"...When He [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." Matt 9:36

"Do not rob the poor, because he is poor... for the Lord will take up their case and plunder those who plunder them." Proverbs 22:22-23

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Robert Jeffress: Evangelicals Would Rather Have a "Born Again Christian" than a "Good, Moral Person" in the White House

It is all over the news now....Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas mega church has announced at the Values Voter Summit that Mitt Romney would not make a good president because he is a Mormon. He makes the ridiculous statement:

"Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person? Or do we want a candidate who is a born again follower of Jesus Christ?"

Good grief. The answer is: yes, evangelicals want a good, moral person, and many people aren't so concerned of whether a person fits the definition of a "born again" follower of Jesus Christ. We want someone who is a leader, who is moral, and who has conservative values. This could be Romney, could be Perry, could be Herman Cain. But it is not surprising that a mega church pastor is going to push one of his own, and disparage a conservative solely because of his brand of faith.

What Jeffress probably doesn't realize is that when the average American sees him endorse Perry primarily because he is "born again" and is "indwelt with the Holy Spirit", and at the same time disparages Romney for his Mormonism, that this will probably scare Americans AWAY from Perry in the general election. Proof of this is that Perry disagreed with Jeffress' statements just a few minutes after Jeffress uttered them!

Too bad that Jeffress is out there trying to speak on behalf of evangelicals. He is certainly not a spokesperson for evangelicals, and his views are NOT those of most clear-thinking evangelicals. His arguments against Romney and in support of Governor Rick Perry don't hold water. For instance:

- Jeffress said Friday that there are many people who won't admit that they will not vote for Romney, that they will vote differently than they will answer in the polls. Jeffress insults Americans with that statement. He is essentially saying that a significant portion of evangelicals are religious bigots and would not vote for Romney solely because he is a Mormon.

- Jeffress even resorts to the scare tactic that he has heard recently at "a conference", characterizing it as a "large constituency" of voters that would rather sit at home and not vote, than to vote for a Mormon over Barrack Obama. Again, that is an absolute insult to American evangelicals. Not the first time Jeffress riles up the faithful by making religious exaggerations; he did the same thing when exaggerating concerns about Islam, saying that "all over the world" Muslim men are "having sex with 4 year old girls", and that Islam "promotes pedophilia".

- Jeffress said Friday that the Southern Baptist Convention has labeled Mormonism as a cult, and that he does not consider Romney a true follower of Jesus Christ. Yes, many say Mormonism is not true Christianity, but most SBC pastors don't view the Catholic Church as true Christianity, some have even labeled it a "cult". Southern Baptists have been narrowing the parameters for several decades now of what a true Christian is.

- Jeffress says that Romney is not a true "Christian". I would point out that David Barton, one of the favorite "historians" amongst the Southern Baptists who preached at First Baptist Jacksonville a few weeks ago on 9/11, has said he considers Mormon Glenn Beck to be a true Christian, and he says that we should not tie a Mormon to the label of "Mormon" and dismiss them as a false believer. Barton says Beck is a true Christian believer. Barton says we should evaluate a Christian on his personal beliefs and fruits, and not on what label he chooses to wear. I didn't say it, Barton said it, and Barton is a darling amongst the Southern Baptist pastors. Read Barton's own words concerning Beck here.

Fact is that the same garbage being spread about Romney and his Mormonism is the same junk said about JFK in the 1960 election. His religion will make him unelectable, he'll be taking orders from the pope, his decision making will be skewed because of his strange Catholic beliefs. Fifty years later, we have to go through it again with a Mormon, and Jeffress is leading the way.

Evangelicals will choose their candidate based on values, economic policy, leadership skills, and other factors that determine whether a candidate would make a good president. Some bigots might stay home and never, ever vote for someone because they are a Mormon or a Catholic or an agnostic - but they are a small, small minority.

And yes, Robert, I'll take a good, moral person, over a professing Southern Baptist in the White House.

After all, the last "born again" Southern Baptist we had in the White House ended up getting sexual favors from a 22-year old in the Oval Office.

56 comments:

Anonymous said...

Honestly WD, I believe most Christians today would prefer an Evangelical over the biblical Jesus of Nazereth, seeing that he was not a Christian or Evangelical himself, but rather "The Christ," "The Son of the living God, "The Lord of lords," and a Jewish man. Not to mention a man of SUPREME morals!
Grace & Peace - Elder gab

Anonymous said...

Well, do we really want a president who wears sacred underwear, believes God was once a man, and lives on the planet Kolub?

Thy Peace said...

A minor correction: Lewinsky was 22 y.o. when she had an "improper relationship" with Clinton.

Word Verification: molases

What the mind feels after listening to Jeffress go on about Romney.

Jack said...

What a shame...once again, mega pastors casting the SBC in such an ignorant, hateful light. When will it end? Elder gab, I agree with you that Jesus was NOT a Christian, nor an Evangelical. And I have to wonder what He thinks of the definition these two words have taken on in the last 20 or so years? Pathetic!

Anonymous said...

Why Romney is a true Christian. I heard Pat Robertson say so just the other day.

Sharon said...

Don't we have a Christian president now? Obama seems to fit the requirements of Jeffress-he says he's a Christian.

Anonymous said...

What about Ron Paul?

Good solid evangelical Christian, solid conservative with an impeccably consistent voting record. Oh, and the media really doesn't like him which has to mean something :)

As for Perry, I see nothing at all about him that reminds me of Christ. Heck, he get's off on executing people (it's good for votes)

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Thanks Thy Peace. I corrected the age of Lewinsky.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Sharon - when interviewed by CNN, Jeffress said:

"Given the choice between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama I would vote for Mitt Romney. I think it is much better for us as evangelical Christians to have a non-Christian who embraces biblical values in the White House, than to have a professing Christian like Barrack Obama who addresses and embraces unbiblical positions."

So Jeffress says he would possibly vote for Romney over Obama. He must think that based on his policies, that Obama is not a true Christian. We know that mega church pastors who use the word "professing Christians" against someone they don't like means that they think them not to be a true Christian.

I believe Obama says he is "born again" - so really Jeffress is not so much interested in a "born again" Christian, but one that is his kind of Christian.

I prefer to drop that requirement of "born again" altogether. I give no candidate credit for proclaiming to be a "Christian". I will vote on the man's character, his leadership ability, and his economic and foreign policies.

I like Herman Cain so far, but that could change.

John Wylie said...

First of all I don't think it's a good idea for pastors mega or otherwise to endorse candidates in an official way, in my opinion. On a personal level if people ask me who I'm voting for I'll tell them, I don't officially endorse candidates.

Now to address some of Dr. Jeffress's statements. He's right that some Christians will not vote for a Mormon. I've heard several people say as much (not all of them were SBC btw). I'm not saying that I wouldn't, because if he's the candidate I certainly will vote for him.

The lying to pollsters issue, WD that is actually a well researched fact that a certain percentage of people say one thing to pollsters and then vote differently.

Ultimately I have never voted for a person based on who endorsed them. I really think in the evangelical world this will have little impact.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

John - yes, people lie to pollsters. But pollsters know it, and they account for it in their numbers and in the margin of error. That is taken care of within the science of statistics and polling.

What I find bizarre is his reference to some people at "a conference" he was at who he says told him that they would rather stay at home than vote for a Mormon, and he calls them a large constituency. I know of Christian people who would have told me the would never, ever vote for a Mormon, and that I would be sinning if I voted for a Mormon for president. But they are the outter fringe, and are not a significant number. Most are like Jeffress, that if it comes down to Obama vs. Romney, they will go for Romney.

I've heard from people at FBC Dallas who say Jeffress absolutely loves the limelight, and I am now agreeing with that. He is in his element when he is doing this stumping for a candidate. He also is a very good talking head. He speaks off the cuff very well, holds his composure when being questioned by smug reporters like Anderson Cooper and John Whats-his-name on CNN. Probably part of Jeffress marketing strategy for his church to pay for the Crystal Campus is to draw as much free media attention to himself as possible.

Anonymous said...

Jeffress said this in 08 as well. He is a media seeking narcissist.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the "evangelicals" totally messed this election up because of their narrow, negative and nauseating views - and we wind up with the same guy for 4 more years...

I shudder to think.

Anonymous said...

10:04 It's gonna happen! Like it or nor, 4 more yrs.

Anonymous said...

As to Jefferies endorsing someone, remember that Ask the Pastor Session
where he was asked if he would endorse Perry and
Jefferies said he would not...

Speaking of Lewinsky here's some
shenanigans
that went on, right in Jeffery's pulpit....

Anonymous said...

I've heard other pastors in the Metroplex claim that Robert Jeffress is the best outreach program for their own churches!

President Obama probably feels similarly this morning.

Anonymous said...

WD:

I will not vote for a Mormon.

Mormonism is a cult and leads people to a "False" Christ and away from the true Jesus Christ of the bible.

Call that narrow minded if you choose. I am sure many souls will be lead into Mormonism simply because the President of the United States is a "Mormon."

As a Christian I cannot and will not be part of putting a "Cult" follower into the Oval Office. This does not mean I will vote for Obama and I am aware that many will claim I voted for him by not voting against him.

Ed Franklin said...

WD, I'm not sure everyone who uses the expression "professing Christian" does it in such an evil way as you describe. I use it regularly because the profession is all I have from most folks. To me, you are a "professing Christian" and so is the President. I don't know either of you, but you both claim to be Christians, so I take your word for it. Romney is one, too, but if he believes Mormon doctrine, he's in trouble.

The idea of not voting for a Mormon or other unorthodox religion person is, for me, based on worldview. I'd be unhappy about having a Pelagian for President--one who does not believe men are inherently sinful. If you think like that, you can really be led down the primrose path. (i.e. Bush looking into that sweet, lovable Putin's eyes and seeing his soul....)

If you have a Mormon-based world view, you believe stuff like ab initio rather than ex nihilo creation; that Jesus Christ is a created being; that God worked his way up through a myriad of gods to become Head God; the Joseph Smith "Moroni, plates of gold, etc" story....I'm just not confident in anyone who seriously believes that stuff.

At the same time, I think pastors need to tend to their flock, preach the Word and mind their business rather than grabbing for air time with political pronouncements. (Don't get me started on the tax-exempt status stuff...)

Anonymous said...

I am sure many souls will be lead into Mormonism simply because the President of the United States is a "Mormon."

That is completely ridiculous, 11:13. And certainly a very weak reason for not voting out the worst president in US history.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Ed - good point. But some evangelicals believe nutty doctrines that shape their world view. Mainstream SBC'ers believe the road to having our nation blessed is for Christians to give 10% to their church. Some believe that there is a genie in the sky that will take money from you if you don't fork over 10% to the church, that your marriage will suffer, etc. etc. Most SBC'ers don't believe a woman should have authority over a man, so maybe we should exclude SBC'ers from consideration as a president, else how could they relate to heads of state that are female, or place competent females in positions of power over men? I mean let's face it - there are worldviews in both Mormonism and evangelicalism that are troubling for anyone in the position of president.

If you are an evangelical, you believe God is going to wipe out the earth anyways, so do we want a guy with the finger on the nuclear button who has that viewpoint? Do you see the problem with the logic used against Romney? The very same logic can be used against any believer in Christ!!

Ed Franklin said...

WD, I do understand what you're saying and don't disagree much....and that of course reinforces my use of "professing Christian"...lol


Off-topic aside: some day you and I must discuss I Tim 2:12.....you can tell me what it "really means" :)

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Ed - I can't explain it to you in isolation.

I think the onus is on pastors to tell me why in tarnations they don't obey that scripture? Why are they allowing women to speak in church? I thought the Bible says what it says, and we should be good soldiers and obey it? Why then do they put any women in any leadership positions where men may work under their control, and why are women allowed to speak in church?

Anonymous said...

If I worked for the IRS, I can tell you where I'd be first thing Monday morning!

Katie said...

Dawg,

I'm sure you are aware of this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-26-irs25_ST_N.htm

I don't know whether Jeffress was engaged in this activity or not.

Personally, I'd not vote for Romney unless the choice was four more years of BHO. As far as I can see, his morals at any one moment in time seem to be whatever will get him elected. Let's not forget that MA started this whole mandated Health Care Coverage that has been a disaster, and the fact that Romney can be pro-choice if it suits him.

But I agree with the points you have presented. Can you imagine Ed Young as POTUS? Creepy!

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Katie - yes, I was aware of that. I say let the preachers endorse whoever they want, and create their own political party that would nominate their denominational leaders for president. In return, we should remove all tax exemptions for religious institutions, tax their property, and tax their revenue.

Your points about Romney are right on. I am not excited about him as a candidate, except when he goes up against BHO. I am a Herman Cain man as of now, but that could change.

Ed Franklin said...

WD, since I don't know you, I'm a bit uncertain about interpreting your post...my irony detector is broke, and all that...so, I'm gonna take you literally, without seasoning. Your first sentence is a good one--I'd ask the same thing. Now I know egalitarianism is very popular and a position held by some good brothers (and sisters) and I'm not gonna "dis-fellowship" anyone over it, but I don't see any other honest exegesis to that verse. I'm no scholar and I'm open to being taught what it "really means"

If your "complaint" is inconsistency of pastors with regard to teaching and applying the Word, all you get from me is an "Amen!" If you are a thoroughly convinced egalitarian, we're still friends.....lol

The only "exegesis" I ever hear on this is the trash about bringing the Bible into the 20th (21st) century and correcting all the cultural anomalies, etc.....making it "relevant" That doesn't fly in my airspace.

Dee said...

Tom

You dawg! I was about to post something on this. I am sick over this statement. When will these guys get the message that Christianity is not politics. Where, in the NT, do you see people excoriating the government and fielding candidates? They were too busy spreading the faith and being martyred.

Now, we are busy spreading the American Dream and acting like martyrs when someone doesn't agree with us.

Anonymous said...

11:59 Anon - - your IRS statement is ridiculous. A pastor has full rights to endorse a candidate in any forum as long as he is not using church resources. And he can endorse any platform at any point, using any resources (pro-life, marriage issues, etc...)

WD - - I personally would prefer a President who has the Holy Spirit in him/her. I personally would prefer a President who would appoint judges who uphold innocent life, sanctity of Biblical marriage, and lean on Christian values as shown in scripture.

If Romney is a follower of Mormonism then he is a part of a false Gospel cult. Probably a nice guy, would probably make a great president with good morals, and would surely appoint conservative judges...but we can't mistake a Mormon for a true Gospel, Christ-follower.

As usual, I agree with Jeffress's principles, but can't stand his delivery and timing and reputation in the Dallas area.

Todd

Anonymous said...

And so, Todd - you're certain that RJ didn't use church resources for his trip to introduce and endorse Perry?

That Romney is a Mormon and Perry isn't is completely irrelevant to whether either man can and will lead this country according to the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

2:37 Anon,

Are you asking if Jeffress took a church bus to the forum, and wore an Old Testament costume out of the choir department's pageant closet? All resources given to Jeffress as salary and benefits belong to him, and not the church, legally.

And yes, to meet your statement, all things equal politically I do believe that a man/woman with the Holy Spirit in them, leaning on the Word of God as authority would be a greater President than one without the power of God in them.

Todd

Anonymous said...

We are not going to have a president who "leans on the Word of God." It just isn't reality.

Christians, and Baptists in particular, are far too easily convinced that "their" candidate has a daily walk with Christ. It rarely turns out to be the case.

Anonymous said...

No, Todd, I'm not saying that he took the church bus.

But I might ask where the check was cut from and whether a church employee arranged his travel.

It wouldn't be out of line one bit.

Anonymous said...

"I do believe that a man/woman with the Holy Spirit in them, leaning on the Word of God as authority would be a greater President than one without the power of God in them."

And when was the last one that met that criteria?
Obama?
Bush?
Clinton?
Bush?
Reagan?
Carter? Was a Southern Baptist



Even Pastors who claim these credentials are even dangerous to be around.

Anonymous said...

I can assure you, 3:28 Anon, that a First Baptist Church of Dallas check was not cut to the Rick Perry for President fund. If I am wrong on that, FBC Dallas has made a mistake that is illegal and unethical. That church would know better.

It would be fully legal for a church employee to arrange everything for Dr. Jeffress to attend the forum. There would be no problem with that.

Todd

Anonymous said...

Herman Cain professed his faith in Jesus Christ well before entered the race for President of the United States:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/herman-cain-talks-about-his-faith-possible-presidential-run

If it gets down to Cain vs. Romney, I'd choose Cain - hands down!

Anonymous said...

Todd you're wearing us out. Obviously you want to be right. Ok! You are then.

There's a much bigger issue at stake. We need a strong conservative leader to replace the incumbent who has destroyed our country. If Christians are going to get bogged down by this silly debate over denomination, we are in huge trouble come 2012.

Anonymous said...

I hate Mormonism.

It is evil, vile, and wicked.

Defend it if you will, it will lead you straight to Hell.

Only an idiot would believe that trash.

We don't need any more idiots in the White House.

Jeffress is not smooth but he is right....We hate Mormonism.

Anonymous said...

These mega church pastors are such idiots. They are so insulated.

I am not a fan of Romney but Chuck Colson makes a good argument AGAINST what Jeffries is teaching in his old book, Kingdoms in Conflict.

Conservatives are their own worst enemy. We want perfection in our candidates on our pet issues and thier background while Democrats will vote for some vague "hope and change" and rally behind some guy with no executive experience but a community organizer (which is code for socialist) who has a background in Marxist Liberation Theology. (He did throw Jeremiah under teh bus when that got embarassing) But Obama has been true to his socialist beliefs. In other words, Democrats will vote for anybody running on that ticket. Conservatives do tend to stay home if they do not like the candidate in the general. It is a big problem.

I am leaning toward Cain. He is sticking with the main issue. Perry is a bit wacky with his bizaree affiliation with Joel's Army and some Muslim groups. Romney is not conservative (socialized medicine in Mass) but looks like a President and is seen as the establishment candidate so that will get him votes.

It would also be soemthing to watch 2 African Americans, one a socialist and one a conservative take each other on in the general. Historic.

Yes we Cain!

Anonymous said...

Ed,

Here is are some clues about 1 Tim 2 is horribly interpreted...since we have limited space:

1. The Grammar is "singular" as in A woman.

2. Women are not 'saved' by bearing children. (Paul is referring to THE childbearing of MEssiah...it is a play on words because of the fertility cult at the temple of artemis in eph)

3. There is NO prohibition to women teaching men in the Old Covenant. Not one. So you want me to believe there is a new more strict law in the New?

4. Authenteo does not mean "authority over". If the Holy Spirit had wanted to Inspire clear words for authority over there are plenty in Greek.

5. Authenteo is used once in the NT in this passage. It denotes sinister domineering as in false teaching. Chrysostem even wrote about authenteo saying a "husband should not authenteo his wife". (I beleive it was in Homily 10) So we know it is bad and men can do it to women. So, it cannot be a simple authority over.

There is a ton more but I will stop. You might consider that Paul assumes women are prophesying in the Body in 1 Corin 11. You might also consider Pentecost.

Every group longs to have someone "under" them. Patriarchs are no different and this errant teaching goes back to Genesis 3 and a bad interpretation of "teshuqa". Which was translated as "turning" until about 1300 AD.

Patriarchy is a sin and the result of the fall. Many are teaching sin as a virtue.

Besides, most pastors teach that women are more easily decieved and that is the reason for them not to teach men. So why allow them to teach other more easily decieved women and children? Evidently the Cross was not enough for Born Again women to overcome such deception. Others teach that it is creation order that makes the difference. So cows are higher up the chain than man, I suppose.

It is all silliness. And I often think of women in closed countries who witness and teach men because the fields are ready and laborers are few. Spome suffer in prison for it. SAul was throwing women in prison before he was saved. Guess he saw them as much a threat as the male Christians.

But you will have to give up your need for preeminance to see it and I have few hopes many will.

Anonymous said...

I am not voting for a preacher but a president. Obama claims to be a chrisitan but his big issue he took the lead on in the Ill legislature was not protecting born alive aborted babies. He worked hard to keep that from passing. His pastor was the on the board of the Hospital that put late term born alive aborted babies in the soiled linen closet to die and withhold any medical treatment.

Obama is a monster who claims to be a Christian.

Anonymous said...

Bill Bennett Responds;

“Do not give voice to bigotry. Do not give voice to bigotry,” Bennett said in his speech Saturday morning. “I would say to Pastor Jeffress: You stepped on and obscured the words of Perry and Santorum and Cain and Bachmann and everyone else who has spoken here. You did Rick Perry no good, sir, in what you had to say.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65475.html#ixzz1aEPKY591


Now what was the new name to be for the Bigoted SOUTHERN BAPTIST Convention?

So they could "reach" out to other areas of the country ?

Oh will tell em the truth...
their all going to He//?

There is no correct truth but the Southern Baptist Truth.

Anonymous said...

4:42 Anon,

Mormonism is not a denomination of Christianity. Please get your facts straight. Mormonism is a religion, Christianity is a religion, Islam is a religion...

Mormonism is not a branch of Christianity or a denomination of Protestantism. Mormonism is a cult.

Let me say again, Romney would make a terrific president, especially in comparison of what we have now. But let's not confuse the issue - - Romney, if he claims to be a Mormon, is not a Christian...and I stand by my viewpoint that a Christian with the Spirit in them has the advantage of Godly wisdom.

Todd

Todd

Ed Franklin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Todd, I'm having a margarita now. You need one too.

New BBC Open Forum said...

After all, the last "born again" Southern Baptist we had in the White House ended up getting sexual favors from a 22-year old in the Oval Office.

And the one before him was, IMO, the worst president in my lifetime, if not ever, until the present occupant took office. Four more years of this and we won't have a country left. But if conservative evangelicals continue to fail to see the forest for the trees, four more years of BHO is exactly what we face. If Romney is the Republican candidate you can hold your nose and vote for him, or you can vote your conscience and vote for a third-party candidate which is the same as a vote for BHO. Suit yourself.

Anonymous said...

Todd - please read my posts. I'm not debating the religion, cult, or denomination issue. You are.

I am concerned with who will make the best president. Period.

Anonymous said...

I am never impressed when a non-anonymous removes their post:

Ed Franklin said...

@Anon 5:27....thanks for your efforts, but I'm not moved much from where I am (though I might not be where you seem to put me with "...you will have to give up your need for preeminance (sic)" Perhaps that view of me as a troglodyte caused you to leave the meat out of your presentation.

with regard to a couple of your "points"--

1. yes, "a woman"...and your point is? That Paul had in mind one particular woman? If I say, "if a man lays a hand on my wife, he's dead meat..." does that mean just one man?

5. Robertson does not see all the sinister meaning you ascribe to the word: "auṫhentes, a self-doer, a master, autocrat. It occurs in the papyri (substantive authentēs, master, verb authenteō, to domineer, adjective authentikos, authoritative, “authentic”)"

....and so on and so forth. I've studied the egalitarian/complementarian thing for about 30 years and have seen some substantially more convincing cases than you present....and I will admit, I am never impressed by the anonymous poster. Why would someone not put their name to that post?

(Wow! my captcha word is "unpoo"...is that an omen?...lol)

October 8, 2011 6:46 PM

Anonymous said...

Was Jesus a Mormon?

Was Paul a Mormon?

Would Jesus vote for a Mormon?

With the "secret underwear", baptism for the dead, and the belief that one day Mitt will be a God and run his own Universe.

Surely he can run the USA!

Anonymous said...

I TOTALLY disagree with the supposed learned pastor. I would rather have a conservative with judeo-christian values who is a leader than someone who is a Christian and NOT a leader. Too many pastors aer not fit to be leaders and just being born-again is not enough to lead this nation. I do like Perry and Bachman. Wonder if I could get them to run togehter as a team?

Anonymous said...

Dr Robert Jeffress:
"The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant denomination in the WORLD) has officially labeled Mormonism as a Cult"

CNN Video

A Dallas Blog comments


Oh, this makes sense, SBC has a direct line to the Almighty and Knows the TRUTH.

Ed Franklin said...

you know Anon, I removed that post for a couple reasons:

1. Your post on which I commented was rambling, disjointed and generally useless

2. My response to it was too snarky, upon reflection, and not edifying.

3. As I said when I mentioned the I Tim 2 passage, which was directed to the Watch Dog himself, btw....I acknowledged that it was off-topic.

So, I decided enough bandwidth had been wasted already without a pissing contest between you and me on a question which will never be settled in this life.

And I see you still don't have the guts to claim your comments.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Mormon?
With the "secret underwear","


Gee, everything of Mega Pastors and mega churches are "secret" so where's the beef?

Anonymous said...

"Christianity is a religion"

Todd, Christiantity is NOT a religion. It is a relationship. Big huge difference.

Anonymous said...

And I see you still don't have the guts to claim your comments.

October 8, 2011 11:40 PM

Absolutely! I have seen first hand the arrogant evil that masquerades as "Christian" leadership. I have seen way too many people thrown under buses for daring to disagree with the specially "anointed ones". Yes, most definitely. I am a coward. These guys take no prisoners. They ruin people. I am thankful that here ideas stand on their own...content is more important than who you are or who you are associated with.

Signed, Publius. :o)

Anonymous said...

I prefer Cain but if Romney were the nominee I would hold the nose and vote for him.

In fact, from what I can tell he seems to be a non practicing cultural Mormon. But he really is not that conservative...so he is not my first choice.

I held my nose and voted for McCain!

Anonymous said...

Mormonism is a cult plain and simple. It is not another "brand" of Christianity.

Bob Lee said...

Dogs can wag their tongues all day and profess to be a Born Again Christian but what the tongue says has little effect on the truth.

Jesus, the very one who is the Head of the Church said we will know them by their fruit, not simply by what the wagging tongue says alone.

I agree with the Word of God, faith without works is dead, dead, dead. You can say you have faith all day long but you had better be able to prove that you are connected to the Holy Tree God by producing His Fruit in you. That's the real test.