Evidence for God from Science

I'll just weigh in briefly on Mitt Romney, a man I see that is smart, looks and sounds presidential, has a solid business and leadership background, and is (relatively) conservative. A lot about this man looks like he might make a good president. But as a Christian, I would never vote for him.

For one, I believe having a strong Christian faith brings an enormous strength to any president. One looking to the Lord for guidance is a person who can be used and thus strengthened far beyond his natural talents and abilities (although ALSO God-given). And as he's a Mormon, I don't believe Romney is a Christian - certainly not if he holds to his church's teachings about Jesus and salvation. But I don't know his heart, I only know his faith affiliation is very troubling. Also, as one who apparently believes in Joseph Smith's fictional work, I have to question Romney's intellectual honesty. Whatever one believes about the Bible spiritually, scholars universally testify that so many of its geographical places, events and people have been archaeologically well substantiated and verified. In contrast, the book of Mormon is widely viewed by scholars and archaeologists to be entirely fictional, and mainly because its geographical places, supposed linguistic connections, listed animals, etc. remain unproven and tremendously contradicted by the exhaustive evidence. And the more one researches how obscure and secretive were the events surrounding how the Book of Mormon was "received," the more one should question it - and yet Mitt apparently DOESN'T. So I see him as either being deceived or intellectually dishonest with himself. Neither which is good.

It's not that I necessarily believe that Mitt Romney is a bad person or dishonorable, or that he isn't very capable and smart - I believe he IS. It's that as I also believe Romney is not a Christian, and as he is a follower of a church I believe I believe was born in the deception and lies of "the enemy," I also believe that because of his Mormon beliefs, he is very ripe to be used and deceived, thus possibly leading many others and our country into his deceptions. Whatever the case, he's not worth the risk. And I haven't yet discerned who would be the best from the rest. And yet IF I could find a fiscally and socially conservative Democrat with excellent experience, skills and ideas (and also a Christian), I'd vote for such a person in a heartbeat. But I just don't think such a Democrat exists - and it looks like Mr. Obama will be renominated.

I think we are all in agreement here that the book of Mormon is demonic. Frankly Mitt Romney freaks me out as well.. Glenn Beck also don't go well with me either..

Where have all the statesmen gone?
-
-
-

The Mormon issue aside, I lived in Massachusetts when Romney ran the state. I would never vote for him because of that alone. He promised not to raise taxes, and then attached fees in place of additional taxes. Not honest IMO.

Beware of Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachman.
I feel very sad that so many buy the "Christian" candidate thing. All these, including Romney make me nervous as heck. Not that I wouldn't support a Christian candidate. But I assure you that those four are not representing genuine biblical Christianity. They are representing some Americanized right wing ideology that has become a substitute for Christianity.

How about George W. Bush? He wore his Christian cowboy bravado on his sleeve. And he ran this country into the ground. Never used the line item veto. Increased spending and government programs, and treated our military like his own personal bully squad. Not too mention that Chaney would be immediately arrested for war crimes the moment he stepped on most foreign soil. The only people who will make it to legitimate candidacy are those who have manipulated, wrangled, and cut throats on their way up the ladder.

jlay wrote:Beware of Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachman.
I feel very sad that so many buy the "Christian" candidate thing. All these, including Romney make me nervous as heck. Not that I wouldn't support a Christian candidate. But I assure you that those four are not representing genuine biblical Christianity. They are representing some Americanized right wing ideology that has become a substitute for Christianity.

How about George W. Bush? He wore his Christian cowboy bravado on his sleeve. And he ran this country into the ground. Never used the line item veto. Increased spending and government programs, and treated our military like his own personal bully squad. Not too mention that Chaney would be immediately arrested for war crimes the moment he stepped on most foreign soil. The only people who will make it to legitimate candidacy are those who have manipulated, wrangled, and cut throats on their way up the ladder.

Absolutely true, jlay.
I would add: One can't serve two masters. One can't serve God, and be President. There are too many things a true Christian would have to compromise in order to be President, IMO.

Oh, I see you already made the point I tried to make here:

The only people who will make it to legitimate candidacy are those who have manipulated, wrangled, and cut throats on their way up the ladder.

I have a question - I've noticed that many Americans, and some of you here, seem to oppose government spending. As far as I know, government spending (if it's wise, not reckless), just as individual spending, contributes to a country's GDP (among other benefits), so why this negative stance...?

Reactionary wrote:I have a question - I've noticed that many Americans, and some of you here, seem to oppose government spending. As far as I know, government spending (if it's wise, not reckless), just as individual spending, contributes to a country's GDP (among other benefits), so why this negative stance...?

I think you answered your own question, Reactionary. It's reckless, wasteful, irresponsible spending that we are talking about.


For example, there has been a huge push for new jobs to be created here. If the new jobs created are govt. jobs, how much does that really add to our economy? If a govt. employee earns $50,000 a year, every penny of that salary comes from taxes. If a private sector employee earns $50,000 a year, that comes from people buying that employees goods and services. Big difference IMO.

It appears my post has devolved into issues only on the periphery, but that are mostly NOT addressing my assertion: that a man's faith IS important when considering his candidacy for president, and that a man of a non-Christian faith has a much greater propensity of being deceived and/or deceptive himself. And I'm not picking on Romney or saying that Christians can't be deceived as well, it's just that I'd rather have a true person of faith leading us than one who only looks to false beliefs or his own "genius" when making important decisions.

So, for (ONLY) those here that are professing Christians - GIVEN A CHOICE between two comparable candidates with good track records and acceptable (political) values, and only one of which is a TRUE Christian (in heart and deed) and the other is of a non-Christian faith or is an agnostic or atheist, would you not find the man (or woman) of Christian faith to much more desirable? Does not a candidate's faith matter to you, all other things being acceptable and relatively equal?

And for those out there who equate being a "Christian" with one who is necessarily a hypocrite, only because they have flaws, weaknesses, and have made mistakes, then you truly don't understand what being a Christian is all about to begin with.

Philip wrote:It appears my post has devolved into issues only on the periphery, but that are mostly NOT addressing my assertion: that a man's faith IS important when considering his candidacy for president, and that a man of a non-Christian faith has a much greater propensity of being deceived and/or deceptive himself...

One must look at where one places his/her faith in - the biblical Jesus or in Government - orin self or in self works....

One must look at where one places his/her faith in - the biblical Jesus or in Government - or in self or in self works....

ABSOLUTELY true! Government will NEVER truly deliver us from earth's problems and is certainly not our hope for the future, here or in eternity (GOD is!). But God DOES give us free will and choices (for now) to make as to those we make our leaders, and so we must make the best decisions we can (hopefully, carefully and prayerfully). Of course, God ultimately chooses our leaders - perhaps sometimes giving us those we collectively deserve, as they are usually merely a reflection of our society (as a whole).

RickD wrote:I think you answered your own question, Reactionary. It's reckless, wasteful, irresponsible spending that we are talking about.

I still think we shouldn't generalize. I don't have anything against laissez-faire policies in developed economies, but IMO only interventionism can quickly and efficiently build an economy from scratch, or pull it out of a crisis. I can't comment on American economical policies, as I don't know enough about them, I asked a question because I had an impression that many see any kind of government spending as necessarily evil.

RickD wrote:For example, there has been a huge push for new jobs to be created here. If the new jobs created are govt. jobs, how much does that really add to our economy? If a govt. employee earns $50,000 a year, every penny of that salary comes from taxes. If a private sector employee earns $50,000 a year, that comes from people buying that employees goods and services. Big difference IMO.

True, but profits of a private company belong to its owner, while if a govt.-owned company does well, its profits belong to the State. So, in laissez-faire capitalism, the State only gets its cut via taxation, while when it controls the key points of the economy (for instance, factories that produce goods of national interest), it doesn't have to depend on capitalists to earn money and, with a successful strategy, it can allocate more money to social welfare, education, science etc. My humble opinion.

Reactionary wrote:True, but profits of a private company belong to its owner, while if a govt.-owned company does well, its profits belong to the State. So, in laissez-faire capitalism, the State only gets its cut via taxation, while when it controls the key points of the economy (for instance, factories that produce goods of national interest), it doesn't have to depend on capitalists to earn money and, with a successful strategy, it can allocate more money to social welfare, education, science etc. My humble opinion.

Governments should never be in the business of running businesses, all kinds of conflict of interest will undoubtedly arise. It is best that government's role is restricted to creating jobs through incentives and as little taxation as possible.

jlay wrote:Beware of Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachman.
I feel very sad that so many buy the "Christian" candidate thing. All these, including Romney make me nervous as heck. Not that I wouldn't support a Christian candidate. But I assure you that those four are not representing genuine biblical Christianity. They are representing some Americanized right wing ideology that has become a substitute for Christianity.

How about George W. Bush? He wore his Christian cowboy bravado on his sleeve. And he ran this country into the ground. Never used the line item veto. Increased spending and government programs, and treated our military like his own personal bully squad. Not too mention that Chaney would be immediately arrested for war crimes the moment he stepped on most foreign soil. The only people who will make it to legitimate candidacy are those who have manipulated, wrangled, and cut throats on their way up the ladder.

Bravo sir

True, but profits of a private company belong to its owner, while if a govt.-owned company does well, its profits belong to the State.

There can be cases of this, But they are rare. TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) is one. TVA is essentially not for profit. They were Federally founded, but today receive NO government funding. So technically the are not government owned. Their profits go back into infrastructure.