Christian Blogger Endorses Romney; Debunks 'Can't Vote for Mormon' Belief

The Christian Post ^ | October 15, 2012 | Audrey Barrick , Christian Post Reporter

[2ndDivisionVet]

Well said.

[Venturer]

Better a Mormon in the White House than the Muslim we have now.

[WKB]

Baptist ping

[Internet Walnut]

Yeah, they voted for a muzlimb.

[Tennessee Nana]

one candidate/party is saying that we could eliminate 960,000 abortions by saying the only exceptions might be physical health and welfare of the mother.
______________________________________

NO

The republican Party is saying on its platform NO ABORTIONS

the candidate Willard Mitt Romney is saying all on his own ABORTIONS FOR HEALTH OF THE PREGNANT FEMALE, WELFARE OF THE PREGNANT FEMALE...

which is slightly diferent than when he said for years ABORTIONS DONT NEED A REASON LETS HAVE LOTS

[Coldwater Creek]

I’m SOOOOOOOOOOOO grateful that you don’t live in a Blue state.

[Dr. Thorne]

After opposing Romney all through the primary season and resisting giving him my support even when it became clear that he would be the GOP candidate, I now plan to vote for him.

This is not because he is a good choice for the presidency. My belief is that because of the sickening moral degradation of America, we are essentially doomed. I don't see any Great Awakening in the offing although God may forestall His wrath for a season as He did for King Josiah. No nation that sanctions the butchery of over 50 million children will long stand.

Romney's election may slightly slow the steady march to destruction and thus give us a short window of time in which we can better prepare ourselves for the coming judgment both spiritually and physically.

America doesn't appear in the cataclysmic endtime Bible prophecies. There's a reason.

[Slyfox]

Obama's Crimes Against the Unborn

[Colonel_Flagg]

Mr. Turk needs to read Isaiah 28:14-20. And then he needs to pray long and hard.

I’ve done that for the last six months now. Mormonism has nothing to do with why I and others like me can’t support Mitt Romney.

If you read the verses, you’ll see what God has to say about ‘the lesser of two evils’.

[muawiyah]

A large number of Christians (Social Conservatives) sat out the 1988 election because they refused to vote for a confessed liar ~ to wit, George H. W. Bush.

I'm too tired to check for it but I bet this particular blogger has yet to condemn them for that action ~ or lack there of.

[Colofornian]

From the article: Providing one "America" reason that the "don't assist in making a cult mainstream" doesn't work out, the blogger wrote, "Voting for any man does not affirm that you accept his religious expression, or his systematic theology: it affirms that you accept his right as a citizen to run for office."

Re: the latter: Oh, so you HAVE to now vote for a Hare Krishna, a Scientolist, a Wicca, or a Satanist to thereby "prove" "that you accept his (her) right as a citizen to run for office"????

Talk about lame logic. Hardly debunking anything.

Sorry, Frank...and those who embrace this sorry line of thinking"
* We don't have to vote for Democrats just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."
* We don't have to vote for homosexuals just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."
* We don't have to vote for Environmentalist Green Party folks just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."
* We don't have to vote for libertarians just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."
* Nor do we have to vote for Scientologists just to prove they have some "right" as citizens to "run for office."

There is no across-the-board universal parallel application of Frank Turk's logic here...showing its sheer absurdity.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Or maybe he means that there is no religious test for office in the United States.

[Colofornian]

From the article: Providing one "America" reason that the "don't assist in making a cult mainstream" doesn't work out, the blogger wrote, "Voting for any man does not affirm that you accept his religious expression, or his systematic theology: it affirms that you accept his right as a citizen to run for office."

Listen, no candidate "meets" tit for tat their theology and your theology.

Tell us, Frank Turk and your disciples, name a single source who is claiming that because Candidate A doesn't match up "systematic theology"-wise, don't vote for him???

This is simply called a "straw man" argumentative fallacy.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when somebody ignores actual positions and substitutes an extreme, distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of various positions.

So, as it pertains to Mitt Romney and other temple Mormons, we don't have to evaluate him across the board on every theological tenet. And I haven't found ANYBODY saying that we need to...(or apply that logic to ANY OTHER candidate in any other race, either).

We can simply evaluate Mitt Romney on a few key decisive theological points: For example, does he or does he not, believe he is a "god in embryo?" Many Lds "prophets" have taught that. No Lds teaching has denied those teachings. Therefore, do we want to vote for somebody who sets himself up as a rival god to THE God???

How do you think THE God feels about you as a Christian ignoring the FIRST commandment about not placing other gods before him...and endorsing such false gods???

There. No exhaustive theological exam needed.

A second point worthy of eval: What is the Mormon "scriptural" position on who we as Christians are?

Answer? ALL (as in 100%) of our professors are "corrupt." ALL (as in 100%) of our creeds are an "abomination." That's what Joseph Smith - History vv. 18-20 teaches in the Pearl of Great Price, which is Lds "scripture." That's not "Mormon leader" mere opinion; it's their specific scripture as applied toward all Christian sects.

Therefore, is that very "inspirational" for Christians to vote for Romney???

Key point in remembering is that we're down to only a handful of true swing states. Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, polling-wise are all falling to Romney. The only FREEPERs who can justify their anti-conservative vote "anybody but Obama" (a euphemism for pro-Romneyism) are those in states like Ohio, PA, Wisconsin, Colorado.

Just about ALL of the rest of the states will either easily fall to Romney, or to Obama, and your FREEPER vote won't make a difference in those states.

[ozzymandus]

I see we’ve still got some bigots here who don’t understand how important beating Obama is. Those people are idiots.

[Colofornian]

Or maybe he means that there is no religious test for office in the United States.

"Religious tests" per the Constitution apply ONLY to the government attempting to "fence out" given candidates.

If such tests applied to voters, then we would be FORCED to vote for minority religious candidates like Satanists to prove that there's no "religious test" for such a candidate.

How lame.

Religious tests apply only to WHO gets on the ballot; it's not meant to be a dictator forcing you HOW to vote among your choices on that ballot.

[ntnychik]

Franklin Graham has come out strongly for Mitt.
After Mitt visited Billy Graham, Billy said he’d do everything he could to help.

[Colofornian]

I see we still have some intolerant “bigots” here who can’t stand the free religious expression of others.

[Larry Lucido]

Yes, very true.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I never claimed there were any requirements on voters. Talk about a straw man. I'm starting to think that Starship Troopers had it right. Do you know what I mean by that?

[Colofornian]

Or maybe he means that there is no religious test for office in the United States

You know what's "funny" is that Obama's supposed Muslim ties have been mentioned in hundreds/thousands of FR threads and tens of thousands of FR posts going back to 2007. I've yet to see a single FREEPER bring up the "no religious test for office" to apply to either Islam or Obama's Muslim ties.

How conveniently inconsistent.

(Nor have I seen the self-appointed "bigot patrol" rush into those same threads to accuse posters of engaging in Islamic "bigotry"...more hypocrisy on the loose)