance that needs to be struck between peaceableness and standing for what is right. But I do agree that if someone doesn't want to put in the effort to be informed, they should not vote, but I'm also not a right-to-vote absolutist and think there should be far fewer people capable of voting.
You asked “honest questions”; I gave an “honest answer.” I am truly glad that is respected here!
Also, I liked the Charles Spurgeon quote in her article: “Of two evils, choose neither.” It seemed to apply to your choice as you explained it in this post (which, once again, is why I first mentioned the article at all).
On Spurgeon's quote, if the rule of voting (or any other choice in this world, it seems) is "Of two evils, choose neither", then choosing any candidate, church, or anything else would likely be the wrong one since evil reigns this side of heaven. (An old adage I heard. If you are looking to join the perfect church, don't join it. When you do it will cease to be perfect.)
I would clarify that particular remark of mine to say that the divisiveness of politics is not a reason per se that I abstain as much as one that makes me glad that I do. I don’t hesitate to separate from others on truly important areas, i.e. in matters of doctrine, and I certainly think carefully about my life choices. I feel I am fairly informed about what’s going on and strive to make good judgments about it all. However, I don’t expect things to change much, regardless of the new political faces and voices that arise with each new decade. I guess I see “separation from the world” as incentive to keep some distance from the nasty world of politics, and therefore, it holds no enticement for me.
Right, and Groucho Marx said, “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.” Now that’s discernment! :)
"Am I the only one that didn't understand this statement?"
Don't know. Looks understandable to me, even though I admit I could have said it better. I'd say it's clear that between the two major parties...GOP and Dems...the Dems are far and away less preferable. Hard for anyone but a leftist to disagree, I'd say. It's just that crystal clear. One need only compare this current administration with the one previous to it, and that four years to the eight previous to it. That's almost 16 years of which only four produced clear benefits to all Americans. We're not talking perfect here, but to pretend there's no difference in the benefits of each of the three presidential administrations is either dishonesty or the lack of having paid attention. And really, one needn't have paid close attention to have notice the difference, only some attention.
There are two possibilities with Trump winning in November.
1. He'll reverse a significant amount of the damage done by Harris/Biden who did their damage in part by reversing Trump policies.
2. He'll do nothing which worsens an already messed up nation.
I think it'll be more point 1 than point 2, but I'm more certain of calamity with Harris winning than I was with Biden winning and that was an especially easy call, too.
With each reversal he manages to achieve...and I think there would be quite a bit of it...people will notice, since the burden of Biden's failures will be mitigated. This will lead to a more likely GOP win in 2028, as folks will want more of it.
To anyone in general ... I came across this interesting perspective from John Piper ... in case anyone was interested in the question of a Christian's obligation to vote.
That was an “interesting perspective” indeed! (It did not wrap up the way I expected it to.) As you can guess, I liked his notion that “voting is one form of doing good” and not an absolute duty (for any conscientious citizen, Christian or otherwise). There are many ways to influence our culture and love our neighbors as ambassadors for Christ beyond becoming political warriors. Interestingly, when I stay detached and impartial about political candidates, I stay more focused on God and completely disinclined to look to any man (or woman) as the “savior” for our troubled nation.
I guess Piper's piece is good enough for those looking to rationalize not voting, but it's rather specious by virtue of a lack of defining terms. How bad must two candidates from each of the major parties have to be before not voting or a third party wasted vote is a good idea? What does "unworthy" look like? Even the snarky "Trump" answer only works...if it works at all...for his 2016 run. His presidency erases most concerns most of us had when we actually went to vote or not vote. His record takes him out of the "unworthy" category altogether, especially since he did nothing to promote his own bad behaviors in any way.
Clearly, if all candidates were not only personally immoral, but proposing immoral policies, it wouldn't make much difference choosing one over the other. But it's really policies and/or track record which matters in deciding for whom one would cast one's vote.
You sir, have quite a different view of Americans than I do. Until the debate, Trump vs Biden was a close race, with plenty of people on the left saying Biden has done no wrong, the country is doing great, we should put his face on Mount Rushmore. The fact that Trump vs Harris is an even closer race speaks volumes about the idiocy of most voters. Not one Harris supporter can say anything about her campaign, plans, strategies, or anything that will be different than the last 4 years, but hey, she's a black lady, so she has to be a good choice. The fact that nearly half of people are willing to vote for her simply because she's a black, female Democrat bodes ill for this country. Maybe I'll have some hope in 12 years if 2 more elections after this one can produce truly conservative presidents. What I think, is after Trump wins, the Republicans are going to have to put up a squish to even have a prayer of winning 2028. Without another Great Awakening, the only thing that could save this country politically would be if we could collectively agree to put aside our current comforts for future gains. Slash our national budget by nearly 15 trillion dollars so that we can hope of ever paying down our national debt and actually live within our GDP means. That would mean massive governmental program cuts that too many people depend on right this moment that would never be willing to vote for someone that would take that away from them. We would need a massive moral shift that says the natural order matters, truth matters, evil must be oppressed, and good must be encouraged. But as a whole we have abandoned any sense of stable morality and have accepted the "no harm" mantra of morality, with no actual way of knowing harm from health. As I told you in 2020, the best any president could do is slow the hemorrhage, but there is no political means of stopping the bleeding, and the internal collapse of America is inevitable. I won't be holding out hope that Trump or Vance after him will be capable of fixing our fully corrupt system of government that is simply set on keeping itself afloat without any regard to the people.
Wow, Marshal Art, I hope you are this on fire for Jesus! He is the only One who should inspire such passion and devotion.
Trump has proven himself to be a politician to me by this point. He's so proud of his accomplishment of getting Roe overturned, and has openly said it should be a state by state basis. But every state that has put up any sort of ban, he has opposed. He is no pro-life president, he is a pro-less-abortion president. And while less abortion is better than more abortion, the goal should be no abortion, and he doesn't have that goal. Economically, he may be a smart guy, but I don't have faith in the presidency that he has the ability alone to undo the damage done. And I don't think Vance will be able to prove himself as a capable president by 2028. I do believe Trump will be able to help with the global conflicts issue. My hope is that he makes America a force to not be reckoned with. Those American hostages in Gaza and South America should be retrieved by force, to deter anyone else from kidnapping Americans. I doubt it, but it is a hope I have in him. I believe he will be able to deal with the border. But our problems go much deeper than foreign intervention and local border, problems that he doesn't have the capability or moral fortitude to overcome.
Not in direct response to anyone, but as an aside to all, I have to say I don't have nearly the faith in a president as most people do. Presidents are, by design, limited in what they can do. Trump did not achieve, for instance, the end of Roe v Wade; the Supreme Court did that. And simply appointing justices is no guarantee, as demonstrated quite often in history by "conservative" justices turning out unexpectedly liberal rulings. Ours is a system of checks and balances and no one office has all the power. I wouldn't expect some evil "President Bob" to terminate the nation any more than I would some idyllic "President Ted" to right all wrongs. And, as we all note, none of them are actually in charge. That status is reserved for God alone. So some of this is simply fodder for debate -- debate completely without any biblical warrant -- and seems pointless to me.
Post a Comment