That's an interesting but false theology of sin that you express and which makes it understandable that, as a Christian with such a theology, you feel comfortable voting for one AntiChrist over the other because, after all, YOUR Antichrist is a smidgeon better than THEIR Antichrist. I am a Roman Catholic and I don't posture as a Scriptural scholar. Nor should you.
Catholics do not share and never have shared the notion that if you've seen one sin you've seen 'em all. That theory would put Moses in hell for tapping that rock twice, Peter in hell for lopping off the servant's ear through excess enthusiasm for Jesus Christ, Paul in hell for murdering St. Stephen for the Sanhedrin, ad so forth.
I suspect that there are many in reformed churches who share your notion but will not give Romney a free pass to persecute Catholicism or other churches of orthodox traditional morality, kill babies, cheerlead "gay" everything, etc. Plenty of Catholics too, and Orthodox Jews, and Orthodox Christians and a lot of other folks, believer`s and non-believers. See the upcoming movie "For the Greater Glory" in which Andy Garcia plays an atheist general of the Cristero armies of Mexicans who waged revolution against the communist Mexican government that regularly martyred Catholics and their priests. It is said that the movie is meant to be the Mexican Braveheart. It also feature Peter O'Toole as a martyred priest and Eva Longoria as (I believe) the general's wife.
The general was married to a Catholic woman but led the Catholic armies because he believed in religious freedom and proudly bore the slogan (Viva Cristo Rey! or Long Live Christ the King!). Now, I don't doubt that Tom Hoefling and I would have a difference or two on theology but I don't think he would have hesitated for a second, if he had lived in 1920s Mexico, to become a Reformed Cristero. I would have had his back and he mine. I don't think you would have done that. You would have been too busy making nuanced calculations as to which servant of Lucifer in the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) might be less likely to raise your taxes or regulate your business or whatever as Calles' putative successor. Maybe you would accept special deals from Calles and/or Obregon to be a government stoolpigeon and sell out the martyrs. Above all, we must sell our souls to practicality and phony pragmatism, right? How about: Shoot 'em all! Dismember their putrid corpses and piss on their graves (a little Irish touch there!). Viva Cristo Rey!
I will NOT vote for Obozo. Nor will I vote for Romney. For precisely the same reasons. For 44 years of POTUS elections, I have voted GOP. They want my vote from now on? They'll have to EARN it. If you are disappointed, toooo bad because that says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Since your toater (toaster?) is neither Obozo nor the Massachusetts serial liar, baby-killer, marriage destroyer, gun grabber, etc., then your toater (toaster?) deserves at least a tentative hearing. As you seem to acknowledge, however, Tom Hoefling has set a very High Standard for your Toater (toaster?) to exceed. Toater or no toater, I expect to vote for Tom Hoefling as my brother in Christ. Sorry about you!
You obviously "have fallen from Grace" if you cannot delineate the difference that God made when he separated the Old Covenant from the New Covenant. King David committed an atrocity against Uriah and his son died for it - yet it says that David died sinless. When Jesus walked the Earth, we were still under the Old Covenant and He adhered to it. Once He died and arose, the New Covenant came into force. When a person admits his human weakness and inability to live outside of sin, and askes Jesus into his heart as the Savior Who Died for him, that person becomes sinless and a saint in God's eyes, even though he continues act sinfully. The message of the Old testament was that men could not become justified through their own power and volition. Men asked for a set of rules to prove they could and God gave them the Commandments to prove they couldn't. Jesus told us (under the Old Covenant, that if a man even thought about committing adultry, he may as well have committed the act. A saved Paul lamented that he continued to do that whcih he would not do, and did not do that which he would - he agonized over his inability to live without committing sinful acts and to do the good things he knew he should do. The phrase "The poor in spirit shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven is a reference that indicates, once saved, and realizing your weakness and inability to live without sinful acts, your understanding and regret were looked upon favorably because it is what He was trying to teach us. You consider Baptism a rite that actually washes sin away and the Bible doesn't say that. Baptism is a public display of your fealty to Jesus - like wearing a wedding ring. Catholics think that Baptism protects a baby from Hell until such time as the child is old enough to express the need for Jesus in his heart through Confirmation. It is not harmful, but it is also not necessary. Else, no-one could be saved without a Catholic Priest (whom you refer to as "Father" despite Jesus' admoinishment not to do because you have but one Father and He is in Heaven. You don't need priests and rites to be saved - you need to know the Good News of the Bible and to accept that Jesus paid for your sins. ALL sin was death-penalty serious. Breaking the Commandment of not stealing was as serious as that of not murdering. I'm no Scriptual scholar either, but I do understand the difference between Old and New Covenants and what it means to live under the New. Use the Bible, in context, to refute one thing I have said and then you can lecture me on being a Christian.
God Bless and ease your angry heart.
Then you'd be denying the words that your church claims to have written, from a book it loves to quote from no less.
James 2:10-11 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
It also shows a misunderstanding of forgiveness and grace. Salvation is not an on again/off again proposition based on works. It is a gift, freely given. Sin disrupts the lines of communication between us and God and has consequences, as God will not allow any child of His to continue in sin without dealing with him about it. But it does not cost us our salvation every time we sin.
If our salvation were based on works, Jesus would have had no reason to die and we'd have something to boast about in ourselves. Not to mention that it's well nigh impossible for any one person to be able to ask forgiveness for each and every sin they've committed as nobody can keep that kind of account. All it would take is missing confessing one sin and you're doomed.
God doesn't intend for us to live under that kind of cloud of fear and uncertainty.