Concerning the Election results and Born-Agains

mikhen7

Freed By Christ to Serve Christ
I saw this in the AP release this morning. Not sure how to fully interpret but one thing is for sure, at least in this report, it delineates where the evangelical vote went.

"Santorum also was preferred by the half of the electorate that is born-again, while Romney was the favorite among those who were not."

News from The Associated Press

We know that God will honor those Christians who voted for a man who shares their Biblical World-View on life. How, by bringing peace into their hearts for being obedient. Life is to be treasured above all things treasured. Life is why Christ came - Life is why Christ died - Life is who Christ is.

Colossians 3:1-4 (NKJV)
[SUP]1 [/SUP]If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. [SUP]3 [/SUP]For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. [SUP]4 [/SUP]When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.

God Bless
 

SteveJM

Well-Known Member
For all the money that Romney is investing in the elections, he, along with Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul still haven't inspired voters in large numbers to go to the polls. Part of that may be that there are a lot of similarities between the candidates, and even where they differ, they fail to excite many of the electorate.

I personally wish that Paul would drop out, as he's more of a distraction than anything. He has some positions that I believe make him unelectable. Gingrich, who has personal history baggage, seems to be the sharpest pencil at the desk, but is less attractive to our nations outward appearance bias. He could use a personal trainer, so could I. Santorum, from a standpoint of being strongly pro-life , pro-Israel, pro-manufacturing, etc, I prefer over Romney. If it comes down to Romney vs Obama, I'll vote for Romney. I would rather see Gingrich go against Obama in debates, than Romney or Santorum, but he's near the back of the racetrack. As far as being President, I would prefer Santorum, right now. With the way the primary's are going, things could still change. Hopefully Obama will make more missteps, that will in turn cause the moderates and independents to move away from him even more. However, with the way our country is morally, and the liberal bias of most of the media, Obama will be hard to beat.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a strong, articulate, intelligent, moral, fundamental Christian candidate running for office? Would such a candidate ever be elected here in the US? The liberal media would use him or her as a punching bag throughout the elections, just as they are now doing with the GOP, especially against Santorum. By the way, the GOP candidates have been doing a pretty good job of jabbing each other on their own. What are we going to end up with? A pummeled, bruised, and bleeding candidate to run against a relatively rested Obama? Many of the digs that have been stated against the candidates by their own fellow Republicans will be used again after the primaries, but this time they will be coming from Obama's camp.

I would feel very good to see Santorum or Gingrich in office. Romney would be very welcomed over Obama.
 

Obie

Well-Known Member
As a christian, I cannot compromise my beliefs to vote for Romney. For a christian to vote for Romney is simply choosing to lesser of two evils. That is wrong. For a christian to vote for Romney to get rid of Obama is wrong. No christian who stands and lives up his testimony should vote for Romney. To do so is to compromise your faith.

To vote for a non christian to just get rid of Obama is diluting your christian principles. It's that simple. If Romney gets on the ticket, I will do a write-in. I cannot shame my soul and go against our Lord's teachings to do otherwise.
 

SteveJM

Well-Known Member
As a christian, I cannot compromise my beliefs to vote for Romney. For a christian to vote for Romney is simply choosing to lesser of two evils. That is wrong. For a christian to vote for Romney to get rid of Obama is wrong. No christian who stands and lives up his testimony should vote for Romney. To do so is to compromise your faith.

To vote for a non christian to just get rid of Obama is diluting your christian principles. It's that simple. If Romney gets on the ticket, I will do a write-in. I cannot shame my soul and go against our Lord's teachings to do otherwise.

Ginger, while I appreciate your conviction about this, from my perspective, most elections are between two less than ideal candidates. I feel that I'm not voting in a pastor, but rather a political leader. I try to vote for the one who will do the least damage to our country and our Christian values. I have, in times past, gone for a third party candidate, even with knowing that the vote would hurt the GOP and help the Democrat's candidate. There's a lot at stake in this election. What we're seeing from Obama this year will be mild compared to what he'll do after the election, if he wins another term. Still, I respect your position.

P.S. If there was ever a Christian democrat running for office with strong pro-Christian values, such as pro-life, they would have my serious consideration. I doubt that they would ever be put up by the party for a presidential election.
 

Ducati

Well-Known Member
I agree with Steve. Paul needs to just go away. All he is is a hired pundit from the liberal left to help Obama. Romney's Mormonism has to influence his policies. There books and writings teach of an America that never existed. Go figure. :scratch:

Santorum (IMO), is just to week to be the Commander and Chief. Look at what is on the horizon for this Country ,the world, and Israel...Iran and a Nuclear bomb. Do we really want Romney, Paul, Santorum, or Obama in charge of what the United States will decide to do if but in that position ?

Gingrich may have his down falls (but who doesn't), but he knows The White House, he knows government, he knows foreign policies, and he seems to be the only one that is taking anything seriously. Newt has been there and done that, the others are just concerned citizens.

We need a Commander not a broker.
 

SteveJM

Well-Known Member
I agree with Steve. Paul needs to just go away. All he is is a hired pundit from the liberal left to help Obama. Romney's Mormonism has to influence his policies. There books and writings teach of an America that never existed. Go figure. :scratch:

Santorum (IMO), is just to week to be the Commander and Chief. Look at what is on the horizon for this Country ,the world, and Israel...Iran and a Nuclear bomb. Do we really want Romney, Paul, Santorum, or Obama in charge of what the United States will decide to do if but in that position ?

Gingrich may have his down falls (but who doesn't), but he knows The White House, he knows government, he knows foreign policies, and he seems to be the only one that is taking anything seriously. Newt has been there and done that, the others are just concerned citizens.

We need a Commander not a broker.

I do feel that Gingrich would be a better candidate against Obama. He's much brighter and more articulate than Obama could ever be. I still like Santorum, but have my doubts if he could win against Obama, unless Obama makes missteps, or things change that lead some of his supporters away from him.
 

SonSeeker

Well-Known Member
As a christian, I cannot compromise my beliefs to vote for Romney. For a christian to vote for Romney is simply choosing to lesser of two evils. That is wrong. For a christian to vote for Romney to get rid of Obama is wrong. No christian who stands and lives up his testimony should vote for Romney. To do so is to compromise your faith.

To vote for a non christian to just get rid of Obama is diluting your christian principles. It's that simple. If Romney gets on the ticket, I will do a write-in. I cannot shame my soul and go against our Lord's teachings to do otherwise.

I applaud your convictions Obie, but most elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils. And many times we don't have all the information necessary to know who is the lesser of the evils. Our main source of information about any of these candidates is the main stream media; sad to say, but true nevertheless. Are real issues and positions seriously discussed? Not really.

Please don't take this personally, as it is my opinion only. This upcoming election is probably one of the most important in the history of our country, and casting a write-in vote isn't much better than not voting at all. Unless of course, someone out there comes to the forefront of attention and becomes a viable candidate via the write-in ballot. I honestly wish that would happen as none of the candidates gives me any reason to believe they are truly capable of running our country, or even beating the incumbent.
 

Meg

Well-Known Member
For all the money that Romney is investing in the elections, he, along with Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul still haven't inspired voters in large numbers to go to the polls. Part of that may be that there are a lot of similarities between the candidates, and even where they differ, they fail to excite many of the electorate.

I personally wish that Paul would drop out, as he's more of a distraction than anything. He has some positions that I believe make him unelectable. Gingrich, who has personal history baggage, seems to be the sharpest pencil at the desk, but is less attractive to our nations outward appearance bias. He could use a personal trainer, so could I. Santorum, from a standpoint of being strongly pro-life , pro-Israel, pro-manufacturing, etc, I prefer over Romney. If it comes down to Romney vs Obama, I'll vote for Romney. I would rather see Gingrich go against Obama in debates, than Romney or Santorum, but he's near the back of the racetrack. As far as being President, I would prefer Santorum, right now. With the way the primary's are going, things could still change. Hopefully Obama will make more missteps, that will in turn cause the moderates and independents to move away from him even more. However, with the way our country is morally, and the liberal bias of most of the media, Obama will be hard to beat.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a strong, articulate, intelligent, moral, fundamental Christian candidate running for office? Would such a candidate ever be elected here in the US? The liberal media would use him or her as a punching bag throughout the elections, just as they are now doing with the GOP, especially against Santorum. By the way, the GOP candidates have been doing a pretty good job of jabbing each other on their own. What are we going to end up with? A pummeled, bruised, and bleeding candidate to run against a relatively rested Obama? Many of the digs that have been stated against the candidates by their own fellow Republicans will be used again after the primaries, but this time they will be coming from Obama's camp.

I would feel very good to see Santorum or Gingrich in office. Romney would be very welcomed over Obama.

A pencil and an exacto knife look similar from the blunt end, but the business end is another matter entirely. So Ginrich may be able to shout down Obama, and he would be able to put a leash on Iran. But with his utter lack of moral restraint, what else would he do if elected? We really don't have a viable candidate on the Republican ticket. I guess, in the end, laying down one's self interest to serve this country is too much to ask from anyone who might have been worth voting for. I guess as long as the individual is comfortable, what happens to everyone else is academic or something.

...However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
(Luke 18:8)
 

Robert

Well-Known Member
"When a man lays hold of his brother in his father’s house, saying, “You have a cloak, you shall be our ruler, And these ruins will be under your charge,” He will protest on that day, saying, “I will not be your healer, For in my house there is neither bread nor cloak; You should not appoint me ruler of the people.” (Isaiah 3:6-7, NASB, emphasis mine)


Sound familiar?


And why would the requirement be "a cloak"? A cloak covers; in looking at this years' "electoral race", apparently Romney, Santorum and Gingrich have what would be considered "the best cloaks", and those "cloaks" are rotten and showing holes in them.

What does that say about those who refused to run?
 

micah719

an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still....choosing evil. Who is holding a gun to your head to force you to do this?

If enough people acted responsibly, the election smorgasbord of two or three scoundrels would be so poorly attended that something would have to be done. Imagine the vote counting....Paul, three votes; Santorum five votes; Romney two votes; Gingrich three votes. The rest of the hundreds of millions of people assembled at their state and local capitals and decided to vote in new local governments, new state governments, a totally new congress and senate, and a totally new President.

Of course, if this sort of thing were tried now, there would be a State of Emergency declared, the military set loose, and the short but bloody Second Civil War/Second American Revolution would rage. The majority, being spineless and ignorant, not to mention wholly immoral and pagan, would go with the hand most likely to feed them and pander to their lusts. So dies freedom, and even the illusion of it.

The time to have done this was pre-WW1, pre-FED, perhaps even pre-Civil War v1.0, at the latest, after. A few oligarchs and bankers should have had their tailfeathers pulled, as well.

In the meantime, think about what "choosing the lesser of two evils" really means. If you vote Mussolini rather than Hitler, you still bear the responsibility for having voted Benito in...and there are worse men than these two. At least these two were incompetent...

In Australia 1996, the last election I was naive enough to participate in with the idea that we the people had anything to say, there was a maverick candidate...but not with a chance to win. It was rigged, and three weeks after that, by sheer amazing coincidence a nutter decided to go on an amazing shooting spree in Tasmania. In the morning he was able to shoot 16 people in the head with 15 rounds...in the afternoon he blazed away with 200 rounds and hit nothing while his house burned around him. His weapons also burned, but by the miracle of forensics, the police were able to recover his burnt weapons and display them on TV....cleaned, polished and lightly oiled, in proper inspection order. The same man even had to ask his gunsmith how to load his weapons, and evidently had such professional instruction that he was able to function like a pro shortly after. Wow, miracles never cease. The result was he disappeared into the legal system, and the nation was disarmed, for our own good of course. We also then helped the Timorese achieve independence, after having helped Indonesia enslave them 20 years before. We also helped BP open up the gas reserves, and kept most of them. Advance Australia Fair! Long live democracy, all hail the media, what time's the footy? Render ceasar the things of ceasar, but you don't have to overdo it as though they played fair....
 

livin_in_the_Son

Well-Known Member
Well, I look at it like this....a non-vote, is the same as accepting the status quo. If a person doesn't like Obama, they have a responsibility to vote him out. If a person doesn't like the current contenders, go out there and find a better option.
 

SteveJM

Well-Known Member
Micah719-If enough people acted responsibly...
:scratch: Here you're implying that those who choose between the lesser of "two evils" are irresponsible. I disagree.

Micah719-"In the meantime, think about what "choosing the lesser of two evils" really means. If you vote Mussolini rather than Hitler, you still bear the responsibility for having voted Benito in...and there are worse men than these two."

Robert-"And why would the requirement be "a cloak"? A cloak covers; in looking at this years' "electoral race", apparently Romney, Santorum and Gingrich have what would be considered "the best cloaks", and those "cloaks" are rotten and showing holes in them.

What does that say about those who refused to run?"

I don't know what it says. There are many more qualified men and women who could be running, but the way races are run here, you need a lot of money and political ties to be taken serious in a presidential election. I don't like that, but in my opinion, that's the way it is. As far as choosing between "two evils," I wouldn't call, for example, Santorum evil or compare our choices to Mussolini and Hitler. If I had to choose between Mussolini and Hitler, I would stay home and pray. The truth is that only Jesus will save us from our mess, but unless we repent as a nation and have revival, or until the return of Jesus Christ, we are left with our right to vote for less than ideal candidates, and should exercise that privilege.
 

micah719

an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40
As far as choosing between "two evils," I wouldn't call, for example, Santorum evil or compare our choices to Mussolini and Hitler. If I had to choose between Mussolini and Hitler, I would stay home and pray. The truth is that only Jesus will save us from our mess, but unless we repent as a nation and have revival, or until the return of Jesus Christ, we are left with our right to vote for less than ideal candidates, and should exercise that privilege.

To push my argumentum ad hitlerum as far as it will go...a brother I went to Romania with recently is former RCC. He was preaching on the weekend and made an interesting point, while he was talking about witnessing to folks in the RCC. He said.(paraphrased and translated)...

(as if speaking to an RCC-er) "Where will you go when you die? To the same place as all the other Catholics?"

(answer) "Yes"

(continuing) "if I were still in the RCC, they would excommunicate me because I was "re"-baptised as an adult, and I baptise others. Yet hitler has never been excommunicated, even after all the things he did. Does that tell you something about the RCC? And what does this mean about where you will end up?"

The point I'm getting to in a roundabout way, is: Santorum is RCC. He is also a member of an exclusive elite, and has played the games to get where he is. Newt Getrich has his history and is RCC, Romney also and he is mormon, Ron Paul not sure what he is but he his cupboard is bursting with clinkers too. If you can vote for an independent that does not come from that stable of nobbled horses, whose background checks out and whose beliefs are sound and whose policies and record are responsible and righteous, then by all means vote. You might wait a long time to find such a candidate, if you ever find one.

The very first offices to fall in the revolution in your country were the local small government ones, along with all the key posts in education, media, public service and the churches, but that road can also be traveled again in reverse...if there are worthy candidates, if there is time, and if there are enough voters at that level willing and able to vote conscience and truth rather than issues, emotions and pocketbooks. Voting the lesser of evils is still voting evil...righteousness is absolute, not relative.

This is not to imply we wait for a sinless candidate, there is only One of those, the people voted "we will not have this Man to rule over us"; and He is King, not subject to voting, an issue He will clear up when He gets back. What we will have to do, however, is render account to Him, even over who we voted for down here. Voting is not compulsory in the US, as it is in Australia, so you can sit out. The argument then will be, "then the worst candidates will always get in". The answer to that is: they always get in! Both parties have long ago been bought, their positions are cosmetically far enough apart so the gullible masses vote one set of rascals out in the impression the next lot will change things. In reality, the same agenda is followed, regardless.

My example of the maverick candidate in my previous post could be elaborated. She was tolerated because she brought a veneer of respectability to the "race", but stood no chance of going further than she was permitted. A grand distraction and disinformation sideshow, and that is all.

At the end of the day, you do what you decide and live with it; my point in going to the trouble of writing about this, is to hopefully motivate the reader into thinking a little bit outside the pre-fab box we live in. We might not be able to change how things are done in our particular version of odious democracy (even while they are called "republics"), but we could sleep better at night for not having voted for any of the scoundrels and therefore not having any reproach applying to us for not having approved in any way at all the shenanigans of whichever marionette is hopping about on stage.

Neither your nation nor mine, nor any on the face of this planet, are going to repent, even when The King of Kings comes; except for Israel and they only after great chastisements and a sudden overhwelming dose of Grace and Kept Promise. In the meantime, individuals will repent, but there won't be any more Great Revivals. All I see in Prophecy is increasing Apostacy. I heartily agree with your statement:

If I had to choose between Mussolini and Hitler, I would stay home and pray.

It is time to pray, for a multitude of things. I'll start with thanks and praise to The Lord Jesus Christ, for Who He is, what He did, and is doing, and will complete. Somewhere in all that, will be mention of the lost souls, and the crazy world we live in, and His grace to get us through, as He said.
 

SteveJM

Well-Known Member
Micah719-
"This is not to imply we wait for a sinless candidate, there is only One of those, the people voted "we will not have this Man to rule over us"; and He is King, not subject to voting, an issue He will clear up when He gets back. What we will have to do, however, is render account to Him, even over who we voted for down here. Voting is not compulsory in the US, as it is in Australia, so you can sit out. The argument then will be, "then the worst candidates will always get in". The answer to that is: they always get in! Both parties have long ago been bought, their positions are cosmetically far enough apart so the gullible masses vote one set of rascals out in the impression the next lot will change things. In reality, the same agenda is followed, regardless."

I again disagree, the worst candidates don't always get in. As far as boycotting any RCC candidate based solely on their faith, even though I strongly disagree with the RCC, I would rather have a more conservative pro-life Roman Catholic in office, than a Baptist, Methodist, or someone from any other protestant denomination, who is a pro-choice liberal, who's plans are for all taxpayers to fund abortions and birth control, who is opposed to the Constitution, who is weak on Israel, who gives lip service, but then mocks Christianity and it's values.

There are gullible people voting, and then there are those, who knowing both parties are moving to the left, are trying to slow down the pace of that movement. Perhaps it will preserve our values and freedoms a little longer, and may even save the life of some children. We make a choice, whether we vote or not. If over the last several decades all Christians had stayed home or voted for those who didn't have a chance of winning, I believe that our country would be in far worse shape than it is now, which is hard to imagine.
 

Meg

Well-Known Member
We're really something of up against a wall this year. Robert and I have discussed this thing extensively... I have traveled extensively in this country in my late teens and throughout my 20's, back when I hoped I'd get myself killed before I had to get old (didn't work that way...), so I did a stint in Job Corps in Utah (Mormon Central) in the early '80's. In Utah, if you want to get ahead, you pretty well have to be a Mormon, so its pretty safe to assume Romney has some high level Mormon connections. For this reason, although Romney's probably going to be the Republican nominee (looks like its headed that way), he's probably not going to beat BO.

That being said, I voted for Santorum before he announced he's against the separation of church and state :doh: ... Ginrich is a pig, and Paul is a nonentity, politically, except in the deep South, which won't be enough to get him on the ticket.

Some people seem to think that if you get the denominational choices right, the denominal choices will somehow set you free or somesuch. Well, South Carolina and Georgia are largely "conservative" Southern Baptist (ie more politically correct than Catholics & all that), but Ginrich's sins are considered pretty normal in these parts (ie cheating on your wife and marrying your mistress, happens all the time around here. Then there's the more "respectable" sin of cheating on your spouse and staying married, also very common around here). So whose really top bless, whose to blame and why...???

Seriously, would any of the top 3 candidates be anyone's ideal choice for president? Did anyone know that Jeb Bush has been running for president too? That was something of a footnote this year, but for all that, its true.

Vote? Abstain? Bail out to a foreign country in an extreme? Hide in a cave and pray like never before? Honestly, I don't see any good choices here, and when they're being honest, the press is pretty pessimistic. Nobody really wants BO round 2 except for the sharia law crowd and a few really liberal wingnuts, but at the rate things are headed, that looks to be the future case.

How did this happen? Well, for one thing, Rush Limbaugh is considered by far too many people to be "the voice of 'conservative' America". 'Nuff said?
 

micah719

an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40
If over the last several decades all Christians had stayed home or voted for those who didn't have a chance of winning, I believe that our country would be in far worse shape than it is now, which is hard to imagine.

Fair points, and difficult to reason against. We both might agree the derailment lies far back. Theorising about exactly when, and what could have been done, won't help us now. Going along with the farce might help prop up the crumbling building, or help bring what is left down.

According to statistics the majority of the country is "Christian". Same here, if you go by census data, a substantial majority is "Christian". The problem with that is, about 60 years ago the proportion was even higher, and we all know how that turned out.

So, based on numbers and experience in living here, I estimate less than 1% of people in this country are genuinely reborn Christians. Even if your country has ten times that proportion, you're at 10% and that is being generous. If I got it wrong and we actually have twice as many, we're still at 2% and 20%. With those kind of numbers and creative electioneering and vote counting, though perhaps not as blatant yet as Russia, it doesn't matter a whit one way or the other to the outcome of any "election" whether the genuinely reborn vote or not. It does matter in the eternal viewpoint whether we went along with a crowd to do evil.

We can't predict what Santorum or any candidate will do, and there is a wide gulf between voting on some basic moral issues if these are merely a veneer for deeper, dangerous agendas, and proper righeousness. The once wide gulf between the vatican and your hold-out country has been closed alarmingly in the last generation. We here in the Eu should not be surprised to wake up one morning and find ourselves back under Papa Pontiff...to see such a thing in the USA would have been unthinkable even a generation ago. But consider the ecumenical fungus rampaging through your churches. It is not yet clear what role the RCC will play in the end-times Babylon, though the pointers are so obvious it will likely be a leading one. Tossing out the Mormon in favour of a Catholic on the basis of a couple of basic issues might seem good on the surface, but the RCC does not oppose abortion for an ultimate good reason....they want to make them RCC-members, surely a fate worse than death in infancy!

Propping up the crumbling building might seem pragmatic...but please consider that the game is very late now, perhaps in its final innings. Late enough that what were once closely guarded secrets are now becoming evident to anyone not wilfully blind, perhaps indicating that the ptb are so certain of success that divulging parts of their game plan may actually speed it along, as people begin to feel the noose tighten and act rashly. As I intimated recently, martial law is but a decree away, and with a helping hand from a plague and/or an wmd event or economic catastrophe could happen faster than we imagine. And, as I said earlier, none of these men that are presented as "choices" are any choice of ours, if you take a step back and look at what you're about to choose. Again, it makes no difference anymore if we vote for or against or choose a dead-end maverick, but whoever gets in is sure t have us shaking our heads and wondering where all the good men have gone. At least if you vote or abstain on the basis con conscience, if you abstain and the winner turns out to be a curse in disguise, your conscience is clean in that you are in no way responsible for them being there. Remember, the Fix-It man is coming, and he will look very good, and his true nature will only be revealed after the Restrainer is gone.

In the past, some have said to me that because I didn't vote I had no basis to criticise any of the candidates or outcomes...on the contrary, because I rejected them all, I have exercised my options and voted my conscience: "Get ye hence, ye bloody men, I wait for The King! And if any man of ye were waiting for Him too, ye'd have made it plain and ye'd have had my vote."
 

SteveJM

Well-Known Member
Micah719, we're not too far apart in our thoughts in regard to the political scene, even though to some it may seem so. I agree with much of what you write. I do feel we're on a runaway train regardless of who wins, but given the actions of our current President, his string pullers, party, and supporters, it will bring some relief to see him packing his bags. I do agree with Meg as well, but then when do we have really good choices for President? We are often being played like pawns in a chess game or spectators in a play, where we can decide the direction of the script, but within the narrow confines of the directors options. Both sides of the political aisle are moving to the left, towards bigger government and more government intrusion into our lives, and have been for some time. It's all part of the coming New World Order. I'm for slowing down the train to destruction, or as you say the collapse of the crumbling building. I, along with you and all the others, am waiting for our Redeemer to return. I believe He will, and soon.
 
Top