For Those Who Do Not Care For Romney

How so? It will be antichrist Obama or antichrist Romney. I already tried to stop this by speaking out against both men in public. What else can I do?

 

The choice for VP doesn't matter

 

C4K, I understand you sentiment here, but I do feel it is incorrect. As any VP is one heartbeat away from being the next president it is very important who holds that office. True, while being VP is not an extremely important job, their next job may be vital to our interests ... IMHO.

 

By abdicating your vote you are putting yourself in a position where you have no right to praise or criticize. You are ignoring your responsibility as a citizen.

Steaver, the two quotes from your posts below give me the impression that regardless of what has happened in the past, what is happening now or what will happen in the future as all the results of God desiring those events. If this is true then whatever happens in the future happens because God willed it to happen. So, regardless of what we do or do not do it is going to happen. I do not believe that. So, that is why I said if you really believe what your posts say, then the murder I spoke of is within God’s will and what you do or do not do makes no difference. If everything is preordained by God then no matter what you do there is no sin as God preordained you to do whatever that was. I do not believe that.

Remember the phrase:

The man's attitude in this is the same you expressed. I don't believe you meant to do so, but it puts you in that camp. We can make a difference and Christ calls us to "costly grace". Christ is not looking for hero worship. He is looking for us to lay our all on the line for him. He would not do this if all was preordained ... IMHO.

One thing I am curious about, is anyone who does not agree with you totally an antichrist?

 

Yes we don't want Al Gore one heartbeat away from the presidency again. Look who we have now, now VP Biden is really scarry.

 

Voting - in another thread didn't someone mention that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time?

 

That would definitely apply to having a DEM Senate and not giving a REP Congress a 2/3 majority to override Mr. Obama's vetoes on spending cuts and lowering taxes. It would be insanity not to ensure the Legislative branch not to have a 2/3 override veto majority so they can override Mr. Obama.

 

Would it be insane to have a Republican president and a Congress that was that could not override a veto?

By the way Romney and Company have said nothing about lowering taxes for the middle class and have talked about cutting programs for the poor. Cutting programs for the poor is, in essence, raising their taxes.

 

Romney definitely won't work toward cutting taxes even if he says he would. Nor can he work on the Health Care bill since it is designed after Romneycare in Mass which has bankrupt that state. If he gets Kay Bailey-Hutchison as his running she is one of the highest in pork barrel spenidng so we get much of the same but it is congress who sets the budget and spending and we need a fiscally conservative legislative branch to override both these guys.

 

Romney wants to maintain the Bush tax cuts. However he would go further, he would lower tax brackets by 20% across the board, meaning the top rate of 35% would be 28% and the lowest rate of 10% would be 8%. Romney wants to eliminate capital gains taxes for the middle class (anyone making less than $200K a year), eliminate the estate tax, expand the refunds for the child credit and expand the earned income tax credit.

So there are significant tax cuts for the middle class. Also, expanding the child tax credit and the earned income credit is, in essence, a tax cut for the poor.

And Obama's plan to cut middle class taxes? Let the Bush tax cuts expire and raise the capital gains tax rate to 20%.

 

My, you are quite the mind reader...

 

http://factcheck.org/2011/06/factchecking-romney/

■During the last presidential campaign, Romney spent some time defending hundreds of millions of dollars in fee increases and loophole closings he instituted as governor, measures that other candidates, like Sen. John McCain, called "taxes." At one Republican debate, Romney said the fees needed to be adjusted for inflation and to cover the cost of services, but Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer told us the increase "wasn't tied to any analysis of the cost of delivering those services. It was a budget-closing exercise." In an ad, the campaign also misleadingly claimed Romney "cut taxes." He did cut some, but overall rates remained the same. He also claimed that he "did not raise taxes," a misleading statement that ignores the fee increases and the fact that he shifted more of the tax burden to cities and counties.


http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html

Romney: As governor, I saw the power of fiscal conservatism. The state budget was $3 billion short. Liberals wanted to raise taxes, but I cut government instead. I eliminated and combined duplicate agencies and wasteful programs, and I balanced the budget four years in a row (Miami-Dade Lincoln Day Dinner, March 7, 2007)

For one thing, as we discussed in our analysis of the second Republican presidential debate, Romney raised nearly $500 million by doubling fees for various services and “closing loopholes” in the corporate tax structure. Whether or not one considers those to be tax increases, they did add substantially to state revenue. Furthermore, Romney’s signature cuts in wasteful programs and duplicate agencies saved only about $10.5 million dollars, according to an estimate by the independent, nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation. The foundation states that these cuts were only marginally useful in closing the budget gap. More significant was the $277 million that Romney cut from the state's local education aid budget and the $130 million cut from higher education, moves that shifted at least part of the tax burden onto towns and counties.

His statement that "the state budget was $3 billion short" when he took office isn't the whole story. The state budget was indeed projected to be $3 billion short. But as it turned out, the projection was way off. The state eventually took in about $1.3 billion more in capital gains taxes than had been expected. In addition, $500 million in unanticipated federal grants further reduced the predicted shortfall. Thus, the $3 billion shortage turned out to be only $1.2 billion. Closing such a gap is still a respectable achievement, but not as grand as Romney claims.

Just a Few facts on the Romney politcal machine.

Of course all we have to do is look at Obamacare and the deficit increase to see what we have with President Obama and we see we are way short of any real fiscal conservative. Our choices a liberal socialist in President Obama or a Left of center liberal in Romney.

 

1) I have every right to praise or criticize anyone at anytime as long as I am not being a hypocrite. Is Obama or Romney pro-Jesus Christ? The Christ of the Bible, not the CHrist of the false book of Mormon? Then they are antichrist.

2) When my responsibility as a citizen conflicts with my responsibility as a Christian, I must choose God's Word. God's Word does not instruct me to yoke up with antichrist, but rather I am to reprove them and this I have done.

"Everything" is not preordained, but many things are. This is biblical. The powers that be are ordained of God, this is scripture. God raises up nations and raises up leaders for HIs own pleasure to do His will. Remember Pharoah? Read up on it, God said he raised Pharoah up for the very purpose of making His power known. Do you honestly believe that God is just sitting up there in heaven wondering who it is we Americans will choose to place in office?? Why do you think God put GWB into office? Because God knew, He knows everything, that GWB would invade Iraq and remove Sadam. God is in control my friend, dont doubt it!

Not at all. The phrase speaks of those who keep silent. I do not keep silent, in fact, I speak publicly against antichrist. So the phrase does not apply to me.

Anyone who is not for Christ is antichrist. Do you disagree?

 

I will defend you right to praise or criticize.

I agree that Mormonism is a cult.

Obama says he is a Christian and he goes to a church that is recognized as Christian. I am not in a position to judge him. I may not agree with him on various issues, but to judge him as not a Christian I leave up to God.

Both of us go by God's word ... but we may not agree on what God's word says ... and there is the possibility that both of us do not really understand God's word on some issues.

The rise and even more likely the decline of nations results from the actions or non-actions of the government of that nation. I believe that the actions of our government in the first 8 years of this century set us on a very steep slope of decline. God didn't do it. We did it to ourselves.

Pogo was right, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

You should not keep silent. But your previous messages indicated that you believed all was preordained. You say that is not the case and I accept your statement on that.

I might agree if I knew what you really meant by that statement.Name any famous evangelist and you will find people who say they are antichrist. I do not believe that.

What do you mean by the words "not for Christ"?

 

Based on the standing of most of our Presidents how would you rank them?

4 were baptist. Harding, Truman, Carter and Clinton were they anti-Christ or for Christ?

2 Congregationalist/United Church of Christ: Coolidge and Obama for Christ or against Christ check their doctrine before you answer.

*1 Jehovah's Witness/River Brethren Dwight Eisenhower raised as see below

1 Catholic JFK

12 Episcopalians (i.e. Church of England)

10 Presbyterians including Reagan some list Eisenhower of which he joined while in office.

4 Unitarians

3 Disciples of Christ

3 no specific religious affiliation and thought to be deist. Lincoln raised baptist but later thought to have followed the diest, Andrew Johnson just listed as Christian and Thomas Jefferson raised Episcopalian, thought to be diest and Unitarian.

2 of the Dutch Reformed Church

2 Quakers including Nixon

With this mixture God has used these men to run our Country. I'd say you voted for a few of these, so how would you list each of these groups.


McCain was raised in the Episcopal church but now attends the Baptist faith just as a note. Bbob Dole is Presbyterian. Al Gore is a baptist.

Again we see a mixture of religious affiliations throughout our nation and each President has had a Christ ian affiliation including Mr. Obama as a congregatioanlist/United Church of Christ. Given you are saying they must have some tie to Jesus to not be anti-Christ, that would default you to Barak Obama as a Congregationlist/ United Church of Christ. So you need to really search don't forget the Mormans are the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day SAints thus promoting Christ as you say they are anti-christ yet they promote Christ just not the way we do as baptist. Their statement of faith starts, "We believe first and foremost that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God. While our backgrounds and experiences are diverse, Mormons are united by a commitment to Jesus Christ."

from http://mormon.org/

Now we know they don't fit into our belief system but this is what they say they believe. They promote Christ in statement.

 

Yes, but you know the scriptures, just saying you are a Christian does not make one a Christian. We certainly can make some judgment, how else do we keep the flock protected from the wolves? THe bible warns us to beware, this takes judgment, correct?

And you know the scriptures, how the powers that be are ordained of God. Just because God preordains a leader or nation does not excuse the people for their actions of either for or against God. We must do our deligence to side with righteousness and let the cards fall where God has them fall. I feel you want to take God out of the election process. God is very involved in the process, this does not excuse the people in anyway. God preordained the crucifixion of Jesus, and God used the sinful nature of people to carry it out.

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matt 12:30)

 

Certainly you know full well that saying you are Christian by no means makes you one? The KKK calls themselves Christian, are you suggesting we should except them as Christians??

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]. " (2Cr11:4)

 

Mark 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Seems if they do things in Christ name they are not against (anti) Christ. Are they true Christians by what they teach no, could someone accept Christ by reading the gospel and believing themselves a sinner and be in that religion you bet.

So Christ says if they say they are His and do things in His name then they are for Him not that they are His but they aren't against Him.

 

Fact Check dot org is run by pro-Obama people. (Annenberg Public Policy Center - Annenberg, part of the committee Obama worked on with Ayers)

FYI. So Fact Check is probably just a tad biased......

 

I have to disagree. We have two passages of scripture which at a glance appear to be advocating a contradiction (Matt 12:30 and Mark 9:39, Luke says the same as Mark) . We know there are no contradictions in scripture, therefore a study and explanantion needs to be put forth.

You have indicated that these men in Mark 9 are not teaching the true Christ, which would be Jesus is the Divine Son of God. The text does not say anything about them being antichrist as in teaching a false Jesus.

What does the text say?

"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us." (Mark 9:38)

The Spirit of God works as He wills throughout the world and is not limited to one group of followers of Jesus Christ.. Here in Mark 9 we have Jesus giving His disciples a lesson that just because a person is not part of your gathering does not mean they are against the Son of God and God is not using them. (But note that scripture gives qualifiers for this).

Mark 9 is basically an admonition to believers not to think all professors of the Son of God must follow their congregation. So i disagree with you that these men were teaching "another" Jesus Christ or that they were casting out demons for their own selfish gain. Obviously, these men were faithful followers of the Jesus Christ whom was revealed by the Father and simply were not followers of Jesus' circle of disciples at that moment in time. The only complaint recorded by Mark and Luke is that these men were not following them (Jesus' chosen disciples) at the time.

On the other hand, Matthew 11:30 is directed to those who "scattereth abroad". They do not follow the Son of God even though they might say they do. For example, Jesus says.....

" Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.(Matt 7:21-23)

Paul writes...."As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.(Gal 1)

John writes....."Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2John1:10-11)

Therefore, Mark and Luke cannot be contradicting Matthew, Paul and John. But rather these are two distinct lessons. One is about true believers (Mark and Luke) and the other is about unbelievers (Matthew 11:30)

With this all cleared up, and I believe that it is when we consider the full counsel of God's Word along with the distinction made in Mark and Luke's accounts as to why they forbade the men, we can see that Romney and mormonism is a false gospel, that it is antichrist, and according to the scriptures we are to NOT receive them nor grant them any blessing of Godspeed lest we be considered partakers with them.