You be the judge

[Don]

I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with as I didn't not say that God couldn't save anyone out of Mormonism.

(sirens wailing) Stand back! Stand back! Grammar police on the scene!

Sir, you're receiving this ticket because of your triple negative. Let's examine what you said:
"I didn't not say that God couldn't save anyone"

Break it down: "I did not not say that God could not save anyone"

Two negatives in conjunction cancel each other out: "I did say that God could not save anyone"

Okay, grammar lesson over. (Zaac, just messing with ya)

And I pray that He does save Mitt Romney. But as it stands right now and the beliefs Mitt Romney has, he is on the way to an eternal lake of fire. And there doesn't need to be any confusion about this as though his actions have some how made him better morally than another anti-Christ.

Absolutely. No argument.

But since he isn't candidating as the theocratical leader of the country (unlike islam, where politics and religion are the same thing); and Obama isn't candidating as the theocratical leader of the country; then one must ask: What is this vote for? A theocratic country? Or a secular country?

And then your mindset must rest on a decision: Are you trying to establish a theocratic government? Or a government based on theocratic principles? The two are *not* the same.

And if you're arguing for only voting for leaders that will forward a theocratic style of government, then you're mixing the kingdom of Heaven with the worldly kingdom in which we must live, until He brings His kingdom to us.

Kind of like that old man I heard once, who was listening to two men argue at a magazine rack about how sinful all the magazines were. He reached between them and pulled out the one about bass fishing, and said, "y'all can keep arguing about the worldly stuff; I have to be in it, but I don't have to be of it."

And let me just say Don, that what LE did with the "who knows" is why I have so passionately spoken up repeatedly on this because i've seen this very thing coming from a mile away.

He is sadly on the way to hell and his perceived moral character or nothing else should blind us from seeing that just because he is a party's nominee. we CANNOT and MUST NOT continue down this path if THAT is what we would have people to believe.

That on the church's behalf would be wickedness.

The question, my friend, is: what path, exactly, are you seeing us on? Compromising? By simply realizing the fact that we live in an imperfect, flawed, world that will only be rectified by His coming again?

You and I don't control our leaders any more than you and I control our own wives. Or children, for that matter. Oh, we exert some control over them; but they have their own soul liberty, and they have their own minds; and they have their own gifts and abilities given them by Him. We can influence them the best we can; but they'll still accomplish what God would have them do, not what we would have them do.

I know a pastor in Illinois that will only eat at fast food joints because *every* restaurant these days serves alcohol. He would call you a compromiser for eating in such a place, even though you never consumed or even bought the alcohol.

So if you think it's compromising if someone votes for either Romney or Obama; and that guy thinks it's compromising if you eat in a restaurant that serves alcohol; someone else thinks it's compromising if we watch movies in a theater; and someone else thinks it's compromising if we don't protest abortion clinics....

 

[Zaac]

(sirens wailing) Stand back! Stand back! Grammar police on the scene!

Sir, you're receiving this ticket because of your triple negative. Let's examine what you said:
"I didn't not say that God couldn't save anyone"

Break it down: "I did not not say that God could not save anyone"

Two negatives in conjunction cancel each other out: "I did say that God could not save anyone"

Okay, grammar lesson over. (Zaac, just messing with ya)

Good gosh a mighty! That was awful.:laugh: didn't not say could not :laugh: WHEW! That just hurt my eyes reading that.

Absolutely. No argument.

But since he isn't candidating as the theocratical leader of the country (unlike islam, where politics and religion are the same thing); and Obama isn't candidating as the theocratical leader of the country; then one must ask: What is this vote for? A theocratic country? Or a secular country?

And then your mindset must rest on a decision: Are you trying to establish a theocratic government? Or a government based on theocratic principles? The two are *not* the same.

actually neither. Christians can exist in this world and be of great influence if we support those things which Christ supports while hating those things that Christ hates.

And if you're arguing for only voting for leaders that will forward a theocratic style of government, then you're mixing the kingdom of Heaven with the worldly kingdom in which we must live, until He brings His kingdom to us.

I'm arguing for not voting for leaders who are against Christ.

Kind of like that old man I heard once, who was listening to two men argue at a magazine rack about how sinful all the magazines were. He reached between them and pulled out the one about bass fishing, and said, "y'all can keep arguing about the worldly stuff; I have to be in it, but I don't have to be of it."


The question, my friend, is: what path, exactly, are you seeing us on? Compromising? By simply realizing the fact that we live in an imperfect, flawed, world that will only be rectified by His coming again?

But we've always lived in an imperfect flawed world. But I don't remember a time where we have so blatantly endorsed someone for anything like this who is against Christ.

Somewhere along the line the Dem party became the party of , if it's against Christ, we're for it. Is the Repub Party following suit?

We compromise too much because we feel like we have no other choice. And thus we get pimped by the behind the scene power players in both parties.

It's time for us to say enough. He's against Christ. A line needs to be drawn in the sand right there.

You and I don't control our leaders any more than you and I control our own wives. Or children, for that matter. Oh, we exert some control over them; but they have their own soul liberty, and they have their own minds; and they have their own gifts and abilities given them by Him. We can influence them the best we can; but they'll still accomplish what God would have them do, not what we would have them do.

Absolutely. But we are , by default, giving Mormonism a bigger platform.

I know a pastor in Illinois that will only eat at fast food joints because *every* restaurant these days serves alcohol. He would call you a compromiser for eating in such a place, even though you never consumed or even bought the alcohol.

I understand that. But we're not talking about restaurants. We're talking about a man's belief system.

So if you think it's compromising if someone votes for either Romney or Obama; and that guy thinks it's compromising if you eat in a restaurant that serves alcohol; someone else thinks it's compromising if we watch movies in a theater; and someone else thinks it's compromising if we don't protest abortion clinics....

Yep. Understand that too. But we're talking about the false belief system of a man we've given an international stage. Why is he suddenly after rejecting him four years ago, and being less than enthusiastic about him just four months ago, suddenly due the support of those who preach Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected?