Posted on 10/25/2004 3:39:15 PM PDT by Lindykim
LOL!
This author is right on the mark. You can't be a good Christian and a good liberal. Anyone who tries will be compromising one of them, if not both.
"The author is playing the same childish game as Hillary Clinton was when she said in a 02/06/97 CNN interview, "I have to confess it has crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian." ~ Ichneumon
The religious opinions of Moral Relativists like Clinton are meaningless. God isn't a moral relativist.
You may be interested in a letter I wrote to a confused commentator a couple of weeks ago. Haven't heard a word back from him. Hahahaha
Greetings, Mr. Sandon:
Beneath your commentary you invited your readers to email you if they wanted to comment on it. I have two observations for your consideration (and would love to hear back from you if you have a cogent, unemotional rebuttal). They can be found below this link to your article:
The Tallahassee Democrat Sat, Oct. 02, 2004
"God is not a Republican or a Democrat" By Leo Sandon
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/living/columnists/leo_sandon/9813044.htm
Observation #1:
There is "God" and then there are the various figments of some men's imagination that each relates to and communicates with as his/her "god".
In other words, there is reality, and then there is the fake, but personally comfortable reality that the emotionally immature concoct in their heads in order not to feel guilty about anything. The more emotionally mature one is, they more able they will be to have the courage to face absolute moral truths.
Whether one is able to face it or not, the Constitution of the United States was put into place to guard absolute (self-evident) moral truths. It is a meaningless document otherwise.
But relativists don't believe in objective, absolute / self-evident / unchangeable moral truths that are true for all people at all times, in all places. Their *truths* are subjective and can be ADAPTED to fit situations.
To a relativist, the Constitution is a "living document", subject to being able to be adapted to changing moral ideas/situations in a society.
The Religious Left is fond of asking the trick question, "Is God/Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?"
But moral relativists can be found in both parties, so the only legitimate question to ask is, "Is God/Jesus a moral relativist?"
The god of moral relativists IS a moral relativist.
The flagship magazine of The Religious Left is called: Sojourners - Posted here: 20
*
Observation #2:
Saul Alinsky. Hillary Clinton and The Religious Left follow his "be adaptive" instructions "religiously". Sojourners:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=Soj0003&article=000311
Books: Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals - By Saul Alinsky
In the 60's, as a radical mentality herself at Wellesley, Hillary Clinton was so enamored of Saul Alinsky and his *methods* she wrote her senior thesis under his mentoring.
She uses his "how to fool the useful idiots by ADAPTING to whatever is necessary for the moment" tactics to this very day. In her quest for the presidency, she is already laying that groundwork by pretending to be "for the war".
As you know, in 1992, she and her "adaptive" husband ALSO pretended that they really aren't Liberals but instead, professed to be "New Democrats" in order to get elected.
Today, the left-wing "old media" that they rely on so heavily to cover for them, is on the ropes thanks to the pioneering efforts of Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, the Web Logers (Bloggers), Free Republic.com, et.al.
The genie is out of the bottle. And because of that fact, WE impeached Clinton and his "wife" will never be president.
Warm regards,
name and town
"The author is playing the same childish game as Hillary Clinton was when she said in a 02/06/97 CNN interview, "I have to confess it has crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian." ~ Ichneumon
The religious opinions of Moral Relativists like Clinton are meaningless. God isn't a moral relativist.
You may be interested in a letter I wrote to a confused commentator a couple of weeks ago. Haven't heard a word back from him. Hahahaha
Greetings, Mr. Sandon:
Beneath your commentary you invited your readers to email you if they wanted to comment on it. I have two observations for your consideration (and would love to hear back from you if you have a cogent, unemotional rebuttal). They can be found below this link to your article:
The Tallahassee Democrat Sat, Oct. 02, 2004
"God is not a Republican or a Democrat" By Leo Sandon
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/living/columnists/leo_sandon/9813044.htm
Observation #1:
There is "God" and then there are the various figments of some men's imagination that each relates to and communicates with as his/her "god".
In other words, there is reality, and then there is the fake, but personally comfortable reality that the emotionally immature concoct in their heads in order not to feel guilty about anything. The more emotionally mature one is, they more able they will be to have the courage to face absolute moral truths.
Whether one is able to face it or not, the Constitution of the United States was put into place to guard absolute (self-evident) moral truths. It is a meaningless document otherwise.
But relativists don't believe in objective, absolute / self-evident / unchangeable moral truths that are true for all people at all times, in all places. Their *truths* are subjective and can be ADAPTED to fit situations.
To a relativist, the Constitution is a "living document", subject to being able to be adapted to changing moral ideas/situations in a society.
The Religious Left is fond of asking the trick question, "Is God/Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?"
But moral relativists can be found in both parties, so the only legitimate question to ask is, "Is God/Jesus a moral relativist?"
The god of moral relativists IS a moral relativist.
The flagship magazine of The Religious Left is called: Sojourners - Posted here: 20
*
Observation #2:
Saul Alinsky. Hillary Clinton and The Religious Left follow his "be adaptive" instructions "religiously". Sojourners:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=Soj0003&article=000311
Books: Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals - By Saul Alinsky
In the 60's, as a radical mentality herself at Wellesley, Hillary Clinton was so enamored of Saul Alinsky and his *methods* she wrote her senior thesis under his mentoring.
She uses his "how to fool the useful idiots by ADAPTING to whatever is necessary for the moment" tactics to this very day. In her quest for the presidency, she is already laying that groundwork by pretending to be "for the war".
As you know, in 1992, she and her "adaptive" husband ALSO pretended that they really aren't Liberals but instead, professed to be "New Democrats" in order to get elected.
Today, the left-wing "old media" that they rely on so heavily to cover for them, is on the ropes thanks to the pioneering efforts of Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, the Web Logers (Bloggers), Free Republic.com, et.al.
The genie is out of the bottle. And because of that fact, WE impeached Clinton and his "wife" will never be president.
Warm regards,
name and town
You are correct that salvation is based on faith in Christ alone, not one's works or affiliations with organizations, including churches or political parties. However, once you are born again, the Holy Spirit comes to live inside of you and begins the process of sanctification in the Christian, leading one to become progressively more like Christ.
How does relate to politics or voting? It is hard for one to believe the Holy Spirit would guide the believer to vote for a candidate who supports infanticide/abortion on demand and the homosexual agenda (which is contrary to Romans 1 and other teachings of the Word of God). In addition, the liberal montra of secularism denies the very power and existence of the Creator, making it even harder to believe that the Holy Spirit would move a Christian to vote for this ideology. God cannot be contrary to His Word so He cannot and would not direct someone to act in opposition to His word.
However, as to the size and scope of government or the correct reaction to terrorism in our world, I believe there can be genuine disagreement in the Church (the body of true believers). Frankly, the leftists and secularists in our country and in Europe fear the evangelical Christian more than they fear the fundamentalist terrorist. This has been their main grievance with Bush and America since he was elected and continues to this day.
Remember, none of us will be perfect until Judgement day. A properly worded statement in this case would be that a Christian led of the Spirit could not be a democrat. However, all of us follow blindly after our lusts from time to time. Pray for these people that the Holy Spirit's sanctification of these believers would open their eyes or for their genuine salvation.
I agree with you 100% that no party has a lock on morality.
LOL. That is a keeper.
Another letter I wrote a couple of days ago to O'Reilly:
Dear Mr. O'Reilly,
Please consider my pithy request to have Dr. Ronald H. Nash, PhD on your show for balance when you feature representatives from the religious left. (His credentials can be found here: http://www.biblicaltraining.org/classes/apologetics/frame.html)
I have many of his books, one of which is entitled, "Why The Left is Not Right - The Religious Left: Who They Are and What They Believe" [Zondervan, Grand Rapids Michigan - 1996].
In it, he examines the writings and work of three major figures who have shaped the current Religious Left scene: Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine; Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action; and Tony Campolo, professor of sociology at Eastern College.
If you're interested in granting my request, I think you'll be able to contact him at this email address: Ronnsh@aol.com
As an aside, you may be interested in the comments I made in the thread I'm linking you to below [Please refresh your browser for the latest posts]:
Capitalist Ron Nash: "The New Face of Marxism - The Religious Left / Jim Wallis-Sojourners
Issues, Etc. ^ | Monday, October 11, 2004 | Ronald Nash, PhD
Posted on 10/22/2004 2:31:05 PM EDT by Matchett-PI
[snip]
"Since O'Reilly had a couple of guys on his program last night (10-21-04) from the Religious Left - one of whom was specifically referred to as being affiliated with Sojourners - the flagship magazine of the Religious Left - maybe we should request that he give equal time to a Capitalist like Ron Nash."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1253703/posts?page=1#1
====
Thanks for considering my request.
Warm regards,
name and town
The reply I received from someone I don't even know when I forwarded that to some friends (I assume that a friend of mine forwarded it to the person who replied back to me....
____________
First, the term "Liberalism" in general defines a political philoshphy and not theological teachings or beliefs. People who are pushing a conservative political agenda would have us believe that another term for liberal is Satan. A close reading of the Holy scriptures will show that neither liberalism nor conservatism is mentioned.
It is my belief that God deals with each person individually, not with political parties or organized religious bodies. Both you and I have to make personal choices every day of our lives, and we will answer to God for each choice. I will not let eihter political philosophy dictate how I vote, or let anyone tell me that my political vote determines whether or not I am a Christian.
Somethings you may consider before buying completely into conservative propaganda:
First, the bible teaches that ever political leader, (the bible says King), gains his authority from God and is there to serve God's purpose in some manner. The bible doesn' say ever good conservative King, it says ever King and even included that arch enemy of conservatives, William Jefferson Clinton. Now let me give you a truism regarding Christianity.
You can't accept part of God's teaching and throw out the parts you don't like.
Second, take a close look at the ogranization of the new Christian chruches shortly after Christ's death. Sell all of your worldly good, and pool all resouces, take care of the Widows and Orphans. One man and his wife were struck dead by God for simply trying to withold part of the proceeds a property sale. Sounds an awful like communist philosophy doesn' it. I don't believe the Bible teaches communism any more than I believe it teaches conversativism. However, I believe it does teach us to love our fellow man, that we are our brother's keeper and the proper response to all mankind's problems is not to simply say "Get a Job."
Very well put. A Christian "can" be a Democrat/Liberal, but the fact that they are is a symptom of an underlying fundamental problem that needs to be solved. My wife and I were talking just today about how sad we are when we see Kerry signs out and about -- to support Kerry, I believe there must be some sort of "internal" problem or hurting. In reality, if every Christian/Catholic (or those who profess to be) voted based on the principles of scripture, there wouldn't be such a thing as a close election.
Lot of truth to the article, although I don't at all see liberalism and hedonism as synonomous.
However, that part about it being harder for a rich man getting into heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle seems to fit pretty well with the leftist credo.
Do you consider Hillary to be a Christian?
I don't really know, but would be surprised if she was.
Re:#23 Absolutely perfect answer!
With all due respect, I think that is a bit strong – we are all sinners, and it is faith, not acts, which determines salvation. I realize that after we accept Christ we become – I believe by the intervention of the Holy Sprit – New Creatures, but that does make us free of sin.
I do believe that the Republican party tends to be closer to Christian principles than the Democrats but I also believe that there are Democrats that are Christians.
"At church yesterday I told someone that you can't be a Christian and a Democrat."
In the '50s, as a young minister's wife, my mom told one of our parishoners: "but... you can't be a Democrat and be a Christian, too!" She was completely floored when someone said he was a Democrat. Now we laugh about it -- but she was right, I think.
Christians don't support infanticide, gay marriage, taking authority from parents and giving it to govt., etc. Democcrats do. They are therefore opposed to Christ. They don't recognize His authority, but recognize and exault govt. authority.
My Bible says accept Christ as your Savior and be born again.
****
Agreed and we are to follow Christ. Do you think Christ would have put his seal of approval on abortion or gay marriage or being a sluggard (welfare system)? You can't serve 2 masters, you will pick one or the other. This country is so divided and it reminds me of when the people were offered Christ or Barabas (not that Bush is Christ but he sure represents him alot more than Kerry) and you have 1/2 this country screaming "GIVE US BARABAS!!!" Scary...very scary.
Well said joesnuffy!!! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.