« It Ain't That Bad Being Baptist | Main | Mitt Romney for President: Round Two »

2007.11.01

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

peter

SelahV,

Such a warm glow from your words. What's interesting is, the sum total I know of Mitt Romney, I know from approximately 15mins research beside the most famous fact of all, his Mormonism.

Neither my present research nor the infamous fact of his Mormonism either affirms or negates respectively my personal opinion of him for President.

Only a flagrant fool, equipped with the shoddy tools I've thus far acquired, would attempt to build a political fortress toward which he'd defend. My one and sole point in this entire thread is not about "For whom shall we vote? As for me, I vote so and so."

Rather, it was about a priori ruling out someone for political office based upon the exclusive reason he/she was not an evangelical Christian. From my perspective, there is no substance in such a decision.

Professor Wayne Grudem
has an interesting article in TownHall affirming Mitt Romney. Read it at your own risk. According to Les and Debbie, Dr. Grudem may be working for the Antichrist.

Grace, SelahV. With that, I am...

Peter

Byroniac

Howdy, Luke.

Again, your statements basically boil down in my opinion to the problem of theodicy. It's more an issue (and a thorny theological one at that) for the Calvinist side, though, I admit. As a Calvinist, I believe that God not only permits but decrees and predestines all events to come to pass, good or evil. I believe the Scriptures teach this, but this raises problems addressed in Reformed apologetics. I don't want to speak too much for Debbie (any at all is really too much, as she as quite capable of speaking for herself), but I have done so here where I think (ok, I admit, assumed) she and I have agreement. But your question is not a simple one, and it does not have a simple answer. It's not necessarily an inconsistency on Debbie's part, any more than it would be inconsistent for me to say that God raised up Pharaoh (Romans 9) but that I couldn't personally vote for the guy. :)

Miss Shunary

Thanks to Byron for directing Luke to Pipers work on the the two wills of God. That was my intent. It is good theology and if you will stay with it you will be enlightened greatly.

While I'm here, I will attempt to shed a little light on the idiotic nature of Luke's question game he is playing regarding whether or not God supports a human that believes that God had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus and that He is also the brother of Satan.

So here it goes. Luke said, "Gotta go now. Football games awaitin. Go Hamilton Christian Warriors!"

But Luke! What if God does not want Hamilton to win! Will you root for a team that God is against!

Surely you can see the idiotic nature of your statements.

Maybe not?

Luke

Byron,
I have no problem at all in saying that if God is determining who will be president, then I should vote for who God wants. I am not a Calvinist and this question poses absolutely no problem for me. But lest this conversation move into the realms of a Calvinistic discussion, in all good faith, I say to you that when I initially posed the question, I did not see it in any way as a Calvinistic issue. Be that as it may, if God raises up Pharoah, I have no problem voting for who God wants to raise up. :)

Miss Shunary,
I have absolutely no problem in saying that if God does not want the HC Warriors to win(which they did) that I would not cheer for them. Absolutely none. But as of yet, I am sure that I have never heard of God prophetically addressing a group of people about a high school football game. You can correct me if you know of a situation that fits that bill. And while I am at it, I do believe God is Sovereign over all(including football games) but I do not believe that God dictates or determines every activity and so while He knows how a game will turn out, He has not decreed how that game will turn out.

As far as the idiotic nature of my statements, and the fact that you believe I am in darkness, you are entitled to any opinion you would care to have. You have a right to be wrong as well. As of yet, neither you nor Byron has addressed the passage in Isaiah that I offered up.

But concerning Romney's Mormonism, let me rephrase the question that has already been asked by others. Are you willing to vote for an atheist but not a Mormon? Are you willing to vote for a Catholic that believes Mary is Co-Redemptrix and not a Mormon?

Romney's Mormonism is not the only factor that qualifies or disqualifies one for the presidency. But I'll say it again, if God tells me that He is going to raise up Romney, I have absolutely no problem supporting that. I'd rather be with God in Babylon than with Zedekiah in the city.

scott shaffer

Luke,

Were you being rhetorical when you said "But I'll say it again, if God tells me that He is going to raise up Romney, I have absolutely no problem supporting that." Or, is this something God tells you before every presidential election? :)

selahV

Luke: ME TOO!!!!!
"I'd rather be with God in Babylon than with Zedekiah in the city." selahV

selahV

LUKE: oh, and I'd also rather be on your team of Warriors, than on any team they battle. District? Hooray! Congratulations!selahV

selahV

PETER: ah, but bro., doncha know? You cannot possibly know your sole reason for posting what you write. Your every word, thought and motive is determined by the minds and thoughts of others. Rather than ask you what you mean by something, others like to assume and dictate what you mean. And when you challenge their assumptions, and that doesn't suit their particular pattern of thinking, you are forever labeled, banned and ridiculed. (which, I know doesn't bother you one whit)

Example: Luke above asked one simple question and now he has been labeled as idiotic. Does anyone know what an idiot is? I challenge you to read, read, read the dictionary. That is not a very nice thing to say to someone. "unseemly, rude" is what Paul would label it in 1 Cor. 13. sigh~~~ selahV

peter lumpkins

Dear Miss Shunary,

Welcome! Know we appreciate your contribution here.

I also appreciate your encouragement to read Dr. Piper, including Piper's understanding of 'two wills'. Nonetheless, I'd like to add that while most of us here--including Luke--is probably familiar with Dr. Piper's understanding of 'two wills', some of us remain unconvinced he holds the only set of keys to unlock that door.

Dr. Piper's views have been thoroughly reviewed in the scholarly community and there exists no harmony he is correct. Therefore, it is not I--a non-scholar--taking on Piper--a genuine scholar. Rather it is Piper's scholarly peers who weigh his views and, I assure you, there is formidable criticism.

My encouragement to you, Miss Shunary, is to allow the friendly jousting to take place between two respectable commenters here on our site--Luke and Byroniac. If you take time to scan their chats before, you'll see that while they work up plenty of sweat in their extended exchanges, there seems to exist a profound mutual respect between them.

I say that, Miss Shunary, to caution your interjection toward Luke's question as twice being 'idiotic'. Know, my sister, we do possess our share of blogdom's idiotic threads running through SBCTomorrow's fabric. Some may say I'm the idiot that holds that part of the fabric together. Granted.

However, my point would be that neither Luke nor Byroniac fit the bill for the village idiot here.

Please, Miss Shunary, resist the urge.

Grace today. With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

I would like to see scripture that shows it's OK to vote for a Mormon president.

selahV

Peter: yeah! and I'd like you to show me scripture that shows it is okay to sue a Christian brother in a secular court of law!!! selahV

Miss Shunary

Peter - Please withdraw my comment as I no longer wish to interject (if you want to - I don't care really).

Frankly, the room here is too shallow if I can't claim someone's statement as being idiotic (which they are) without be accused of calling the person idiotic (which I did not). Selah seems way eager to start something like this...and she was not even in the conversation (making her scary company to keep, in my view). Just when I think she was an isolated troll looking to stir up trouble, you also came back with the same attitude.

Luke is not an idiot. That is not what I said.

The nature of Luke's question is idiotic. Which remains true.

It appeares that after only two comments, my "fun" here is done. I enjoy aggressive interaction, but only honest aggressive interaction. I have no time (or desire) for exchanges that say I said things that I did not say and then spend 3 days trying to keep them from weaseling out of the hole they dug for themselves.

scott shaffer

Debbie,

I noticed you posted the same question - addressed to me - at Les' site. You have made an ssertion, therefore, the burden is on you to prove it. But,because you asked, I gave above an argument why it wasn't necessary to vote for Christians. Granted, I was thinking aloud and it wasn't a scriptural argument, but at least it was an argument.

Lets see, would you vote for your church janitor if he was running for President or would you vote for an atheist who had served in Congress for 20 years and whose position on substantive issues you agreed?


peter lumpkins

Dear Debbie,

I think I would like the Scriptures for which you asked stating that's it's O.K. to vote for a Mormon as President. Any takers?

If so, while you're at it, please offer Scriptures that says it's O.K. to vote for any person to be President.

Grace, Debbie. With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: yeah! and I'd like you to show me scripture that shows it is okay to sue a Christian brother in a secular court of law!!! selahV

Romans 13. I also believe the man who sued Fred Phelps did the right thing.

Byron: You did very well in conveying my beliefs. Thank you.

Debbie Kaufman

The Bible has many things to say concerning government. Since I believe scripture to be the final authority, please show where it's ok to vote for a Mormon president, or at least show why this would not be going against the already written scriptures. I also haven't seen a post where anyone prayed and petitioned God for the right candidate. It is an end justifies the means and I would just like to know this is correct or not through the two sources that tell us.

Debbie Kaufman

I noticed you posted the same question - addressed to me - at Les' site. You have made an ssertion, therefore, the burden is on you to prove it. But,because you asked, I gave above an argument why it wasn't necessary to vote for Christians. Granted, I was thinking aloud and it wasn't a scriptural argument, but at least it was an argument.

Lets see, would you vote for your church janitor if he was running for President or would you vote for an atheist who had served in Congress for 20 years and whose position on substantive issues you agreed?

The janitor more than likely. I do not believe the burden of proof is so much on me as I read scriptures that I'm sure you have already read concerning those who are against Christ aka anti-Christ or partnering with those who are lost. I think if you are so sure that your view is correct, it could be backed by scripture or some other confirmation.If not shouldn't that say something? I am not arguing just to be arguing here, or trying to best up anyone, I am truly concerned both with how Christians are thinking on this matter and our denomination in particular. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone where everyone has turned into Zombies but me. It's truly a little scary although I realize God is allowing this for a reason, it's not for a blessing, at least in my mind.

Debbie Kaufman

I keep being reminded of the passages that teach Israel wanting to go back to Pharaoh because they had it rough in the wilderness, they were willing to overlook the bad to get the good that Pharaoh gave them. Leeks, onions etc.

peter

Dear Miss Shunary,

Gee, my sister, that's funny. As I pressed rewind on my post to you, I noted that the only one in my post that was called an idiot was me, even granting that it may be an apt name for me.

Yet, I did not suggest you, Miss Shunary, did the calling.

Nor when I quoted the words you used did I change them. I wrote:

"I say that, Miss Shunary, to caution your interjection toward Luke's question as twice being 'idiotic'.

That's why it's the strangest thing for you to conclude, Miss Shunary:

"Luke is not an idiot. That is not what I said...The nature of Luke's question is idiotic. Which remains true."

But as you can see, Miss Shunary, I did not suggest you did call Luke an idiot. Rather, I mentioned Luke's question per your suggestion, my sister, as being 'twice idiotic'.

I grant I said "my point would be that neither Luke nor Byroniac fit the bill for the village idiot here." and perhaps it is that to which you refer.

But again, unhappily for your wrongly directed lament, that happens to be my assertion, immediately following my own concession that I may very well be the chief idiot in charge.

I am perfectly willing to annie up and own the words I write. But we agree, do we not, that I should not be required to do so for words I am charged with penning but definitively did not write?

Consequently, Miss Shunary, your decision that your '"fun" here is done', while understandable--since you now must surely see your conclusion hasty--is nonetheless disappointing, if for no other reason than you feel cheated that you did not get your money's worth for logging on. For that, I am deeply sorry.

I am reluctant to mention this, Miss Shunary, since we got off on the wrong footing so quickly, but I feel I need to do so. While it's true you earlier employed 'idiotic' toward the questions of Luke and not 'idiot' toward the person of Luke, sadly, you were not as careful in your distinction with our SelahV:

"Just when I think she was an isolated troll...you also came back with the same attitude."

Forgetting about your perception of my attitude, you appear not to speak of the nature of SelahV's ideas as being 'trollish'.

Rather, Miss Shunary, you explicitly note your thinking 'she' was an 'isolated troll'.

Naughty, Naughty girl, Miss Shunary. If you return, please resist further temptation.

Grace for you and all that is yours. With that, I am...

Peter

scott shaffer

Debbie,

The problem is you have yet to provide any biblical support for your position.

Where does the Bible say it is okay to eat dinner at a restaurant owned by Mormon's, or Muslim's or Buddhists? But, I bet you have. What about sending your kids to public schools? Where is the biblical support for that? What about working for a non-Christian?

You have said you'd probably vote for a Christian janitor instead of a "qualified" atheist who agrees with you on every major issue. So it seems that the only requirement you have is their faith?

selahV

Miss Shunary, I am so sorry for offending you. I would not want to be responsible for you grabbing your purse and exiting our home here.

I stand corrected, you did not state that Luke was an idiot. You said he was playing an idiotic game. For convenience sake, you said: "While I'm here, I will attempt to shed a little light on the idiotic nature of Luke's question game he is playing regarding whether or not God supports a human that believes that God had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus and that He is also the brother of Satan."

As for me being a "troll", (a demon according to AOL's definition), I don't think so. So you are correct again that I am not. That's two for two. And to whether or not I have any dog in the hunt, in order for me to have a reason to post a comment is simply what my momma use to refer to as "the pot calling the kettle black", dear sister.

You entered the conversational thread to laud Byroniac for his wisdom in calling attention to Piper. (not particularly on topic, now is it? although I like Byroniac for anything he introduces on topic or off topic) and you also proceed to switch our brother Luke for his dialog with sister Debbie and then your kindred sisterhood attempt to defend the needy sister--a formidable person with whom to debate and who never lacks in ability to defend herself or her position. (and you admonish ME?? and use me as an excuse to leave the forum fray?)

Luke's question is no more idiotic than the premise from which he queried. Debbie is entitled to say what she wants here and Luke is entitled to question it. Unless, of course, Debbie tells him to bud out because she wasn't talking to him in the first place. Just as anyone is able to hop on my comments and say, as you said, "Selah seems way eager to start something like this...and she was not even in the conversation (making her scary company to keep, in my view). Just when I think she was an isolated troll looking to stir up trouble, you also came back with the same attitude."

Your comments, Ms. Shunary, simply proved my statement above to Peter: "You cannot possibly know your sole reason for posting what you write. Your every word, thought and motive is determined by the minds and thoughts of others. Rather than ask you what you mean by something, others like to assume and dictate what you mean. And when you challenge their assumptions, and that doesn't suit their particular pattern of thinking, you are forever labeled, banned and ridiculed." And in my case being considered a "troll", a demon seeking to lure someone into some imaginary conversation, must simply be a residule affect of all the candy you gathered in your trick-or-treat sack a few nights back. So, I forgive you.

You must be chiding us when it comes to me "being scary company", unless of course I am assuming too much from you words. selahV

peter

Debbie,

Filling the comment thread with multiple posts one after another does not make up for a lack of content or substance.

You are the one who offered the challenge for scriptures suggesting it's OK to vote for a Mormon as President.

I saw your challenge and raised you one: I'd like to see scriptures suggesting it's OK to vote for anyone as President.

Are you interested in answering?

By the way, please don't suggest: READ, PETER! READ, READ, READ! READ ROMANS 13!

I already have, Debbie. Unfortunately for us, it speaks neither to Mormons nor Presidents. And it doesn't mention voting in campaigns.

With that, I am...

Peter

selahV

Peter: in Debbie's defense, (do you believe me?) I think her Romans 13 was in reference to my question on Christians suing Christians and it being okay. selahV
p.s. it doesn't answer my question, but that's for another post.

peter

SelahV,

Thank you SelahV. Surely our Debbie thanks you to.

Know, though, I wasn't referring to the lawsuit comment. Rather it was to her statement that 'The Bible has many things to say concerning government...'--one classic passage of which I supplied is Romans 13.

The 'READ' remark was only a bit of playful teasing since she has offered that strategy to me more times than I care to count :^)

Grace, SelahV. Wit hthat, I am...

Peter

Debra Smith

While we are READ, READ, READING (sorry, Peter), perhaps we could all review the Constitution of our fair nation, particularly Article II, wherein the powers and duties of the President are set out. We could also READ, READ, READ the first Amendment, which forbids our government to establish a religion or to prohibit "the free exercise thereof." Our president is not involved in establishing, overseeing, or forbidding religion.

In the long run, my concern regarding a president's religion/morality/ethical construct relates to his possible appointment(s) of Supreme Court justices. Considering that we currently have 4 of 9 justices over the age of 70 (one of them aged 87) and two more in their late 60's, the chance of our next president having a say in the composition of our highest court is significant.

Also, consider that 3 of our last 4 presidents have served two terms. If our next chief executive is in office for 8 years, a lot could happen in our judicial branch.

It's the interpretation of our laws that concerns me. . .almost as much as some interpretation of Scripture I've seen of late.

Am I crazy about the idea of a Mormon president? Not really. I am seriously hoping that my choice doesn't come down to Romney vs. Clinton. I don't want to make that choice. But I WILL make a choice and vote, because I am free to do so, thanks to the countless men and women (soldiers and suffragettes) who have fought and died to secure that right for me.

selahV

Peter: ah ha! I shoulda known better than to assume you made a mistake. ha ha. I bow to your reading comprehension. selahV

peter lumpkins

Debra,

Thank you for weighing in. And, frankly, I could not agree more with what you say or how you say it.

I mentioned up the thread ladder somewhere that M. Olasky said that were the choice before him Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, he'd 'vote Mitt Romney in a Utah minute!' Forfeiting democracy because I cannot hand-pick the candidate is not an option I will consider.

The Constitution also says that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Grace, Debra. With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Scott: Eating at a Mormon owned restaurant is not a Mormon running the country. Where would a Mormon President go for spiritual advice? The idea of a person in a cult being in a place of power troubles me greatly.

Romans 13 and 1 Peter 3 are passages on government. Again, God used Pharaoh, Satan etc. to accomplish His purpose, which his purpose for government is to do away with evil. God can and does use those not Christian to accomplish His purpose. I just will not use my vote to vote a Mormon in office.

Debbie Kaufman

I'm sorry, that should be 1 Peter 2 that speaks of government. And I do thank selahv for her comment.

scott shaffer

Debbie,

Thanks for replying.

You wrote, "Scott: Eating at a Mormon owned restaurant is not a Mormon running the country. Where would a Mormon President go for spiritual advice? The idea of a person in a cult being in a place of power troubles me greatly."

Me too. But, I would say the same for an atheist or any non-Christian.

Regarding the restaurant, you have proved one point I was trying to make, that is, you have drawn the line where you think it needs to be drawn. How did you determine that it needs to be drawn at Presidential elections?

Hal Eaton

When JFK ran for the presidency, he said, "How I was baptized should not influence your vote either for or against me," or words to that effect. My response was: How you were baptized should not affect your conduct as President. I voted for him. As to Mitt Romney: how he was raised as a child should not affect his spiritual commitment as an adult, given the problems inherent in the factual history of his faith's founder, and the accumulated writings detailing the requirements of that faith.

The comments to this entry are closed.