Romney, Allen Take The Lead In VA

Virginia Virtucon ^ | 10/11/12 | Riley

[Yashcheritsiy]

I won't sell my soul, my relationship to my heavenly Father, because of fear of unknown political consequenses.

See, this is the sort of "political Christianity" that I think is a heretical replacement for REAL Christianity. Nobody "loses their relationship" with God, just because they don't vote for your preferred third party candidate.

[kabar]

You live in CA. Your vote is meaningless. You have the luxury of being able to vote your conscience. Obama will win CA in a rout.

[Yashcheritsiy]

I'll vote for someone at the POTUS level who is actually a Christian

Who did you support during the primaries?

[SoConPubbie]

Sarah, Cain, Gingrich, in that order.

[SoConPubbie]

See, this is the sort of "political Christianity" that I think is a heretical replacement for REAL Christianity. Nobody "loses their relationship" with God, just because they don't vote for your preferred third party candidate.

Really?

So if you are supporting someone you know is actively engaged in a sin, you don't see that as a sin?

How do you rectify supporting somone who has been warned multiple times by conservative Christians that supporting Abortion or the Homosexual agenda goes against God's will? Especially when that man is a Bishop in his own church that proclaims they are a Christian church?

How do you rectify this behavior with the Bible's message to warn people of their sin and if they continue to not listen, have nothing to do with them?

Do you believe God winks at our actions that go directly against his commands?

[Yashcheritsiy]

Your question would have more meaning if you weren’t actively acting to help return to office a guy who is even more egregious. I’d hate to have to stand before God and explain that I helped re-elect Barack Obama because I was more concerned about stumping for a preferred political candidate than I was about using the common sense that He had given me.

Next.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Especially when that man is a Bishop in his own church that proclaims they are a Christian church?

Well, the problem with this argument, at least when trying to use it with me, is that I can turn it right back around. If I were only going to vote for someone I knew to be a Bible Christian with correct doctrine, then that would mean Santorum and Gingrich are out (Catholic), Sarah Palin is out (Charismatic), Perry is out (non-denominational come as you are no-standards), Huckabee is out (social gospel "Baptist"), and if I really wanted to investigate thoroughly, I'd probably conclude that even Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann were unsupportable because they use the wrong Bible version or believe in the universal church instead of taking a local only position. Romney being a Mormon makes him no more problematic than would be Ryan, Gingrich, and Santorum, who are all Catholics, which I believe is also an unscriptural cult.

How do you rectify this behavior with the Bible's message to warn people of their sin and if they continue to not listen, have nothing to do with them?

By the fact that those commandments are not referring to politics, but to spiritual matters, especially as those pertain within a local church body, the body of Christ. In fact, trying to apply these to politics in the way you are doing is gross worldliness, as I see it.

[SoConPubbie]

Well, the problem with this argument, at least when trying to use it with me, is that I can turn it right back around. If I were only going to vote for someone I knew to be a Bible Christian with correct doctrine, then that would mean Santorum and Gingrich are out (Catholic), Sarah Palin is out (Charismatic), Perry is out (non-denominational come as you are no-standards), Huckabee is out (social gospel "Baptist"), and if I really wanted to investigate thoroughly, I'd probably conclude that even Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann were unsupportable because they use the wrong Bible version or believe in the universal church instead of taking a local only position. Romney being a Mormon makes him no more problematic than would be Ryan, Gingrich, and Santorum, who are all Catholics, which I believe is also an unscriptural cult.

I expect better from you Yashcheritsiy than to posit a strawman argument.

We aren't talking about doctrine here, we're talking about out and out sin.

None of those denominations that you mentioned support the sins of butchering their babies or the abomination of Homosexuality.

I can argue the doctrinal differences all day long with those different sects of Christianity, but we all agree, immediately on the complete and utter sinfulness of buthering the unborn babies and the abomination of the Sodomites.

[SoConPubbie]

Your question would have more meaning if you weren’t actively acting to help return to office a guy who is even more egregious. I’d hate to have to stand before God and explain that I helped re-elect Barack Obama because I was more concerned about stumping for a preferred political candidate than I was about using the common sense that He had given me.

Because I refuse to support or vote for either, Obama because he is an under-the-cover Communist, and Romney because he is a Progressive Liberal supporting the worst parts of the Liberal agenda, I am now supporting Obama.

You shouldn't lie Yash, it's not becoming of you.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Oh, I also forgot to mention that I don’t think Romney “supports abortion and the homosexual agenda.”

He may have in the past, as have probably a lot of people on this very board who have since chosen not to, but that’s not so relevant to the present as many would like to think it is.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Because I refuse to support or vote for either, Obama because he is an under-the-cover Communist, and Romney because he is a Progressive Liberal supporting the worst parts of the Liberal agenda, I am now supporting Obama.

No - I said you are helping to re-elect Obama. Not the same thing (though, ultimately, they produce the same result).

You shouldn't lie Yash, it's not becoming of you.

You should try reading what people actually said. It will make you look less foolish.

[SoConPubbie]

No - I said you are helping to re-elect Obama. Not the same thing (though, ultimately, they produce the same result).

. . . . . .

You should try reading what people actually said. It will make you look less foolish.

You know, you were right, I jumped the gun with respect to what you meant and assumed something I shouldn't have. I apologize.

However, my telling the truth about Romney and not voting for him is not helping Obama, that responsibility falls on Romney's shoulders, not mine.

With regards to your earlier post where you said:

Oh, I also forgot to mention that I don’t think Romney “supports abortion and the homosexual agenda.”

He may have in the past, as have probably a lot of people on this very board who have since chosen not to, but that’s not so relevant to the present as many would like to think it is.

How about we deal with the facts. Here is Romney and his campaign staff, recently, on the social issues:

With regards to the Homosexual Agenda:

August 9, 2012 - Romney Says Boy Scouts Should Admit Homosexuals

May 11, 2012 - Gay Adoption 'Fine' With Romney

December 21, 2011 - Romney Says He Will Continue Obama's Policy of Having Homosexuals in Military

Paul Ryan Says He's Now Okay With Gays in the Military

With regards to Abortion (butchering babies):

August 27, 2012 - "My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."


Now you can't fall back on the excuse of ignorance.

Now you know.

Whatever happened to the uncompromising soldier for conservative truth that you used to be Yashcheritsiy?

Is it so easy to throw your principles overboard because you are backing an extremely flawed candidate?

Can't you back him and still be honest about his failures and not try to paper them over?

[JerseyDvl]

Others are right and you are helping Obama. Sorry if the truth hurts.

[Yashcheritsiy]

You know, you were right, I jumped the gun with respect to what you meant and assumed something I shouldn't have. I apologize.

Apology accepted.

Though I'm still not sure you really "got" what I was saying.

Whatever happened to the uncompromising soldier for conservative truth that you used to be Yashcheritsiy?

I woke up and realised that you're not being a "soldier for truth" when you're helping to re-elect Barack Obama.

Sure, you can pat yourself on the back and pretend like you are, and look down your nose at everyone else who just doesn't understand the great esoteric truth of true victory through 1% of the vote that seems to be the third party secret - but the fact remains, that you guys are doing nothing but helping Obama win. That's it.

Now, I know that you like to congratulate yourselves on your principles. But as I've said elsewhere, if your "principles" including helping to re-elect Barack Obama, then quite frankly, your principles are worthless. In fact, they're worse than worthless, they're downright destructive.

I know all the things you posted in your response. I also know that 1) Romney as President won't have much opportunity to act on most or possibly all of these sentiments anywise, and 2) Barack Obama is demonstrably worse than Romney, by a long shot.

Seriously. Stop and think for a minute. You're asking me to not vote for a guy because he slipped and said "health of the mother," thereby helping to re-elect a guy who voted to support killing babies even after they survived an abortion attempt. What that essentially means is that YOU are providing material support to a guy who voted to kill babies after they were born alive through a "botched" abortion.

Now, I'm sure that you'll huffle and puffle and flamjabulate about how that is not the case, could not ever possibly be the case, and how this is all just a horrible terrible effort at discombobujumbatorating your stainless honour, but the fact remains that it's true.

You're asking me to vote in such a way as to take away from Romney, so that there is slightly greater chance that the overall count will end up with the born-baby-killer-voting guy getting elected.

Some principles you got there. And yes, I mean that sarcastically.

I could go on point by point with the rest of your mental gymnastics, but I doubt you could take the full force of this fully armed and operational ticked off ex-Goode voter. So I'll spare your tender sensibilities.

If you can't understand this relatively simple concept - if you are so divorced from actual reality that you really believe you can wishcast Virgil Goode's or Tom Hoefling's or whoever else's sub-1% behind into the White House - then I doubt we really have anything to talk about. I'm dealing in reality. You're dealing in fantasy. I'm dealing with the way electoral mechanics in the United States actually work, you're dealing in some alternate reality where a man can become President on the strength of hopes and dreams and Care Bear wishes alone.

You talk about being a "soldier for truth." Truth has to be grounded in reality, and take reality into account. In that score, being a soldier for truth means tactically doing what you can to get the horrible guy out of office, even if he has to be temporarily replaced by the merely distasteful one instead. You guys can't claim to be soldiers for truth, for your methods are not advancing truth, and not preparing the ground for truth to return. instead, you're helping to stifle truth by making it easier for truth's enemies to keep their places of power.

THAT is a terrible thing, but fortunately, since most folks who are wakable have woken up by now, you're also in a tiny minority who will be inconsequential to this election. THAT is a good thing.

[SoConPubbie]

Others are right and you are helping Obama. Sorry if the truth hurts.

First, you'd have to have some truth in order for it to hurt me.

I'm not the one that is helping Obama, Mitt Romney with his support of the Gay Agenda and Abortion is the one helping Obama, and keeping himself from having an absolute blow-out of proportions.

[SoConPubbie]

Some principles you got there. And yes, I mean that sarcastically.

Seems your principles aren't Christ-centered.

Mitt Romney is purposefully backing the Gay Agenda and Abortion.

He has been warned multiple times by many people about the moral incorrectness of these positions, and yet, for reasons of either the wrong set of principles or political expediency, he continues on in the path of supporting behaviors that God himself has called Abomination, including the butchering of unborn babies, the most defenseless amoung us.

Supporting a sin, or those commmitting a sin, is just as bad and makes us just as culpable/guilty in the eyes of God.

I don't know if you are familiar with how we are commanded to handle those who proclaim they are Christians and yet purposely continue in known sin?

1. You warn the person personally.
2. You warn the person in the prescence of two or three witnesses.
3. You rebuke the person publically in the church.
4. If the person does not heed the warnings/rebuke, you are commanded to have nothing to do with that person.

While none of us will have the opportunity to perform these explicit actions, I know he has been warned multiple times about the moral incorrectness of his actions where Abortion and the Gay agenda is cocerned.

In the spirit of these biblical commands, how can you give me grief for refusing to support somebody who is purposefully sinning?

[Tennessee Nana]

Mitt Romney with his support of the Gay Agenda and Abortion is the one helping Obama, and keeping himself from having an absolute blow-out of proportions.
_____________________________________________

Imagine where the Republicans woulod be in the polls if their canidate was a Conservative...

WAAAAY ahead of Obama...

so far ahead that there would be on doubts about Nov 6...

they wouldnt have to lie and pretend the polls are wrong...

They wouldnt have to be subjected to the lies about his past to make him look good from Willard...

They wouldnt have to put up with the lies and religious insults and bigotry the Christians have been subjected to from Willard...

so sickening and hypocritical and offensive it makes you want to throw up...

Why dont any of them challenge Willard when he lies about Christianity ???

Because they feel stuck...

They made their beds with the devil now they have to dance with him...

Obama or Willard...

Yeah theres a difference...

Willard is old enoough to be Obamas father...

[xzins]

As those who have strongly acknowledged the shortcomings of Mitt Romney and with consistency throughout this election season, we are clearly faced with a choice.

Let me be up front about it: I will not vote for Mitt Romney. I'll not rehash the reasons; you all know them.

However, I think everyone should be about the business of attacking Barack Obama. As Yash points out, he is the greater abomination. Therefore, I've determined to spend my time in opposition to my greater enemy, Barack Obama. I try not to get into Romney unless he strays into liberalism with some comment, or a thread like this, and especially from past friends, becomes a discussion.

I consider you all FRiends. Yash is doing something understandable, logical, and widely accepted. I'll not fault him for thinking it makes sense to also give his vote to Romney while he's in the midst of a war against Obama.

The truth is that there is no viable 3rd alternative. I believe now, and should have seen it earlier, that Virgil Goode would have done a world better good for getting a 3rd party off the ground if he had not run for the presidency on the CP ticket, but had run for his old congressional seat on the CP ticket. He could have been the first CP representative at a national level.

That is not just a rational way to institute a 3rd party, it is the only way that will work given our US Constitution. A plurality vote of electors does NOT win the presidency. It must be a majority of electors, and if that is not attained then the decision goes to the House of Representatives. Abraham Lincoln won due to having a majority of House members supporting him. Read the history; that's the only way he could have been elected.

So, we have no home, our separated brethren can show us that their position is logical, and we have an abominable enemy. Why in the world do I not just surrender to what appears to be the inevitable?

The ONLY reason is my understanding of God. God disapproves of unholy alliances. It is clear in the kings of Israel and Judah, particularly with Jehoshaphat in 2 Chr 17-20, and it is clear with marriage in that the OT particularly calls us to reject marriages with the unbelieving, and there is in all matters the overarching guidance that we should not be unequally yoked. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14, KJV).

So, in short, I will not form an unholy alliance with a man who supports choice, gay couples, gay adoption, gay scouts, gay military, and bi-partisan gun control.

The result of Jehoshaphat's unholy alliance with Ahab was the marrying of his son to Ahab & Jezebel's daughter, Athaliah, who became the evil grandmother who brought idolatry back to Judah and nearly killed off the entire line of David, with the exception of Josiah, who was hiddien by the high priest until he came of age.

Perhaps the republicans will win with Romney. It will result in a great danger for the nation. Likewise, Obama is a great danger for the nation. However, somehow a remnant of faithful in opposition to the greater evil is preferred to the faithful giving in to an unholy alliance.

God loves a remnant and praises it always.