Posted on 04/10/2012 12:29:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I am going to brew up some TEA instead!!
You don't get to buy the tea. We will all be drinking Obama or Romney next year even if you fail to put in you drink order.
Romney does NOT have the nomination yet. Go shill for the socialist elsewhere. Conservatives aren’t buying what the DC elites are selling.
No it is not reality. It is a opinion, as you say yourself with the words "You are assuming, wrongly IMO."
He will.
Goodbye.
“Pontius Pilate”
Sorry, God does not see me that way. I know. I have a very close, personal relationship with Him. The country seems to want to go to hell in a hand basket labeled “lesser evil.” I’ll go with God, thanks.
On June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill was an ironic beginning for a man often seen as the modern father of the pro-life movement.
I don't think your getting the stategery. Remember when President George H W Bush broke his promise and signed onto new taxes. Conservatives taught the GOP a lesson and Clinton was elected, but when the second term came The GOP was forced to ally itself with conservatives and nominated arch conservative Bob Dole.
Remember when conservatives taught the GOP a lesson in 2008. FUJM. No more RINOs. Obama was elected and the GOP was forced to ally with conservatives and nominated right wing Mitt Romney. What a great strategy. Third times the charm.
It's common sense. The loser tries to be more like the winner in the next race. Want to move the country to the left elect more liberal rats and DINO enablers. Want to move the country right elect more conservative Republicans and RINO eneablers.
Do you have a clue?
The California therapeutic Abortion Act was NOT a go ahead for abortions on demand. It RESTRICTED abortions.
It made abortion legal ONLY if a hospital committee determined that the pregnancy would gravely impair a woman’s physical or mental health or a District Attorney concluded that the pregnancy probably resulted from rape or incest.
So go ahead and try to make Reagan sound like he was pro abortion.
You will only make yourself look stupid.
It is bizzaro world when right here on FR people are saying it is OK to vote for Romney, and that Reagan was pro-abortion.
I must be stuck in the freakin’ Twilight Zone!
I didn't say Reagan was pro-abortion I responded to your statement. "If you think Reagan was in any way responsible for even one abortion then you are a raving nut job." And I quoted you so you could tell it was in response. You should get a clue.
You are VERY WELCOME!! :)
I firmly believe that the way to show our REFUSAL to support moderate, wishy-washy non-conservative candidates is to cast our vote -- which must and will be counted -- for the person we truly think is best for America. That is how the RIGHT CHANGE is made!
Those us of in solid Democrat states have a RESPONSIBILITY to use our vote to SAY SOMETHING POSITIVE about what we believe in!!
No more "going along" with something we don't believe in!!
We are the ones who have the opportunity to be in the forefront of the REPLACEMENT for the establishment parties!!
Because who else is going to do it, if we don't?????
Thank you for your comment -- you made my day! :)
Please don’t forget Allen West.
Wow! Now *that* is a Dream Team!
Understanding that Scripture has different standards for civil and ecclesiastical office is absolutely critical to evaluating the candidacy of Newt Gingrich, just as it was years ago in evaluating the candidacy of Ronald Reagan.
I can't speak for these two posters, but all too often the discussion is based on a failure to understand that God has different standards for selection and removal of civil rulers than he does for ecclesiastical office.
The end result is a lot of confusion, with some evangelicals demanding standards which are higher than Scripture and some secular conservatives and secular liberals attacking evangelicals for hypocrisy when we support people like Ronald Reagan. This was a problem all the way back in 1980 when lots of southern evangelicals couldn't understand how a Bible-believing Christian could vote for a divorced movie actor rather than a self-identified born again Baptist who had been unquestionably faithful to his wife.
The same questions are coming back this year, but in an even worse form, with Newt Gingrich.
I have been saying for a long time that both Gingrich and Santorum are acceptable evangelical candidates. I would have said the same about Bachmann, Perry, and Cain as well, by the way, but not Ron Paul, John Huntsman, or Mitt Romney; I don't know enough about most of the other early candidates to have an informed opinion.
I think, given the uproar that's now facing us, I need to say more about why Christians can vote in good conscience for Newt Gingrich, just as they could vote in good conscience for Ronald Reagan.
Let's be clear right from the start. There is absolutely no way that Gingrich, based on his past, should be elected as a pastor, elder or deacon in a Bible-believing church without crystal clear repentance and a long history of proving that repentance is real by how he conducts his life. The standards of I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-2:10 are very high, and even if Gingrich were able to meet all of them, there's still the question of someone’s past being so notorious that I Timothy 3:7, being of good report among outsiders, disqualifies someone from church office no matter how clear his repentance may be.
As a married Roman Catholic, Newt Gingrich will never be a candidate for ecclesiastical office, so that question is largely irrelevant.
What is extremely relevant is that we never see any place in Scripture where God applies the standards of I Timothy and Titus to selection of civil rulers.
We have very limited guidance under the New Testament for how we are to select our civil rulers; the key passage is Romans 13 where God sets out the role of the civil rulers to bear the sword to punish evildoers. (By the way, that's a key part of why Jimmy Carter was not qualified for civil office since he grossly failed in performing the primary function of civil government.)
However, even under the Old Testament theocracy where the kings and judges ruled by divine right with explicit divine mandates for their duties, we do not have the slightest hint that King David's adultery with Bathsheba disqualified him from the kingship.
Go read II Samuel 11 and 12. Were there consequences to David's adultery? Absolutely. They included the loss of his child (II Samuel 12:14-23), and chaos in his kingdom (II Samuel 12:11-12).
King David was expected to repent, and he did repent. God spared his life (II Samuel 12:13), and Psalm 51 is a public testimony to that repentance.
However, there is no indicator anywhere in Scripture that King David's adultery disqualified him from office. That's quite different from ordained pastors, elders and deacons who **MUST** be removed from office in such cases. Yes, the prophet Nathan rebuked King David, but nowhere were God's people called to remove David from his office.
Can Christians take Gingrich's background into account? Absolutely. That's one reason why I preferred Santorum, once he became a viable candidate. Also, repentance should be demanded, but the fact is that Gingrich has **ALREADY** repented.
Those who doubt that should read what Rev. Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church, wrote about Gingrich's personal faith at this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2837165/replies?c=33
If anyone has any questions about just how conservative Garlow’s Christianity is, watch this video, posted so helpfully by Right Wing Watch which seeks to discredit Garlow but actually proves that he's a solid Christian and not a compromiser likely to look on Gingrich's background with laxity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV8NSvVME2g
Furthermore, I'm not a Roman Catholic, but the fact is that the Roman Catholic Church's rules are far stricter than those of most evangelical Protestant churches for accepting a person with Gingrich's background. Much about Gingrich's ecclesiastical situation will never be made public and is under the seal of the confessional — i.e., between him and his priest. I happen to be a member of a church which takes a pretty hard line on divorce and remarriage, but Protestant churches which freely accept people into membership despite multiple divorces have no valid grounds to be criticizing Newt Gingrich's personal faith.
Bottom line is this: as long as we had two viable candidates for the Republican nomination, I believe evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics could vote for either Gingrich or Santorum in good conscience.
We now have only one candidate left. Romney is simply unacceptable — he has a background of defending baby killing, homosexual marriage, and other damnable wickedness, and unlike Gingrich, his change of heart is far from clear.
Even if we could vote for a Mormon (a debatable point for me), we cannot vote for a candidate who does not meet the basic standards of Romans 13 in upholding justice and punishing the wicked. Romney doesn't qualify for our support.
I believe it's time to get behind Newt Gingrich as the last conservative left in the Republican race. I understand some people simply cannot do that in good conscience, and I respect that.
However, I strongly urge such people to read this post, take a close look at the biblical references and Rev. Garlow’s statements about Gingrich's repentance, and seriously reconsider. We're not talking about ordaining Gingrich as an elder or making him a Sunday School or catechism teacher; we're talking about whether Gingrich is biblically qualified to be a civil ruler.
If Gingrich isn't qualified, then neither is Ronald Reagan and King David, and I believe that is an inconsistent standard.
1,153 posted on Wed Apr 11 2012 16:19:00 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by sam_paine: “Exactly. A divorcee with enstranged children who authorized the sale of weapons to terrorists like Ronald Reagan would be morally unacceptable to such people.”
1,151 posted on Wed Apr 11 2012 16:11:37 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by 5thGenTexan: “They are not saying they will only vote for someone who can, as President, change abortion. They are saying that they cannot support a person for President who personally is pro-abortion. It is about the person's moral character, not the powers of the office. They choose to support only pro-life candidates, regardless of the powers of the office they are running for.”
I’m NOT blind to America’s ruin under Obama. But you are blind to its ruin under Romney.
And you still haven’t told me WHY you believe Romney now?
Can you name ONE “pro-life advocate”who was still an abortionist at AGE SIXTY?
Hank
And just what independent has won a presidential election? And if you can’t win an election without independents, then you sure as heck can’t win it without conservatives.
Do you have any concept of the difference between Obama’s burning desire to destroy America, and Romney’s “potential” for implementing some policies you don’t like?
Where is your “still an abortionist” charge coming from?
And yes....Dr. Bernard Nathansen, founder of NARAL.
He performed over 5,000 abortions and sometime after age 60 became Pro-Life.
I met him at the Human Life International Conference in 1991, in Houston.
Excellent read Darrell.....and well worth the read...
Exerts:
...”there is no indicator anywhere in Scripture that King David’s adultery disqualified him from office... That’s quite different from ordained pastors, elders and deacons who must be removed from office in such cases.”...
....”Christians can vote in good conscience for Newt Gingrich, just as they could vote in good conscience for Ronald Reagan.”......
....”If Gingrich isn’t qualified, then neither is Ronald Reagan and King David, and I believe that is an inconsistent standard.”....
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.