[2ndDivisionVet]

Well said.

[Venturer]

Better a Mormon in the White House than the Muslim we have now.

[WKB]

Baptist ping

[Tennessee Nana]

one candidate/party is saying that we could eliminate 960,000 abortions by saying the only exceptions might be physical health and welfare of the mother.
______________________________________

NO

The republican Party is saying on its platform NO ABORTIONS

the candidate Willard Mitt Romney is saying all on his own ABORTIONS FOR HEALTH OF THE PREGNANT FEMALE, WELFARE OF THE PREGNANT FEMALE...

which is slightly diferent than when he said for years ABORTIONS DONT NEED A REASON LETS HAVE LOTS

[Dr. Thorne]

After opposing Romney all through the primary season and resisting giving him my support even when it became clear that he would be the GOP candidate, I now plan to vote for him.

This is not because he is a good choice for the presidency. My belief is that because of the sickening moral degradation of America, we are essentially doomed. I don't see any Great Awakening in the offing although God may forestall His wrath for a season as He did for King Josiah. No nation that sanctions the butchery of over 50 million children will long stand.

Romney's election may slightly slow the steady march to destruction and thus give us a short window of time in which we can better prepare ourselves for the coming judgment both spiritually and physically.

America doesn't appear in the cataclysmic endtime Bible prophecies. There's a reason.

[Slyfox]

Obama's Crimes Against the Unborn

[Colonel_Flagg]

Mr. Turk needs to read Isaiah 28:14-20. And then he needs to pray long and hard.

I’ve done that for the last six months now. Mormonism has nothing to do with why I and others like me can’t support Mitt Romney.

If you read the verses, you’ll see what God has to say about ‘the lesser of two evils’.

[muawiyah]

A large number of Christians (Social Conservatives) sat out the 1988 election because they refused to vote for a confessed liar ~ to wit, George H. W. Bush.

I'm too tired to check for it but I bet this particular blogger has yet to condemn them for that action ~ or lack there of.

[Colofornian]

From the article: Providing one "America" reason that the "don't assist in making a cult mainstream" doesn't work out, the blogger wrote, "Voting for any man does not affirm that you accept his religious expression, or his systematic theology: it affirms that you accept his right as a citizen to run for office."

Re: the latter: Oh, so you HAVE to now vote for a Hare Krishna, a Scientolist, a Wicca, or a Satanist to thereby "prove" "that you accept his (her) right as a citizen to run for office"????

Talk about lame logic. Hardly debunking anything.

Sorry, Frank...and those who embrace this sorry line of thinking"
* We don't have to vote for Democrats just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."
* We don't have to vote for homosexuals just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."
* We don't have to vote for Environmentalist Green Party folks just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."
* We don't have to vote for libertarians just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."
* Nor do we have to vote for Scientologists just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."

There is no across-the-board universal parallel application of Frank Turk's logic here...showing its sheer absurdity.

[Colofornian]

From the article: Providing one "America" reason that the "don't assist in making a cult mainstream" doesn't work out, the blogger wrote, "Voting for any man does not affirm that you accept his religious expression, or his systematic theology: it affirms that you accept his right as a citizen to run for office."

Listen, no candidate "meets" tit for tat their theology and your theology.

Tell us, Frank Turk and your disciples, name a single source who is claiming that because Candidate A doesn't match up "systematic theology"-wise, don't vote for him???

This is simply called a "straw man" argumentative fallacy.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when somebody ignores actual positions and substitutes an extreme, distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of various positions.

So, as it pertains to Mitt Romney and other temple Mormons, we don't have to evaluate him across the board on every theological tenet. And I haven't found ANYBODY saying that we need to...(or apply that logic to ANY OTHER candidate in any other race, either).

We can simply evaluate Mitt Romney on a few key decisive theological points: For example, does he or does he not, believe he is a "god in embryo?" Many Lds "prophets" have taught that. No Lds teaching has denied those teachings. Therefore, do we want to vote for somebody who sets himself up as a rival god to THE God???

How do you think THE God feels about you as a Christian ignoring the FIRST commandment about not placing other gods before him...and endorsing such false gods???

There. No exhaustive theological exam needed.

A second point worthy of eval: What is the Mormon "scriptural" position on who we as Christians are?

Answer? ALL (as in 100%) of our professors are "corrupt." ALL (as in 100%) of our creeds are an "abomination." That's what Joseph Smith - History vv. 18-20 teaches in the Pearl of Great Price, which is Lds "scripture." That's not "Mormon leader" mere opinion; it's their specific scripture as applied toward all Christian sects.

Therefore, is that very "inspirational" for Christians to vote for Romney???

Key point in remembering is that we're down to only a handful of true swing states. Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, polling-wise are all falling to Romney. The only FREEPERs who can justify their anti-conservative vote "anybody but Obama" (a euphemism for pro-Romneyism) are those in states like Ohio, PA, Wisconsin, Colorado.

Just about ALL of the rest of the states will either easily fall to Romney, or to Obama, and your FREEPER vote won't make a difference in those states.

[ntnychik]

Franklin Graham has come out strongly for Mitt.
After Mitt visited Billy Graham, Billy said he’d do everything he could to help.

[Colofornian]

From the article: In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul indicates that a non-Christian person, in his case Caesar, is capable of being a sound ruler.

So what? This doesn't prove anything.

Both the Old and New Testaments are rife with listing specific non-Christian rulers (and even some Jewish kings like Manasseh) who were absolutely horrific.

Some unaffiliated U.S. presidents like Lincoln have been wonderful; some affiliated as "Christian" presidents -- like Grover Cleveland (Presbyterian) and Warren Harding (Baptist) each fathered illegitimate children...Cleveland later married a 21 yo girl he had been the legal guardian of since she was 11...Harding oft had liquor-filled parties, had numerous affairs, etc.

So mere theological affiliation alone is NOT enough to evaluate POTUS candidates re: character, etc. Each are individuals...

Mitt Romney is NOT a cafeteria Mormon; he's a temple Mormon, an ex-bishop, an ex-Missionary President...But the only thing he has openly condemned within Mormonism is past polygamy. That's it. He's left everything else on the table for associating with him.

[Colofornian]

From the article: ...though Romney only approves of it [abortion] in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother"

OK, "class": This is a lesson in "reductionism." When a writer -- and perhaps also the poster of an article like this -- wishes to present their fave candidate in a better light...they will reduce their true position in order to steer readers away from its more negative realities.

In this case, Romney already went on the record in August of 2012 saying he embraced abortions beyond rape, incest, and life of the mother:

Romney says abortion legal for mother's health

"Health"...why that's the very weasel word chosen by the 1973 Supreme Court to give this nation abortion-on-demand. "Health" was the very exception of allowance -- 'cause "health" could mean ANYTHING (even "economic" health).

And guess who gets to determine if a mom is "unhealthy"??? Why the abortion industry does!!! The abortionist does!!!

We know a writer has lost his/her credibility when they can't even present the proper pro-abortion stances of a given candidate correctly.

Mitt, btw, is ALSO on the record as saying that embryos can either be up for adoption -- or, "given" away to "research." (December, 2007)

That's hardly objecting to some "asterisk" exception in the interest of protecting our holiness or our purity.

Frank Turk is off-base if he thinks THE MAIN THING is ourselves when it comes to protecting the pre-born. Ironically, though, he has hit upon a possible reality...but has distorted who to apply it to: The EXACT problem of the FORMAL pro-life movement right now is that many of these groups TEND to be more interested in maintaining their "place" at the table of influence and their OWN survival than protecting pre-born embryos, pre-born infants whose moms claim they aren't 100% "healthy" and whose dads are incest-perpetrators attempting to cover up their crimes with the dismemberment of their second victims!!!

We know this because we don't see them critiquing Romney for his "health" of the mom statements...or for all embryos are up for "research" statements. These kind of statements just get "hunky-dory" endorsements from the formal pro-life groups!!!

I guess we can just thank our Father in Heaven that He didn't elect to send Jesus as an embryo & pre-born infant in a time when politicians like Obama and Romney said the Son of God could be "donated" to research in his early "earth-life" or could be dismembered if Mary had not "felt" up to it, "health"-wise...

[sasportas]

Back in the 60’s, 70’s, and even the 80’s a Mormon running for president would get absolutely no where. Reason being back then most knew their Bibles, they knew what Mormonism was. Joseph Smith’s golden plates religion, they saw on a par with Mohammedism.

The Apostle Paul prophesied a great falling away to precede the rise of Antichrist. Look where we are, the Republican Party gave, once Christian America, us Mormonism to vote for...and with hardly a whimper amongst so-called Conservatives they accept it. We expect as much from the Libertarians who could care less what you believed religiously, an atheist would suit them just fine, but social Conservatives?

It is a clear sign how far down Christian belief has fallen in America. The falling away is clearly here, all the FReeper posts I see here convinces me of that fact, obviously they could care less if they have golden plates Joseph Smith Mormonism for THEIR president. We are in the foothills of antichrist.

[ravenwolf]

In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul indicates that a non-Christian person, in his case Caesar, is capable of being a sound ruler.

---

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

---

I am not sure that i will ever understand why Paul wrote that as it contradicts every thing we know that happened to our Lord Jesus, James, and other Christians and later to Paul and peter in Rome.

Did Jesus or his Apostles do evil? did Peter and Paul do evil in Rome?

Or was Paul at a time in his life when he was just not thinking straight? yeah i know this will make some people mad but if you think of all of the Christians who were killed by these rulers you have to admit it is something to consider.

[UltraV]

There are a number of countries where Christians don’t have the option of voting for a Christian. They have to hope that they can at least vote for an ally. Romney is certainly an ally.
So am I.

[American Constitutionalist]

How many of these same Christians voted for Muslim friendly Obama in 2008 ?

[a fool in paradise]

The alternative is the red diaper doper baby secular humanist pro-Islamist president we already have in the White Hut. How’s that workin’ out?

[American Constitutionalist]

After these past 4 years... it’s ANY PORT IN THE STORM !

[Theophilus]

Turk offers: "Doing nothing and calling it a moral victory is cowardly. It may actually be evil. But if it is nothing else, it is certainly this: failing to do as much as possible to make a difference toward the improvement of those things which you can effect and can make better. Failing to show that much compassion and effort is morally lazy.

I'm all out of compassion for lying murderous politicians. I only have compassion left for the babies that get murdered everyday.

When this nation fears God, abortion will come to an abrupt end. Until we fear God, we are teetering on the razor's edge of unmitigated and unprecedented wrath and destruction: economically, militarily and morally. I believe that the Civil War was a cake walk compared to what is in store for us. Abortion is not just our crime it is our unbearable punishment.

Somebody please tell me about how an iota of any of the crap thrown in tonight's debate has anything to do with fearing God.

Lamentations 3:12
He hath bent his bow, and set me as a mark for the arrow.