Christian Democrats???

[OldRegular]

I thought you'd give a nonanswer again.

I have a feeling that you are either secretly in the tank for Obama or are a troll looking for sport.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

sigh....Not sure why this needs to be explained but I will be graceful here.

There is no doubt that failure to believe in Jesus is a greater sin than abortion or homosexuality. But Romney is not going to lead the nation into the LDS. The consequences of abortion is the issue not that it is a sin. The consequences of homosexuality is the issue not just that it is a sin.

Since there will be no religious consequences due to a Romney Presidency then there is no comparison to be made between the LDS and the other two issues.

Now you are going to most likely ignore these facts and continue on your false tirade. But all along the way we will continue to laugh at your ridiculous and baseless argument. Good luck with that.:thumbs:

I think you have contrasted the real issues very clearly!

 

[Revmitchell]

So you're all in on the "there will be no religious consequences" too? How do y'all know this?

I explained this to you. It is based on the fact that at no time in American history has any President converted the masses to his religion or denomination. You are trying to hang on to a dead and debunked argument. I am trying to help you out but you are hanging on to this with no real support. Let it go so as not to embarrass yourself further.

 

[Zaac]

I explained this to you. It is based on the fact that at no time in American history has any President converted the masses to his religion or denomination.

Wow. That's your FACTUAL evidence that there will be no religious consequences to a Mitt Romney, the false god worshiping candidate, presidency?

There haven't been any presidents in the past who have tried to convert the masses to his religion or denomination?

INCREDIBLE. And folks are patting you on the back as though you've made some sort of sage statement.

First, who said the religious consequences were limited to attempts to convert folks to his denomination? That seems to be the constraint YOU are trying to use to frame your "factual" evidence as factual.



Second, and this is the laughable part, how on earth does a person conclude that because something hasn't happened in the past , that is factual evidence that it won't happen in the future?

Up until the 2012 Olympics, no sprinter had ever completed the 100m/200m gold double. It hadn't ever happened in the past, but it just happened in spite of what took place in the past.

That's how silly your factual evidence sounds.

You are trying to hang on to a dead and debunked argument. I am trying to help you out but you are hanging on to this with no real support. Let it go so as not to embarrass yourself further.

:laugh: Absolutely incredible. And you're serious.:laugh: You haven't debunked anything. Your factual evidence is debunked by common sense and a litany of things that have taken place in spite of a history of not having taken place in the past.

This is turning into one of the funniest, sad things I've ever seen.

 

[InTheLight]

That's your FACTUAL evidence that there will be no religious consequences to a Mitt Romney, the false god worshiping candidate, presidency?

There haven't been any presidents in the past who have tried to convert the masses to his religion or denomination?

First, who said the religious consequences were limited to attempts to convert folks to his denomination? That seems to be the constraint YOU are trying to use to frame your "factual" evidence as factual.

You're the one that keeps using the phrase Christians are supporting a candidate who "worships a false god." Following your rhetoric it seems logical to assume a consequence of electing this person would be more people worshiping a false god.

What consequences do you see?

I see perhaps the Mormon Tabernacle Choir performing at the White House and slight, almost imperceptible increase in curiosity about Mormonism.

Second, and this is the laughable part, how on earth does a person conclude that because something hasn't happened in the past , that is factual evidence that it won't happen in the future?

It's a logical assumption based on past history.

Up until the 2012 Olympics, no sprinter had ever completed the 100m/200m gold double. It hadn't ever happened in the past, but it just happened in spite of what took place in the past.

As one poster likes to say, "apples and oranges." Sprinters are supposed to attempt to break records. Presidents are not supposed to convert citizens to their faith.

That's how silly your argument sounds.

Your arguments are some of the funniest, sad things I've ever seen.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your arguments are some of the funniest, sad things I've ever seen.

Ditto :thumbs:

 

[Zaac]

You're the one that keeps using the phrase Christians are supporting a candidate who "worships a false god."

What's your point? They are.

Following your rhetoric it seems logical to assume a consequence of electing this person would be more people worshiping a false god.

And indeed it will be. But that doesn't mean that he's going to influence them to worship his false god or he may very well influence some to do so. That possible consequence doesn't come off the table just because it hasn't happened before.:laugh:

What consequences do you see?

I see a world of Muslims, and Hindus, and Buddhists, and Sikhs, and atheists and agnostics having another reason presented to them to not want Jesus Christ. After all, if Christians will endorse a man who doesn't follow Jesus to sit as the leader of the free world, how dare they try to tell someone of another faith that they need to let go of that faith and follow Jesus.

There will INDEED be consequences. But some can't see that far ahead because they are trying to win an election with no regard to the cost of eternal souls.

I see perhaps the Mormon Tabernacle Choir performing at the White House and slight, almost imperceptible increase in curiosity about Mormonism.

Yep. The Muslims started their increase in England and France imperceptibly too.

It's a logical assumption based on past history.

Then call it an assumption and not factual evidence.

As one poster likes to say, "apples and oranges." Sprinters are supposed to attempt to break records. Presidents are not supposed to convert citizens to their faith.

It's apples to apples because no one is talking about what they are supposed to do but rather the fact that it hadn't happened before is not factual evidence that it won't happen in the future.

Jesus hasn't raptured the Church before. is that factual evidence that it won't happen in the future?

That's how silly YOUR argument sounds.

 

[InTheLight]

I see a world of Muslims, and Hindus, and Buddhists, and Sikhs, and atheists and agnostics having another reason presented to them to not want Jesus Christ. After all, if Christians will endorse a man who doesn't follow Jesus to sit as the leader of the free world, how dare they try to tell someone of another faith that they need to let go of that faith and follow Jesus.

Pure speculation not based on historical, factual evidence. This is a construct that you've made up in your own head. Along with another false premise you keep repeating. Ah, yes, there it is, right on time...

But some [..] are trying to win an election with no regard to the cost of eternal souls.

it's clear that politics and an election means more to you and a lot of others than does people's eternal souls.

 

[Zaac]

Pure speculation not based on historical, factual evidence.

Outside of God's revelation, there ain't too much that anyone can state as "will be the case" in the future that isn't speculation.:laugh:

This is a construct that you've made up in your own head. Along with another false premise you keep repeating. Ah, yes, there it is, right on time...

The pitifully, laughable false premise construct that has been devised is this silliness that because something hasn't happened in the past, that is factual evidence that it won't happen in the future.

HILARIOUSLY sad!

 

[InTheLight]

Outside of God's revelation, there ain't too much that anyone can state as "will be the case" in the future that isn't speculation.:laugh:



The pitifully, laughable false premise construct that has been devised is this silliness that because something hasn't happened in the past, that is factual evidence that it won't happen in the future.

HILARIOUSLY sad!

I see that your reaction to being shown your hypocrisy and being backed into a corner is to post smilies and laugh off serious discussion.

 

[Arbo]

I see that your reaction to being shown your hypocrisy and being backed into a corner is to post smilies and laugh off serious discussion.

It's what trolls do.

 

[Zaac]

I see that your reaction to being shown your hypocrisy and being backed into a corner is to post smilies and laugh off serious discussion.

I see that your reaction in being shown the hypocrisy of yourself and other Christians to endorsing a false god worshiper is to join forces and present the same non-factual evidence as factual.

I'm getting a real kick out of y'all.

 

[Arbo]

From my perspective, they are both anti-Christs so it means nothing to me when folks try to make one out to be a better choice than the other. I'm not voting for either.

So who will you vote for?

...Or do you just plan to do nothing but curse the darkness and condemn others?

 

[Revmitchell]

I see that your reaction to being shown your hypocrisy and being backed into a corner is to post smilies and laugh off serious discussion.

 

[Zaac]

It's what trolls do.

Yes, that's liberal speak for "how dare you challenge us on our desperate need to vote for a false god worshiper? Don't you know we have GOT to win this election"?

 

[Zaac]

So who will you vote for?

...Or do you just plan to do nothing but curse the darkness and condemn others?

This was answered for you in another thread a while back when you asked the same question.

 

[Arbo]

This was answered for you in another thread a while back when you asked the same question.

I don't recall it. Please refresh my memory.

 

[Zaac]

I don't recall it. Please refresh my memory.

Must not have really mattered that much then. So go ahead and make some witty comment.

 

[Arbo]

Must not have really mattered that much then. So go ahead and make some witty comment.

Another non-answer. Yep, you're a troll.

 

[Zaac]

Another non-answer. Yep, you're a troll.

Naah. You're just lazy and want to blame me for your laziness.:wavey: But y'all really do sound like those coordinated progressives who must defend their version of the truth.