Posted on 05/23/2007 7:30:21 AM PDT by Reaganesque
Government, as Martin Luther understood, is basically taking rearguard action in a fallen world. It can never triumph over sin, but it can combat some of its most obvious symptoms. Luther would have cited anarchy; we can cite abortion. And in order to do that, it needs good managers--not good theologians. In fact, the managers are to protect the theologians, who should be doing more important things, in the church.
Good stuff!
The potential problem is not one of competence, it is with regard to the goal in which the competence is employed.
Competence in the service of evil is not a good thing.
This should be in the Bloggers section. Evangelicals for Mitt is an organization of 6 individuals who blog their personal opinions. It isn’t “News” or “Activism” per say.
Sheesh....
There are many reasons not to support Mitt (flip-flopping on the road to Des Moines,
Northeast liberal or a guaranteed split in the Republican base leading to a guaranteed Democratic victory). If the focus is whether evangelicals can support a Mormon, my response as an evangelical is that I do not want in anyway to encourage Mormonism. The Gospel (share in the good news of Jesus Christ), is more important than electing a president of the United States. Putting Mitt Romney on the national ticket either
as president or vice president would be a boon to Mormonism. Since evangelicals
believe Mormons preach a different Gospel which is nowhere noted
in the Scriptures, we would be undermining our own message and at
the same time would be promoting Mormonism. I cannot in good conscious
vote for anyone whose religious beliefs would draw people in to a religion
that is basically a deception.
nana nana nana naaaaaaanaaa Geez!
You sure are a nitpicker
I’m not nitpicking resty, I just think the personal opinion of six individuals is not news worthy.
I’m sorry you disagree with me in such a school yard way.
This is the news/activism section. These are political activists, therefore they belong in this section.
Wxcellent point ebmiller and I agree with you.
I see. Your point is taken
I simply want to highlight that these six individuals in no way represent Evangelicals as there ‘title’ may imply.
“Mitt’s past record is gonna haunt him more than him being a Mormon.”
I am reading up on his past record. But I have a real problem with voting for someone who is a member of what I have long considered to be cult. A long established and successful one, but a cult nonetheless. Flame away.
“I have a real problem with voting for someone who is a member of what I have long considered to be cult.”
I WOULDN’T CALL HIM AS A PASTOR, BUTHOW RELIGIOUS WERE GOLDWATER, REAGAN, NIXON......
“I have a real problem with voting for someone who is a member of what I have long considered to be cult.”
I WOULDN’T CALL HIM AS A PASTOR, BUTHOW RELIGIOUS WERE GOLDWATER, REAGAN, NIXON......
No. But they are Evangelicals and they have an interesting point of view.
“I WOULDN’T CALL HIM AS A PASTOR, BUTHOW RELIGIOUS WERE GOLDWATER, REAGAN, NIXON......”
None of them were cult members. Oh, typing in all caps does not get the point across any better.
And, just as these “six individuals...in no way represent Evangelicals”, the opinions expressed here on FR by those Evangelicals who insist that the Mormon church is an evil cult are also not representative of Evangelicals as a whole either.
I haven’t found them interesting since they launched their hypocritical attack on Fred Thompson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.