I'd much rather have someone that has a clear set of priciples and will follow them.
I like Bachmann, but as I've said before she has a huge skeleton in her closet: she attended Oral Roberts University.
Oral Roberts was a very controversial preacher. And I'm not just talking about to secular non-believers. The brand of Christianity he preached (prosperity gospel/seed-faith) is outside of mainstream Christianity (including evangelical Christiantiy).
From the following link: http://godwordistruth.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/prosperity-gospel-the-tragic-legacy-of-oral-roberts-seed-faith-perversion/
Prosperity Gospel: The Tragic Legacy of Oral Roberts’ Seed-Faith Perversion
Pastor John MacArthur wrote an excellent review “Measuring Oral Roberts’ Influence” commenting on the published obituaries following the passing of Oral Roberts on 15 Dec 2009. Pastor JM clearly set the straight facts on Oral Roberts’ infamous contribution to developing the tragic legacy of Seed-Faith perversion of the Gospel:
“Tragically, the Seed-Faith message usurped and utterly replaced whatever gospel content there ever may have been in Oral Roberts’ preaching. In all the many times I saw him on television I never once heard him preach the gospel. His message–every time–was about Seed-Faith. The reason for that is obvious: the message of the cross–an atoning sacrifice for sins wrought through Jesus’ sufferings–frankly doesn’t mesh very well with the notion that God guarantees health, wealth, and prosperity to the righteous. Our fellowship in Jesus’ sufferings (Philippians 3:10), and our duty to follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:20-23), are likewise antithetical to the core principles of prosperity doctrine. The prosperity message is a different gospel (cf. Galatians 1:8-9).”
“One thing all the obituaries agree on is that Oral Roberts paved the way for all the charismatic televangelists and faith-healers who dominate religious television today. He did more than anyone in the early Pentecostal movement to influence mainstream evangelicalism. He parlayed his television ministry into a vast empire that has left a deep mark on the church worldwide. In many places today, including some of the world’s most illiterate and poverty-stricken regions, Oral Roberts’ Seed-Faith concept is actually better known than the doctrine of justification by faith. The message of prosperity is now the message multitudes think of when they hear the word “gospel.” Countless confused people worldwide think of the gospel as a message about earthly, temporal, and material riches rather than the infinitely greater blessings of forgiveness from sin and the eternal blessing of the believer’s spiritual union with Christ.“
There have been real debates over how evangelicals would react if a Morman was nominated. What would happen if someone was nominated that was a follower of Oral Roberts? You're going to have some pretty serious religious debates (something we don't need to get sidetracked with right now). I expect a serious percentage of Christians would be turned off by the Oral Roberts connection enough to say no.
I don’t have any argument with the premise that causes you to come to the conclusion you have. I was raised in Joplin, Missouri, and I remember Roberts.
While I wasn’t an adherent by any stretch of the imagination, I watched enough of his presentations to come to the conclusion he was a fraud (IMO).
His constant calls for more money, and his phony healing sessions (again at least IMO), caused me to see him in a very negative light. Old women patrons of my grandmother’s nursing home would send him off checks. It didn’t sit well with me that they were hoodwinked into doing so.
For what it’s worth, my step-father was an ambulance driver. He stated that he more than once picked up people who WERE NOT healed in Robert’s sessions, and when he did they were beyond the point of any rescue on this earth.
Okay, we probably agree on this much. As for his message, I don’t disagree with you.
Now, does that mean that every kid who chose Oral Roberts University should be a political untouchable? Does it mean that vast numbers would refuse to vote for them?
I may be wrong, but I don’t thing that’s true. It’s certainly a point thinking people can disagree on, but I’m not convinced that she would be untouchable.
Look, if folks will vote for a guy who sat there and listened to Jeramiah Wright for twenty years, I think they can vote for someone who is a good person, and may have made a poor choice for graduate school earlier in their life.
What would be most important to me, is that they had a firm grip on what dangers face this nation
Look, we’ve had excellent practicing Christians who have been disasters as president. Jimmy Carter comes to mind. I’m not convinced individual personal doctrinal dogma is transferred to the nation by one of these individuals.
I don’t think Bachmann would be a threat of sorts if she was elected. I see it as just the reverse.
I appreciate your comments. I’m not seeking to discredit your thoughts, because I can understand why you voiced them. In the end, I’m not convinced the negative aspects you touched on would pan out.
Take care.