Brown Was the Lessor of Two Evils... Really!

[just-want-peace]

Martin, you really should reconsider the content of post #17.

You are "answering" a lot of arguments that haven't been made, by attributing to RD2 things he didn't say, or IMHO, even imply.

A lot of your points are true, BUT they are totally out of context with the post you are supposedly(?) discussing.

You are pulling the libs tactics of reading into what is written, so they don't have to answer the actual content.

Read what is ACTUALLY written, not an "INTERPRETATION" thru your biases.

Even tho' I disagree a lot, you are usually much more logical than this post depicts.

 

[righteousdude2]

Great Point.

Pastor Paul, there were three people running. Wouldn't Mr. Brown be the lesser of three evils?

This just shows how little I knew about the election back there. I didn't get involved with the race until maybe three weeks ago. nd I didn't know about the third person, nor did I know about Brown's nude model work.

Still, he was used by God to bring to a halt this poor health-care reformation.

I believe reformation is needed, just not reformation that makes everyone's plan the same. That to me is the epitome of Socialism, and not the definition of a free nation.

Thanks for pointing out my error!

Pastor Paul:type:

 

[righteousdude2]

Did You Vote for Obama???

I'll concede that point to you. It is true, any of the three candidates would have been a Senator that supports abortion.

Somehow I just find it impossible to help vote in a person I know is going to help murder children, regardless of their other positions.

Just want to know?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Dragoon68]

His victory means that there is one more Senator that supports abortion. As a Christian, issues such as murder should trump issues such as taxes and health care.

Not true! Coakley absolutely supported so-called abortion "rights" and, in general, the Democrats do so to a greater degree than Republicans. The proposed health care legislation - at the least the last publicly available version I saw - included some additional support of expansion of abortion services. A vote for Coakley would have made the health care legislation almost certainly a sure thing. That, in turn, when have ignited a frenzy of liberal minded legislation from the Democrats intoxicated by such a victory. What happened instead has, at least for the moment, held back the health care legislation and probably has and will cause the Democrats to rethink where they stand with the people they're really suppose to represent and serve. Therefore, a wise and prudent Christian choice was to cast the vote for Brown recognizing the best outcome possible from the available choices. Nothing at all about doing that implies any support whatsoever for his views on abortion or homosexuality. Those battles must still be fought.

 

[righteousdude2]

Please Read the Following....

==So, what the "tea party" stands for is stopping the health care bill by electing someone who believes abortion should be legal? I knew there was something about the "tea party" movement I did not like. Moral compromise is never acceptable. It is a slippery slope, the first step towards accepting abortion.

"While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion." (SOURCE)

Brown believes abortion should be legal. I cannot, I will not, vote for or support any candidate who believes abortion should be legal.



==So, stopping this healthcare bill is more important that stopping the slaughter of millions of babies? Come on! Whenever someone says I don't believe/support something and then add the words "but" or "however" there is always a compromise coming. You can say you don't support pro-abortion candidates, but in this case you have. If abortion is as important as we have claimed it is, then there can be no compromise. Period.



==Since Brown will not vote to end all abortions, that is a empty victory for political conservatives.




==Dream on. The power hungry democrats and republicans in DC will find a way to push their big noses into our personal lives (even more). Any federal healthcare bill is unconstitutional (10th Amend.). Electing the pro-abortion candidate Scott Brown will not change that.



==I'm sorry, but I don't see anyone who believes that the murder of the innocent should be legal as an answer to prayer.




==Maybe you should read Romans 1 again. God not only judges those who engage in evil deeds (such as supporting abortion), He also judges those who support them (Rom 1:32).

[/COLOR]

==Excuse me, but Paul repented of his sin. Brown, to this point, still believes murder is ok. He has not repented.

[/COLOR]

==Whats to say that he won't go to DC and work against ending abortion? Your statement is the same type of thing we hear from young ladies interested in dating a non-christian guy. I think we call it "missionary dating" and, btw, it rarely works. I'm not going to support a pro-abortion candidate in the hopes that one day he will repent. If he repents, he might get my support. Until then, I will not support Scott Brown any more than I could support any pro-abortion candidate.




==What about the "right to life" that Brown denies? Is that freedom? I don't think so.



==You better be careful trying to speak for God on these issues. Brown's election could very well be a sign of God's judgment upon professing this nation. I don't know that, but I'm just pointing out that we don't know why this guy was elected. What I do know is that I am not going to support any candidate who believes the murder of innocent babies should be legal. Period.

Wow, you are so mad, it caused you to ramble, and ramble, and ramble on about nothingness!

I suggest you read post # 16, which states the following: "Scott Brown opposes the public funding of abortion. He supports parental consent notification. He supports a 24 hour waiting period for abortion. Yes, I'll take his position over a candidate who supports public funding, and/or opposes a waiting period and parental notification. If that makes me a hypocrite, then one's definition of hypocrite isn't accurate. It's only hypocritical if one believes there is such thing as a perfect candidate."

Normally, Johnv and I don't always agree. But, in his statement [above] he makes political sense.

And in closing, I would not have voted for any of the three candidates had I resided in that state. I don't vote for candidates who "kill babies" either!

Thanks for your input and feedback, but you may want to listen to what "just-want-peace" has said in his post to you about your comments on my posts.

Shalom,

Pastor Paul:type:

 

[Martin]

I suggest you read post # 16, which states the following: "Scott Brown opposes the public funding of abortion. He supports parental consent notification. He supports a 24 hour waiting period for abortion. Yes, I'll take his position over a candidate who supports public funding, and/or opposes a waiting period and parental notification.

==I'm not sure why that makes a difference. Is abortion "not as bad" when the parents are notified in advance or the mother is required to wait for 24-hours? I'm not sure how that makes any difference. Opposing public funding of abortion is good, but it is not nearly enough. Abortion must end. While I don't believe that D.C. is the answer to the problem of abortion, I also don't believe electing proabortion candidates is a good idea.

Thanks for your input and feedback, but you may want to listen to what "just-want-peace" has said in his post to you about your comments on my posts.

==Again, I only replied to your points (what you said). If I misread what you said, I'm sorry. However the very idea that the election of Brown is "an answer to prayer" (your words) shocks me. Mainly when it comes from someone who has stood up against the sin of abortion.

 

[Martin]

Wow, you are so mad, it caused you to ramble, and ramble, and ramble on about nothingness!

==I was going to leave this point alone but, in retrospect, I think I need to address it.

First, in reference to the idea that I "ramble, and ramble, and ramble on". That is a very interesting choice of words since I was just responding to your post point-by-point. If that is rambling, then I guess I did ramble. But I tend to ramble on about things anyway...

Second, in reference to the "about nothingness" comment. I'm not sure how to take this. Are my points "nothingness" because they disagree with your statements? Or are my points "nothingness" because a point-by-point reply to your points was not necessary? Again, I'm really not sure how to understand your point here since I am certain you would agree that opposing abortion is not nothingness.

Third, in reference to the "mad" comment. I was not mad when I wrote the post. In fact, I am in a pretty good mood today. However I saw no reason to edit my thoughts on the subject. Amazement is the only word I can think of when I see so many conservative Christians cheering the election of Brown. Have we really sunk this low? Are we so desperate to defeat Obama's unconstitutional healthcare "reform" that we are willing to cheer the election of a proabortion candidate and then make excuses why his support of abortion is not as bad as others? Are we really in that bad of shape? I pray not.

Btw, I am glad to read that you would not have voted for Brown. However it does leave me a bit confused as to why you can think his election is an answer to prayer. Seems like a contradiction to me.

 

[righteousdude2]

I AM Often A Shocking Person

==I'm not sure why that makes a difference. Is abortion "not as bad" when the parents are notified in advance or the mother is required to wait for 24-hours? I'm not sure how that makes any difference. Opposing public funding of abortion is good, but it is not nearly enough. Abortion must end. While I don't believe that D.C. is the answer to the problem of abortion, I also don't believe electing proabortion candidates is a good idea.



==Again, I only replied to your points (what you said). If I misread what you said, I'm sorry. However the very idea that the election of Brown is "an answer to prayer" (your words) shocks me. Mainly when it comes from someone who has stood up against the sin of abortion.

Sorry to shock you Martin, but, in this case, I was praying for God to stop the inane health-care bill, and it just so happened that Brown came along. Sometimes God does strange and contradicting things in answer to prayer [accept it, and ask Him when you get to Heaven. I'm sure He had no choice, as all three candidates were pro-abortion. He simply blocked the King with a Rook. A form of band-aide therapy?]. Please remember, I didn't pray for Brown... I simply interceded for God to stop the Health-care fiasco. I should be more specific next time, and tell God not to send His answer in the form of a pro- abortion, nude model,gay marriage supporter.:laugh:

I guess you guys can BLAME me for Brown.:thumbs:

Pastor Paul

 

[just-want-peace]

Martin sez:

However the very idea that the election of Brown is "an answer to prayer" (your words) shocks me.

And ( to get a bit on the ridiculous side - as I think your post is) would you have objected to the mighty drive by Gen. Patton across France using this same argument??

Good chance he was not a Christian, but I'm sure there were a lot of French PRAYING for relief from Germany. Would you consider it shocking if they saw Patton as the answer to their prayers.

C'mon Martin, you're palavering like a liberal that has been cornered & trying to weasel out of any straight answers when he knows he's wrong. Get back to your normal saneness - or have you flipped, like another board member that changes sides like like a butterfly changes directions.

 

[Martin]

Martin sez: And ( to get a bit on the ridiculous side - as I think your post is) would you have objected to the mighty drive by Gen. Patton across France using this same argument??

Good chance he was not a Christian, but I'm sure there were a lot of French PRAYING for relief from Germany. Would you consider it shocking if they saw Patton as the answer to their prayers.

C'mon Martin, you're palavering like a liberal that has been cornered & trying to weasel out of any straight answers when he knows he's wrong. Get back to your normal saneness - or have you flipped, like another board member that changes sides like like a butterfly changes directions.

==Not sure why you think I have "flipped" or "changed sides". If anything, I have become more conservative. I'm not weaseling out of anything. After all, I think I made my position very clear. I will not support any proabortion candidate, period. It does not matter what else they may say or do. There are certain deal breaker issues and abortion is one of them. When a candidate, of any party, says they support legal abortion they have just lost my support.

 

[Martin]

in this case, I was praying for God to stop the inane health-care bill, and it just so happened that Brown came along.

==I also oppose the unconstitutional healthcare "reform" proposed by Obama and the democrats. However I am by no means certain that Brown's election stops the take over of our healthcare. It may slow it down, but I doubt it will stop it. How long have the liberals been at this? I know it goes back to Clinton and probably further back. They will simply regroup and go at it again. My guess is they will try to split it up and by doing so get some Republican support.

Sometimes God does strange and contradicting things in answer to prayer [except it, and ask Him when you get to Heaven, I'm sure He had no choice, as all three candidates were pro-abortion. He simply blocked the King with a Rook].

==I am not going to try to say why God allowed Brown to win the election. What I will say, however, is that I can't see Brown's election as an answer to prayer. I worry that our nation is under judgment and that Brown's election, celebrated by some conservatives, is just another sign of the problem. Again, I wonder if we have really fallen so far down that we are willing to cheer a candidate who stands against so much of what we stand for.

I guess you guys can BLAME me for Brown.

==I don't blame you for Brown. However I am confused by your position in this thread.

 

[windcatcher]

==I also oppose the unconstitutional healthcare "reform" proposed by Obama and the democrats. However I am by no means certain that Brown's election stops the take over of our healthcare. It may slow it down, but I doubt it will stop it. How long have the liberals been at this? I know it goes back to Clinton and probably further back. They will simply regroup and go at it again. My guess is they will try to split it up and by doing so get some Republican support.




==I am not going to try to say why God allowed Brown to win the election. What I will say, however, is that I can't see Brown's election as an answer to prayer. I worry that our nation is under judgment and that Brown's election, celebrated by some conservatives, is just another sign of the problem. Again, I wonder if we have really fallen so far down that we are willing to cheer a candidate who stands against so much of what we stand for.



==I don't blame you for Brown. However I am confused by your position in this thread.

Martin,
Originally I had not planned on throwing a dog into this 'fight' as I was only marginally enthused over the opposition this win represents to the course set by this current administration.

That said....... I think there has been some misinformation posted on the BB which may negatively fuel more discontent than encourage any forward movement in areas which may be positively turned around. I researched two of the candidate sites... the libertarian's and Scott Brown's and posted them HERE

 

[matt wade]

Sometimes God does strange and contradicting things in answer to prayer [accept it, and ask Him when you get to Heaven. I'm sure He had no choice, as all three candidates were pro-abortion. He simply blocked the King with a Rook. A form of band-aide therapy?].

God had no choice? That's a new one to me....

 

[rbell]

yeah..."God has no choice" is about as small a box as you can cram Him into here...

 

[windcatcher]

imo, and this is not a command from God....... (just for the record... for those who may seek such)..... if there are only 3 choices and they all are for abortion, but only one takes a stand to regulate, require parental notification, stop or prevent public funding, stop late term abortions.......... yes, that person would get my support in that particular popular election because of what differences these points represent.... although i would not give money nor campaign for any of the candidates as none of them represent my convictions against abortion. Also, if there is no other choice on marriage vs civil unions as all candidates except one are for marriage recognition whether between a man and a woman or the same sex..... but a third candidate is against marriage between the same sex but would consider a 'civil union' as distinct from calling it a 'marriage' for same sex and is the only one who supportS DOMA, there is a difference although its not much and not according to my convictions. But my vote would not be the end of it. I would let that candidate know of my grievances against his stand and I would try to seek out candidates who would better replace him in the future who are in agreement with my convictions and work to get them recognized and into office.

Like I indicated in other posts..... I'm not thrilled over this win.... but I am pleased that it shows this current administration that it has opposition regarding nationalizing health care under any name, and opposition to bail-outs and stimulus tax bribes to special interest (my interpretation as to who is getting the benefit at the expense of the people) and increased taxes and spending, abortion funding and giving sodomites marital status.

Those who vote are in a position to complain. Those who refuse.... can be blamed for doing nothing and the choices they let others make and for their own failure to run or get a candidate to run who supports their position.

Please note.... I'm not in Mass.... and to contest my position is immaterial at this point.

 

[just-want-peace]

Martin sez:

After all, I think I made my position very clear. I will not support any proabortion candidate, period. It does not matter what else they may say or do. There are certain deal breaker issues and abortion is one of them. When a candidate, of any party, says they support legal abortion they have just lost my support.

Martin, after this post I'm through!

I have never questioned YOUR beliefs. My whole point from post #1 (of mine) to now, is that you attributed to RD2 things that HE did not state. Virtually all your response is indicative of RD2 approving Brown's election in spite of his abortion views, while all RD2 was saying was that he was happy that this guy was elected (please note) in contrast to other candidates because it stymied the HC bill; among other positive side effects

Now, calm down, cause nobody is trying to convince you to vote for an abortionist, or excuse a vote for an abortionist, or even talking about abortion.

RD2, and me, and many others, are very happy for this wrench that has been tossed into the gears of HC mania, and the ripples that have shaken up the liberals as a result.

If you don't feel thankful for these effects, then DON'T THANK GOD, but apparently many of us do, and we do thank God; that's your choice, and if you want to chew me out for THAT, then feel free.

But don't come chewing on me ( or RD2 ) for something that you have imagined.

I'm outta here!

 

[righteousdude2]

Thank God, and Thank JWP!!!

Martin sez:Martin, after this post I'm through!

I have never questioned YOUR beliefs. My whole point from post #1 (of mine) to now, is that you attributed to RD2 things that HE did not state. Virtually all your response is indicative of RD2 approving Brown's election in spite of his abortion views, while all RD2 was saying was that he was happy that this guy was elected (please note) in contrast to other candidates because it stymied the HC bill; among other positive side effects

Now, calm down, cause nobody is trying to convince you to vote for an abortionist, or excuse a vote for an abortionist, or even talking about abortion.

RD2, and me, and many others, are very happy for this wrench that has been tossed into the gears of HC mania, and the ripples that have shaken up the liberals as a result.

If you don't feel thankful for these effects, then DON'T THANK GOD, but apparently many of us do, and we do thank God; that's your choice, and if you want to chew me out for THAT, then feel free.

But don't come chewing on me ( or RD2 ) for something that you have imagined.

I'm outta here!

I appreciate your seeing this post for what it is. I fail to understand how some people can get all blown-out-of-shape over some posts. As for me, If I don't agree, or like the subject of the post, I decline to jump in. Of course, that is my choice. Personally, I think you captured the essence of my post, and so did many others.

Pastor Paul {([affectionately known as RD2])}:laugh:

 

[righteousdude2]

Well........think on this, my Brother!

:godisgood:

yeah..."God has no choice" is about as small a box as you can cram Him into here...

From my theological point-of-view, I believe that God does intervene in our earthly actions, especially when prayer is involved. It is no doubt that there were quite a few believers praying for the HC Bill to be stopped, and in that case, it is Biblically apparent, and Biblically possible, that God used the only available means to do the stopping. Sure, He could have changed some hearts {of Democrat's}, but, it appeared that that horse wasn't in the race. Thus, it was my opinion that God could have caused the open hearts of Massachusetts voters to lean toward Brown, rather than the other two.

None of us will ever truly know if this was why Brown won. But, than again, when God healed me from End Stage Renal Failure in June 2009, that was a direct answer of many prayers from many wonderful family, friends, and saints throughout cyber-space. Was that miracle [from answered prayer] any different than Brown winning in order to stop that political juggernaut? I'd like to think that the God who saved me, and the God I serve, can answer prayers, and at times does provide answers that may be unconventional, yet heavenly effective. And, for many of us who prayed for something, anything to stop the bill from moving into law, Brown seems to be the effective, yet unconventional answer to that prayer.

After all, nothing else seemed to be working, and without Brown's victory, and promise to stand side-by-side with the other 40 Republicans, it sure looked as though only the Rapture would have kept us from having that bill forced down our throats, as a nation.

Please open your eyes to what God can do. Is Scott Brown that much different than how God used Rahab [a known prostitute] to hide and help God's 2 spies escape certain capture and death as they scoped out the promised land in Joshua, Chapter 2 ?

As I said earlier, God does not do what you and I, and our religious Doctrines lock Him into doing. How many times did people, not of the faith, come to the aid of the Apostles/Disciples in the quest to spread the Gospel message in the early days of the NT church?

We serve an unconventional, supernatural, faithful to His Word, God. I believe Brown was a modern day Rahab. What say you, in light of Joshua 2 ?

Shalom,

Pastor Paul

 

[Martin]

But don't come chewing on me ( or RD2 ) for something that you have imagined. I'm outta here!

==I'm not "chewing" on anyone. If trying to have a discussion on a discussion board is wrong, then I guess I am wrong. As for you, I did not address you. My post was addressed to RD2. You involved yourself in this.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

The moral relativism by the so-called cons is amazing. And amusing.