CommerceComet wrote:
“All of this is built on a false assumption - no Christian is under the obligation to vote for either man.”
Your argument is built on the false assumption that I said a Christian is under obligation to vote for either man. I never said that. You leaped to that assumption in order to make the point you wanted to make.
Finally, if we are going to restrict our vote giving as Christians to those who are not, as you put it, “enemies of the cross,” we will be doing very little voting. That is the nature of politics and of those who aspire to political power. Few of them are “friends of the cross.” As for Romney being more dangerous, I just don’t buy your argument. Sure, Mormonism is a false gospel. In fact, I will go farther. It is a ridiculous, phantasmagorical gospel dreamed up by a 19th century con man for his own profit. That it was transformed into a religion is a tribute to the gullibility of the many and cynical and self-centered ambition of the few. The Mormon few (i.e. the elite/hierarchy) have been trying to “take over” the United States for almost 200 years now. I’m not overly worried about their chances of success.
I never said you did. An assumption doesn't have to be directly stated but can be implied.
Few of them are “friends of the cross.” As for Romney being more dangerous, I just don’t buy your argument.
I have never insisted on theological purity from the political candidates that I support. However, there is a difference between someone who isn't a friend of the cross and someone who is an enemy of the cross. I voted for John McCain (without enthusiasm) because he wasn't an active enemy of the cross. That cannot be said about Mitt Romney. If you aren't convinced of the hostility of Mormonism to evangelical Christianity, read what their leaders throughout history have said about Christians and not the releases of their PR department.