Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Colofornian

Well, sounds like you are a very liberal Republican or a Democrat.

When we are speaking about religion, we are talking strictly about adherence to the Bible, not churches beliefs or sayings.

No ONE who believes in the Bible could ever vote for a Democratic Candidate these days!! That includes all Evangelicals to me unless you narrow the definition to something that I no longer recognize.

Church discipline has absolutely nothing to do with this! This is all about individual beliefs and whether they are actually a Christian or not! If they are a Christian (or Evangelical) then they could NOT vote for Obama!!


51 posted on 11/08/2012 4:48:03 PM PST by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: Deagle
Well, sounds like you are a very liberal Republican or a Democrat.

Not at all...so pro-life I was lambasted for not voting for a pro-abort (either Obama or Romney). Voted for Virgil Goode; so, no, I didn't 'stay home.'

No ONE who believes in the Bible could ever vote for a Democratic Candidate these days!! That includes all Evangelicals to me unless you narrow the definition to something that I no longer recognize.

OK, let's take a lot of preaching we heard constantly on FR for a moment.

(#1) Let's say you were an undecided voter...MUCH of the FReeper pre-election chatter was that you couldn't vote third party 'cause that would be tossing away your vote.

(#2) If you were undecided, and you didn't want to vote for a wealthy guy who's given $millions to slam the worldwide Christian church as part of the Mormon accusation movement, what then?

Or if you saw that Lds official teaching was that Romney was a "god in embryo," why would you offend your sensibilities vs. idolatry & vote for Romney?

So...if you put #1 & #2 above together, that would seemingly eliminate (a) voting third party; and (b) voting for Romney.

I heard a FAIR amount of discussion on talk radio from people who said the choice was to vote for Romney -- or not at all. I'm sure some chose "not at all."

And then others, if they listened to the nonsense about not voting third party, -- and they couldn't bring themselves to voting for Romney, may have chose Obama.

Now from a pro-life angle, & a socialist angle, & a big govt angle, & a whole host of other angles, was that very discerning?

No. Shows TERRIBLE discernment.

But I don't believe it was any more "discerning" to tell pro-life voters, "Hey, sear your conscience. Go ahead, vote for the self-confessed pro-abort, Mitt Romney. Go ahead, embrace political relativism. Oh, and btw, your 'reward' for that? Nothing. You will learn that Romney lost, anyway. But, hey, that's 'OK.' At least the RINOs have properly 'RINOized' you into eventually accepting all future RINO pro-abort candidates. You have tossed away your ultimate convictions & standards. Oh, you may still have 'preferences'; but they're all eventually negotiable & up for 'compromise.'"

56 posted on 11/08/2012 5:02:01 PM PST by Colofornian (Some say "we're not voting 4 'pastor-in-chief'" --as if "gods-in-embryo" were divine only on Sundays)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson