Which Romney?

Neither are the anti -Christ.

You put on a good Christian show, but I believe you're mostly just talk.

You can call anyone names and make crazy claims. Try backing it up.

 

They are against Christ so they are anti-Christs.:thumbsup:

After you come back to me with proof that they aren't against Christ, get back to me and I'll stop calling them anti-Christs.:thumbsup:

 

Did I say you worshiped a false god? Part of the problem here is that some of you keep PRETENDING to take the high road while bearing false witness about what someone else said in order to curry favor with those in agreement with ya.

And you KNOW that the comment had nothing to do with Christians worshiping a false god . So save the "I'm gonna put words in his mouth shenanigans". I'm capable of typing exactly what I intend to type.:thumbsup:

 

Actually you said that anyone voting for Romney "hypocritically denounce abortion but flock to the worship of a false god."

So no false witness about what you said.

 

I know what I wrote. I typed it. Now read it together and it isn't saying that Christians are worshiping a false god. That's just what y'all want it to say so that you can once again claim "thinly veiled attacks".

So for those of you who have taken to bearing false witness because you didn't quite understand the statement, let me rephrase it for you.:thumbsup:

"Christians have hypocritically denounced pro-abortion candidates but now support a flock to a candidate who worships a false god."

My apologies if it wasn't clear enough for some.

 

Words have meaning.

"Flock to the worship of a false god" and "flock to a candidate who worships a false god" have two completely different meanings.

 

Yes words do have meaning. And the context in which they are written also has meaning.

And the statement read together as originally written makes perfectly good sense to anyone not looking to mince words and pretend like I was trying to say Christians are flocking to worship a false god.

But we're off topic and that's the last I'll say about people's understanding or misunderstanding of the statement.

 

In your opinon perhaps.

But not necessarily to the average reader.

I would want to change the subject too if I were you.

 

Then how about I just get the average reader to type what I want to say? That's just silly. It's not my fault the average reader doesn't read things in context and then starts making remarks based upon something they read out of context.

If you were me, you never would have commented on the subject because you would have read the comment in context without me having to explain it to ya. :thumbsup: But like you said, the average reader...

 

So you have at least 3 people who point out a need for clarification about what you said, but it's their fault they didn't understand you?

You do realize how sanctimonious that makes you sound, don't you?

Remember--this is print medium. We can't see your facial expressions or your body language, or hear your tone and inflections. If people require clarification, maybe you should humble yourself just a little and provide it. Lord knows I've done it quite a bit on this board; and Lord knows how many times I've apologized because someone misunderstood something I wrote.

-----
Back on the main topic - Since you can't offer a better candidate, all you can suggest is write someone else in, I have to disagree with your opinion. As I've stated before, I disagree vehemently with the path the current president is taking us down, so I'm voting against him.

 

Based on previous conversations, all that says to me is that the sharks are in a feeding frenzy and needed the other sharks to cosign.

Likewise do you realize how sanctimonious you sound to say that it wasn't clear just because YOU and two of your buddies didn't understand it?

.

Perhaps if people need some clarification they should try saying so instead of screaming "that's a veiled attack or insult".:thumbsup:

-----

I'm voting against him too. And I'm likewise voting against the anti-Christ who is running against him.

 

By not voting for the pro-life, anti gay-rights candidate you are giving tacit approval to the pro-abortion and pro gay-rights candidate.

Curious, do you apply this standard to your vote for mayor, state representative, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. House member?

 

Nice try. But I'm not voting for the pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate anymore than I'm voting for the pro-worship a false god candidate.

As I said before, it's become very clear to the world what the priorities of some in the church is when pro-abortion and pro-gay rights carry more weight with evangelicals in choosing a candidate than those the the worship of the One Who gives His truth as to why those things are wrong.

I apply that standard to any office I get a say so in choosing. If you're against Christ, you could be my mama, and I wouldn't vote for you.

 

I didn't say you were VOTING for anyone. I said you are giving tacit approval to one candidate.

tacit: implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed

 

And since whoever you're voting for won't win, you're helping one of the two "anti-christs" get elected. That's just the reality of the situation.

 

Again, me writing in another candidate ain't giving tacit approval to either of the main party candidates or their platforms. If anything, it's an out right tacit disapproval.

But like I said, nice try.

I know what tacit means. :laugh: I'm not voting for either of the anti-Christs from the two major parties so where is my tacit approval for one over the other coming from?

 

My bad. I didn't know you were writing in a candidate, I thought you were abstaining.

 

Silliness. For some reason, folks who support the GOP seem to think this argument of not voting or writing someone in is a vote for the candidate they are against.

The anti-Christ on the right deserves my support no more than the anti-Christ on the left.

One of the two anti-Christs is going to get elected anyhow but it won't be because of my vote and that's just the reality of the situation.

It's more important to those who support Mitt Romney that Obama be removed from office at all cost.

Getting him out of office isn't worth my witness for Christ.:smilewinkgrin:

 

My apologies that you didn't have that bit of info. :1_grouphug: I will always vote. I just don't think I have to settle on someone with whose core values I don't believe just because the powers that be anoint him as a party's candidate.

 

It's the mathematics of the situation, not an opinion thing. If A has 48 votes, B has 48 votes, and C has 1 vote; then there are three votes left, including yours...two of you vote for C, and the remaining person votes for A. Guess who wins?

Simple mathematics. Nothing about opinions at all. Sorry you feel like its such silliness.

Actually, you can't definitively say that. In reality, you're right; your one vote probably won't make that much of a difference. But when combined with all the others who vote like you, it makes a big difference.

I don't support Romney. If it were Herman Cain, or Ron Paul, or Tim Pawlenty, I'd be voting for them, because I'm casting my vote against what I perceive to be the bigger threat to our country.

If he gets elected, I'll be praying that Romney meets Christ and is saved--just like I do for Obama.

Fine. My witness for Christ isn't affected by who I vote against. I'll still be witnessing to the unsaved, and I'll still have a home in heaven.