Posted on 12/31/2007 8:35:07 PM PST by Spiff
“You know, people such as Peter Popoff, the Bakkers, Oral and Richard Roberts, Ted Haggard . . .”
The people you mention are all charismatics.
BTW - I said no “true evangelical” would vote for a mormon. I never said that evangelicals are the only true Christians. Stop extrapolating.
The people I mentioned claimed to speak for Christians. Just as you do, oh keeper of the Key to True Evangelicalism and self-appointed quality controller for Christ.
Thanks for the thoughtful response to all the negativity here on FR with our GOP candidates.
Based on the postings here I am seriously afraid Hillary or some other socialist Democrat will be elected because of conservatives boycotting the GOP ticket. It’ll be like 1992 all over again, and we’ll likely get Hillary and her Bill back in the WH. Then we’ll long for the days of GWB, and be sorry we did not support the GOP candidate!
Personally I think any one of our candidates is superior to the Democrats in the race. The Dems range from socialist to pacifist to anti-American to surrender monkeys. Not much to choose from if you are making a positive vote.
“The people I mentioned claimed to speak for Christians. Just as you do, oh keeper of the Key to True Evangelicalism and self-appointed quality controller for Christ.”
I never any such claims. Do you understand the concept of extrapolation? Are you as assinine in person as on line?
Thanks for your tacit, albeit disingenuous, admission of Willard's left-leaning judicial position.
Quote: "No, we are the quality assurance and quality control personnel for true Christianity."
Are you as assinine in person as on line?
Yes, I am. Are you as an insufferable prig in person as you are online?
Romney doesn’t have a left-leaning judicial position, so anything that you think “admitted” it was a figment of your imagination.
He appointed democrats to the judiciary. Conservatives do not advocate a republican-only judiciary, especially given that two of the worst justices we have are republicans.
We can hardly argue for an independent judiciary if we insist that republicans only appoint republicans, while democrats are required to appoint republicans.
So the question is whether he tried to pick judges that would be liberal. In this case the judge he picked was thought to be a law-and-order prosecuter, a democrat but not a bleeding-heart liberal activist. The liberals opposed her because she wasn’t deferential to them.
It bothers me not at all that Romney appointed democrats more than republicans to state judgeships in a state where democrats outnumber republicans by a vast majority in the legislature.
Mitt has been very specific about his philosphy of federal judicial appointments, and his position is a solid conservative position. Some of his solid conservative endorsements have endorsed him specifically because of his strong position on judges.
The use of a mistake by an appointed judge, and the tragic death of two people, for a crass and false political attack, is something I don’t condone, and will not be a party to.
Issues of a candidate’s beliefs and how they would effect his actions is certainly important, and I didn’t mean otherwise.
However, pronouncing whether people who speak in tongues should be able to call themselves “evangelical” certainly has nothing to do with how a candidate is going to make decisions.
“Yes, I am. Are you as an insufferable prig in person as you are online?”
Oh much worse when the occasion calls for it.
I wish Fred Thompson had won the hearts and minds of the people, because before all this rancor, most of those who are supporting Romney could have easily supported Fred Thompson.
Fred has unfortunately alienated a few folks, and his supporters a few more, making the task harder. And he hasn’t moved up in the polls, or shown any sign that he is a sure thing against Rudy or the democrats.
So now we are back to being scared, and trying to find a conservative we think can win. If we nominate Romney, and he loses in the general, we’ll all feel bad. If we give up on Romney, and support Fred, and Rudy is our nominee, or McCain, we’ll feel bad. If Thompson wins and then loses the general election and we gave up on Romney, we’ll feel bad.
Oy vey!
“However, pronouncing whether people who speak in tongues should be able to call themselves “evangelical” certainly has nothing to do with how a candidate is going to make decisions.”
I made statements to the effect that no true evangelical would vote for a mormon. The lady that responded she would was a charismatic not an evangelical. That is why I pointed it out the difference. I was not attempting to insult her, just say that she could not be an example.
Of the “evangelicals” that have supposedly supported Romney...I think that careful analyses of their backgrounds would be revealing.
As an example, Pat Robertson endorsed Guiliani which surprised many. Robertson claims to be Southern Baptist, but he is openly charismatic in his theology. Not recognized by the SBC. BTW - Bob Jones is Fundamentalistic, whereas Southern Baptists are conservative evangelicals. Names and words do mean things.
WAIT! Wait for me! Last night, just after midnight I have received a pair of tablets from Archangel LaTrine, informing me I was a Prophet of the Church of the Latest and Greatest Saints, the Gromo Church. More to come.Please don’t vote until you hear mo from the Church of Gromo! Halleluyah, dudes!
Most people use the term evangelical in a more inclusive manner than you suggest, however there are a good number of endorsers who would meet your strict criteria as well.
For the record, I consider myself an evangelical, although my proprensity toward calvinism may cause some to disagree with my assessment (I’m PCA). I was raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, but I think they abused the name. I’ve hung with Baptists my whole life, and still support believer’s baptism, but otherwise am covenental rather than dispensational.
But I still feel that dragging all of that into a political discussion is a bad idea.
Crawl back under the rock from whence you came. The rest of us have a real enemy to fight and it ain't Mormonism.
“For the record, I consider myself an evangelical, although my proprensity toward calvinism may cause some to disagree with my assessment (I’m PCA). I was raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, but I think they abused the name. I’ve hung with Baptists my whole life, and still support believer’s baptism, but otherwise am covenental rather than dispensational.”
Brother, I’m a 5 point calvinist myself, of the Southern Baptist variety. There are actually quite a few of us in the SBC. Two SBC seminary presidents are calvinists. Southern Baptist Seminary of KY is the most so. Its president is Albert Mohler - he is solidy a five pointer as were the founders of the SBC back in 1845. BTW - I would say the entire staff of Southern Baptist Seminary (the oldest of SBC seminaries) are calvinists or lean that direction.
I am not dispensational either, but not entirely convenental - I typically avoid escatological discussions because they go nowhere fast. I’m of the Charles H. Spurgeon variety of Baptist Calvinists. Dispensationalism is more a fundamentalist phenomena than evangelical, really started with the 20th Century.
PCA are evangelical as are Southern Baptists. Usually independent Baptists tend to be fundamentalists.
I guess this might surprise you because I come across as rather harsh on this forum. I really don’t like having to adopt a “nasty” personna, but have found it necessary when dealing with Mitt followers (many of which I suspect are closet mormons).
As a calvinist I believe God is Sovereign in matters of salvation. However, I believe it our duty to present the Gospel to all and protect its message from dilution or perversion. Protecting the message is important to me, and I don’t like psuedo-christian distractors like mormonism.
I don’t like Armenianism, but live in peace with those that hold that view - knowing they only hurt their own peace of mind, not the message of the Gospel.
“You are an enemy of any conservative who doesn’t fit your narrow defintiion of Christianity. That includes Jews, Mormons, Catholics and probably 95% of Protestants who would rather have someone they disagree with in theology but defend their right to worship freely.”
Not really, because I would vote for a Christian friendly Jew and have no problems voting for a consistent Roman Catholic either.
I fully agree with the right of everyone to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. However, that doesn’t mean I want a person that holds what I consider “dangerous” views because of their religious background to be POTUS. Mormons are just plain weird like Hubbards group. I don’t think someone buying into that insanity is suitable to be POTUS. I would never be for putting this into law, but I would hope persons outside of mormonism would recognize the insidious nature of the beast. It is chocolate covered poison. If someone choses to eat it, that is between them and God. However, I won’t allow someone to use the office of POTUS to give respectibility to that poison.
That's his rationalization for polluting the judiciary? Demo(crat)graphics?
Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.
The Boston Globe
Yes. Further, the conservative movement doesn’t advocate a ban on gay people being allowed to have jobs as judges, nor do we advocate disqualifying people from judgeships based on their personal views, so long as they demonstrate that they will not allow their personal views to interfere with doing their job.
It’s liberals who attack our conservative judges based on their personal beliefs — like saying no catholics should apply for appeals courts because their personal belief on abortion disqualifies them from being “impartial”.
Tossing that many conservative votes in the dumpster is, evidently a good trade-off in your book in order to exclude from public life all who don't meet your religious test.
I guess we should all be grateful that you merely want them to be second-class citizens rather than put them into concentration camps.
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.