Posted on 08/22/2004 6:15:20 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Thanks for bringing this up. If you look at the words in question -- at the conclusion of his acceptance speech, you will see that what he was saying is, "I'll try my best and leave it in God's hands."
Whatever we do, for good or ill, God has the victory! Amen.
LOL........that's funny.:-)
Jesus said "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge; ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
That's very true.
I wonder if there are Jewish, athiest, Muslim, or Buddhist Republicans in Illinois, and whether or not Keyes would welcome their vote?
I'm sorry, it's been a long day, and my mind takes odd paths even on the best of days...
Probably one of the most misused verses in the Bible.
Doctor Keyes is stating a simple fact: That any victory is indeed up to God, NOT that any victory implies that "God is on our side."
When people comment on posts without actually answering what they say, let alone show they've read the article, it makes THEM look silly.
Sorry, that's not what he stated at all.
He said;
"The battle is for us, but I have confidence because the victory IS FOR GOD!"
Why would his confidence be connected to the victory being for God if he didn't believe God was on his side?
Your explanation defies any normal reading of his statement.
At the moment, the current war takes precedence, or none of us may exist tomorrow. At least for the time being both the war agaisnt abortion and the war against terrorism can't be fought simultaneously, don't your think? In fact we can fight on several fronts (ie. the war against the left) can we not?
I am not crazy about the phrase in title, because it pits the religious against the non-religious, and I believe drives even some religious supporters away. It's rhetoric that is over the top and ineffective. I much prefer Reagan's style.
That said, I have heard Alan Keyes give some of the most patriotic speeches imaginable (without the use of religious rhetoric) and there wasn't a dry eye in the place. Plenty of people were in attendance and some of them included people who were not religious at all.
The interview he gave was to a religious publication, so what's the beef there?
I am in agreement with Keyes on almost all the issues. He isn't perfect. George Bush isn't perfect. (Reagan wasn't perfect though he came mighty close, LOL!) I much prefer them both to leftist Republicans like embarrasing "Not Guilty acording to Scottish Law" Specter and Olympia Snowe AND the leftist Democratic Party.
Given the choice between a leftist and a guy like Alan, I'd vote for Alan every time. Were I a resident of Illinois, I would be voting for Alan Keyes.
That is an excellent question, Amelia.
Yes, and that refers to whether or not we say someone is condemned or ultimately righteous in God's eyes. If you believe it refers to discernment about one's behavior or statements, please let me know. Also, refer to those who righteously had very harsh things to say about those who corrupt the Gospel, in the Epistles.
I would vote for Keyes because he is trying to find a basic understanding of these issues. Even if he does read Hegel.
All they had to do was follow RC's link.
I see you figured it out.
The primaries are over.
We are no longer choosing which Republican candidate will run in the general election.
We are down to two people: a Republican and a Democrat.
So many people say that they will vote for Keyes, yet have bad things to say about only one candidate--Dr. Keyes.
With friends like these...
Was he saying God is on his side -- the side of the righteous -- and not on that of his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, a man who professes the same Christian faith?"Well, professing is the operative word," Keyes says, in a moment of snarkiness conspicuously absent from the rest of the interview.
I'm sure you'll now tell me I'm wrong, but that appears to be exactly what Keyes was doing.
And I know there's a difference between discernment and judging, but sometimes I think there's a fine line, and sometimes I think we are perhaps more discerning than Jesus was. He sat down to eat with prostitutes and tax collectors; some of us seem to want to avoid or condemn anyone who isn't as moral as we are.
All in all, it seems to me, it's much easier to act like the Pharisees than to act like Jesus.
Call me whatever you want, personalize your argument against me if you have to stoop there, but this is a lose-lose situation for republicans.
Of course, since Obama supports the literal sacrifice of infants' lives on the altar of convenience, he might better be compared to the worshippers of Moloch than either Jesus or the Pharisees.
I mean, the Pharisees were self-righteous hypocrites, yes, but even they weren't that corrupt.
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.