Religious Right Author says Romney Unfit for Office

[Mexdeaf]

You want proof-

InTheLight's post above which lists false accusations against the brethren (and your response to it).

Making statements such as "So how about you give us a list of the ones you want to choose from your family to go to hell?"

 

[OldRegular]

So, I guess you're saying that Mitt Romney is more powerful than the Holy Spirit. I always though the Good Lord was able to redeem His elect regardless of who was President. Hmmm... I might as well retire if the only folks that are going to be saved live in countries with born again leaders.

Well said. God will bring each and all of His elect to salvation. That is the reason that much of the nonsense preached by Zaac on this forum is just that: Nonsense.

Furthermore, all this angst about evangelical Christians is absolute nonsense. It is certain that young people are not going to learn about "oral sex" from Romney as they did from that true blue Southern Baptist Billy boy Clinton.

 

[OldRegular]

Warren Cole Smith is associate publisher of World, the Religious Right magazine run by Marvin Olasky, who was the man responsible for George W. Bush's "compassionate conservative" ideology.

Smith, whose columns are run by the American Family Association and he even shows up as a guest on their radio programs, has penned a remarkably frank piece on why it is theologically dangerous for Christians to even consider voting for Mitt Romney who, simply by virtue of being a Mormon, is unfit to serve as president:



Well said Warren Cole Smith.:applause: It's a shame that more Christians don't feel that the spiritual health of the nation and world are more important than the economic health.

The spiritual health of the nation has nothing to do with what Warren Cole Smith has to say about Mitt Romney.

 

[OldRegular]

So how about you give us a list of the ones you want to choose from your family to go to hell?

Zaac: You have a pathetic view of salvation and God!

 

[just-want-peace]

I have come to one very stunning conclusion - Zaac & Crabby are one and the same! :tongue3:

Crabby has endured so much flak for his irrational leftists ideas that he morphed into ZAAC to try to troll his irrational rightist ideas on this board.

Hard to do I know, but I do believe the best solution is to totally & completely IGNORE both manifestations of "CRABBY/ZAAC"

 

[Arbo]

So how about you give us a list of the ones you want to choose from your family to go to hell?

This sentence should embarass you. You're better than this.

 

[padredurand]

Well said. God will bring each and all of His elect to salvation. That is the reason that much of the nonsense preached by Zaac on this forum is just that: Nonsense.

Furthermore, all this angst about evangelical Christians is absolute nonsense. It is certain that young people are not going to learn about "oral sex" from Romney as they did from that true blue Southern Baptist Billy boy Clinton.

Don't tell anyone, OldRegular, but I ain't even one of those Calvinists. :godisgood:

Folks are getting saved all over the world. Iran, Iraq, China, all around the Middle East, Vietnam, Korea and even in New York City. They are being saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ not some yahoo in a suit. Think for a minute ( I know that might be a stretch for some folk) but Jesus had the perfect opportunity to overthrow an evil, godless government but did not. He had an audience with Pilate and never once did He address Roman policies that were killing folk. Jesus preached the Kingdom.

Acts opens with the Apostles asking if NOW was the time for our Lord to establish His Kingdom. They were looking for political answers to spiritual problems. Jesus left Herod and Pilate in place with the promise of His return. That's it. No instructions to overthrow the Romans or the Roman Catholics or the Mormons. He told us to occupy ourselves with the message of the Cross. John Wesley said, "We have no greater task than to make disciples of Jesus Christ."

You want true spiritual leadership? You don't have to look any further than the pulpit at your local assembly. America doesn't need a change in policy. It needs a change of heart.

 

[Don]

So how about you give us a list of the ones you want to choose from your family to go to hell?

Seriously? You're now trying to tie witnessing to our own families to how we vote?

Step back and be objective for a few minutes, and give that one some more thought.

To influence one into this falsehood is too many.

As has been exhaustively discussed before, the way you vote isn't going to influence anyone's decision for salvation.

But as I said, we seem to have convinced ourselves that the collateral damage of a few souls is okay as long as we win an election.

Souls are being lost NOW due to the false-professing so-called christian in office at this moment! Yet you seem to be more willing to let his anti-biblical policies continue than do *anything* about them.

I didn't say it wasn't a good criteria. But if he ain't theologian in chief, then folks need to stop using unBiblical theology stances as reason to not support the in the words of another poster "baby murderer".

That doesn't make a lick of sense. What "unbiblical theology stances"? And does that mean you support abortion (baby murdering)? I'm hoping that's not what you meant to imply.

And I didn't say that anyone said it was okay. Perception is the truth with a lot of people. And if it's perceived that Christians are endorsing a false god worshiper, there is a likelihood that it will also be perceived that they are endorsing his faith.

Here's where you're completely mixed up. Christians are making it clear that they don't support Mormonism; Christians are making it clear that they support a man who says abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, that "he who doesn't work doesn't eat" is a good principle, etc. Christians are making it clear that if you say you're a Christian, but you support and promote things that are clearly anti-biblical, you're not getting our support.

And I will say this, you have no basis upon which to base that statement. All you've seen me do is disagree with the political position of the majority on this board. And that has nothing to do with my love for anyone.

It's the way in which you write things, and your insinuations towards your fellow Christians, that are harming your witness to others.

 

[Zaac]

You want proof-

InTheLight's post above which lists false accusations against the brethren (and your response to it).

Making statements such as "So how about you give us a list of the ones you want to choose from your family to go to hell?"

And my response is valid. You said the influence will be very small. So I would like to know which of your family members are you willing to give up as part of the small influenced group?

You seem to be acknowledge that there will be an influence, if just a small one. So why is that okay? Why is it okay that we're going to endorse someone whose false faith will be advanced and will influence some, if just a small some?

That's why I ask again, which of your family members are you willing to give up to that small influenced group?

 

[Zaac]

Seriously? You're now trying to tie witnessing to our own families to how we vote?

Step back and be objective for a few minutes, and give that one some more thought.

:laugh: There's no need for me to step back cause I haven't done that.

As has been exhaustively discussed before, the way you vote isn't going to influence anyone's decision for salvation.

And as has been exhaustively discussed before, you have as little proof that it won't as you say that I don't have that it will.

Souls are being lost NOW due to the false-professing so-called christian in office at this moment! Yet you seem to be more willing to let his anti-biblical policies continue than do *anything* about them.

Nope. Y'all just think that because I point out the false-god worshiper as such, that I dismiss the other anti-Christ and that's hardly the case. And some of you keep trying to convince yourselves that i'm a secret Obama supporter in order to make that case. And I'll make the same case now as I've made before. You've got a problem with the anti-Biblical policies of the Democrat anti-Christ but you ain't said anything about the anti-Biblical walking billboard that the Republican anti-Christ is. And because I do, you're up in arms.

But don't worry. On the Democrat leaning boards, their response is pretty much the same as yours when I lay into Barry and their support of him over the Republican anti-Christ.:laugh:

That doesn't make a lick of sense. What "unbiblical theology stances"? And does that mean you support abortion (baby murdering)? I'm hoping that's not what you meant to imply.

Nope. THAT was an error.:thumbsup: I did mean Biblica theology stances since he's the as Mexdeaf said "Commander in chief" and not "theologian in chief".

Here's where you're completely mixed up. Christians are making it clear that they don't support Mormonism;

And here's where you're completely mixed up. Christians are doing a very poor job of that if they are doing it at all.

There will be enough confusion authored by this as to where Christians stand that it is very OBVIOUS the decision to support the Mormon is not of God.

Christians are making it clear that they support a man who says abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, that "he who doesn't work doesn't eat" is a good principle, etc. Christians are making it clear that if you say you're a Christian, but you support and promote things that are clearly anti-biblical, you're not getting our support.

Absolutely laughable. The man whom Christians are supporting supports and promotes the worship of a false god and he's still getting Christian support. He's a leader in the Mormon church. He's called to do certain things as a leader in that church. So why is THIS man who, as you say, is supporting and promoting that which is CLEARLY anti-Biblical getting Christian support.

Again, it is this type of authoring of confusion as to why Christians think it's okay to support one but not the other that clearly tells me it is not of God.

It's the way in which you write things, and your insinuations towards your fellow Christians, that are harming your witness to others.

My witness is fine. I can easily explain that I don't support nor will I vote for EITHER of the anti-Christ candidates.

But I point to the statement of yours that I said is laughable. It is quite hypocritical.

 

[Zaac]

The spiritual health of the nation has nothing to do with what Warren Cole Smith has to say about Mitt Romney.

I didn't say that it did. So what's your point?

 

[Don]

And my response is valid.

Your response is invalid; the point of "small influence" is brought about by the article YOU posted, which was addressed by Scarlett:

Non-Christians likely don't care much about this point one way or the other.

 

[Zaac]

Your response is invalid; the point of "small influence" is brought about by the article YOU posted, which was addressed by Scarlett:

The point is valid. Small influence is still influence. And thus you go ahead and choose which one of your family members that you're okay with that small influence leading to hell and get back to me.

 

[Don]

:laugh: There's no need for me to step back cause I haven't done that.

Um...yes, you did. If you hadn't brought up family members, then I wouldn't have made the statement. Since you did bring up family members in conjunction with this discussion about the election, you've tied witnessing to our families to how we vote. It may have been inadvertent, but that's what you did.

And as has been exhaustively discussed before, you have as little proof that it won't as you say that I don't have that it will.

From your own posted article: "Non-Christians likely don't care much about this point one way or the other."

Nope. Y'all just think that because I point out the false-god worshiper as such, that I dismiss the other anti-Christ and that's hardly the case. And some of you keep trying to convince yourselves that i'm a secret Obama supporter in order to make that case. And I'll make the same case now as I've made before. You've got a problem with the anti-Biblical policies of the Democrat anti-Christ but you ain't said anything about the anti-Biblical walking billboard that the Republican anti-Christ is. And because I do, you're up in arms.

But don't worry. On the Democrat leaning boards, their response is pretty much the same as yours when I lay into Barry and their support of him over the Republican anti-Christ.

We have our share of Obama supporters on this board, and I have yet to see you post anything against their postings.

Nope. THAT was an error. I did mean Biblica theology stances since he's the as Mexdeaf said "Commander in chief" and not "theologian in chief".

So the question still stands: What unbiblical theology stances? Be specific.

And here's where you're completely mixed up. Christians are doing a very poor job of that if they are doing it at all.

Find one post where a Christian on this board says that Mormonism is acceptable. I'll be happy to do a search and find a few that say otherwise.

There will be enough confusion authored by this as to where Christians stand that it is very OBVIOUS the decision to support the Mormon is not of God.

And see, this is where I completely disagree with you, because I see it as an opportunity. IF--and I say "if" because it's really a small chance--someone ever asks me about how I could vote for Romney and call myself a Christian, guess what? I now have an opportunity to discuss Jesus with them.

What you see as a negative, I see as an opportunity for God to turn to good.

Absolutely laughable. The man whom Christians are supporting supports and promotes the worship of a false god and he's still getting Christian support. He's a leader in the Mormon church. He's called to do certain things as a leader in that church. So why is THIS man who, as you say, is supporting and promoting that which is CLEARLY anti-Biblical getting Christian support.

At this point, I have to say, you're clearly deluded.

Neither candidate is a good choice. I have yet to see a candidate that is. Since there are no good candidates, I then look at each candidate's position.

One says abortions are not good; the other says, abortions for everybody.
One doesn't promote homosexuality; the other says, let's teach it in our kindergartens.
One says if you don't work, you shouldn't get welfare; the other says, don't work; we'll let all the hard-working people take care of you instead.

The list goes on and on. But there's the comparisons. You decide which is biblical and supports your Christian beliefs.

Again, it is this type of authoring of confusion as to why Christians think it's okay to support one but not the other that clearly tells me it is not of God.

Oh, you're quite confused without anyone else authoring anything for you.

My witness is fine. I can easily explain that I don't support nor will I vote for EITHER of the anti-Christ candidates.

But I point to the statement of yours that I said is laughable. It is quite hypocritical.

Hypocritical is allowing the unbiblical candidate to remain in office while campaigning against another opponent who believes wrongly, but will support your biblical standards.

 

[Don]

The point is valid. Small influence is still influence. And thus you go ahead and choose which one of your family members that you're okay with that small influence leading to hell and get back to me.

I'm getting back to you: All my family members are saved.

So, to the point: If the author of the article you're supporting admits that non-Christians will be largely unaffected by this subject, how come you keep insisting that there will be a large influence?

 

[Zaac]

Um...yes, you did.

No I didn't.

If you hadn't brought up family members, then I wouldn't have made the statement.

I didn't say I didn't bring up family members. I didn't bring up you witnessing to family meme\bers.

Since you did bring up family members in conjunction with this discussion about the election, you've tied witnessing to our families to how we vote. It may have been inadvertent, but that's what you did.

Nope. Just another silly assumption you've made in order to try and make another errant point.

From your own posted article: "Non-Christians likely don't care much about this point one way or the other."


We have our share of Obama supporters on this board, and I have yet to see you post anything against their postings.


So the question still stands: What unbiblical theology stances? Be specific.

Already addressed.

Find one post where a Christian on this board says that Mormonism is acceptable. I'll be happy to do a search and find a few that say otherwise

.

The confusion about what Christians say has already been addressed.

And see, this is where I completely disagree with you, because I see it as an opportunity. IF--and I say "if" because it's really a small chance--someone ever asks me about how I could vote for Romney and call myself a Christian, guess what? I now have an opportunity to discuss Jesus with them.

And that's fine. They could still just as well not want to hear anything from you because of the perceived hypocrisy.

What you see as a negative, I see as an opportunity for God to turn to good.

So why are we doing wrong and then waiting for God to turn it into good?

At this point, I have to say, you're clearly deluded.

At this point, I don't too much care what you say.:laugh:

Neither candidate is a good choice. I have yet to see a candidate that is. Since there are no good candidates, I then look at each candidate's position.

One says abortions are not good; the other says, abortions for everybody.
One doesn't promote homosexuality; the other says, let's teach it in our kindergartens.
One says if you don't work, you shouldn't get welfare; the other says, don't work; we'll let all the hard-working people take care of you instead.

The list goes on and on. But there's the comparisons. You decide which is biblical and supports your Christian beliefs.

Yes I'm sure that God appreciates your sacrifice.

Oh, you're quite confused without anyone else authoring anything for you.

Naah, you and your false-god worshiper supporters have done a good job of authoring enough confusion for the billions of false god worshipers in the world.

Hypocritical is allowing the unbiblical candidate to remain in office while campaigning against another opponent who believes wrongly, but will support your biblical standards.

You don't have a Biblical standard. That belongs to God. But like I said again in my most sarcastic voice, I'm sure God appreciates your sacrifice over obedience.

 

[Zaac]

I'm getting back to you: All my family members are saved.

Really? all the cousins? All the aunts? all the uncles? All the nieces? All the nephews?

If you've got them covered, then pick a family member of a neighbor to let that small influence come upon and see how they feel about it.

So, to the point: If the author of the article you're supporting admits that non-Christians will be largely unaffected by this subject, how come you keep insisting that there will be a large influence?

And how can you keep acting like a small influence or even one person influenced into hell ain't significant?

So I say you pick ONE person to whom you're okay with that influence being cast upon and them ensuingly being pointed to hell.

 

[padredurand]

The point is valid. Small influence is still influence. And thus you go ahead and choose which one of your family members that you're okay with that small influence leading to hell and get back to me.

People go to hell for rejecting Jesus Christ not because they voted for a Mormon.

 

[Don]

Really? all the cousins? All the aunts? all the uncles? All the nieces? All the nephews?

That's what they all tell me.

If you've got them covered, then pick a family member of a neighbor to let that small influence come upon and see how they feel about it.

Interesting wording: "to let that small influence come upon." I asked before, and I'll ask again: At any time that you've ever gone witnessing to anyone, did you ever start the conversation with, "Hi, I voted for so-and-so, and I'd like to talk to you about Jesus"?

At what point in your witnessing do people usually ask who you voted for? I'm seriously asking, because it's never happened to me in all the times I've witnessed to others.

And how can you keep acting like a small influence or even one person influenced into hell ain't significant?

Every soul is significant. The emphasis you're placing, however, is an emphasis that doesn't exist for soul-winning--as identified by the author of the article you posted a link to.

So I say you pick ONE person to whom you're okay with that influence being cast upon and them ensuingly being pointed to hell.

See above about "influence come upon." How, exactly, do you envision that influence being cast upon them?

If I knock on a door and tell the person that I'd like to talk to them about Jesus, and they ask who I voted for, I'm not going to answer that question; or, as I stated earlier, I'll use it as an added opportunity to witness.

It's not a matter of waiting for God to turn it to good; it's a matter of trusting God that if it's wrong, He'll use it for good.

 

[saturneptune]

Apples and oranges. Why do we insist, why do we demand, that our rotten to the core, from the pits of hell politicians get mixed up with a Holy God, salvation, and the Gospel.

One ends up in the Lake of Fire because Jesus Christ is not their Savior, because through a lack of faith, they rejected the One and Only Savior, the Creator of the Universe. Their sins are not forgiven. What on earth does that have to do with going into a voting booth and choosing a leader who is a product of a two party system that generates self indulgent slobs?

Yes, Romney is not a Christian? Their statement "Jesus Christ is Savior" does not mean to them what it does to us. So how is that vote any worse and going to send anyone to hell any faster than a vote for Obama, an assortment of Bushes, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, or Nixon? Now there is a group of chior boys with saintly halos.