[Mrs. Don-o]

I understand your point, but I would want to make a point to Hagee that I have made to others concerning the displays of anger and the usage of incendiary language which we find in the Bible.

It is this: God is perfectly entitled to His anger. Whether He calls down firey doom on Sodom and Gomorrah, or floods the entire earth so that every living thing on itis destroyed, what He has done is right because He is the owner and operator of the Universe; and if the prophets, speaking under His direct impetus, call people whores or the spawn of demons, or monsters or fools, they are right because God's words are both true and saving: He is telling His creatures the exact truth as only He can, that His purposes may be fulfilled.

It is quite different with ordinary human beings. We would never, even if wwe thought we wre acting onm His behalf, be justified in annihilating an entire citry together with its inhabitants, nor in wiping out all life on earth; nor even in speaking words of utter rejection which sends a soul to hell.

Jesus dealt with all this, quite specifically, to His disciples. When they wanted (in Luke 9) to call down fire on a Samaritan town even as Elijah did(!), Jesus rounded on them angrily, and not only refused to do it, but rebuked them: "You know what manner of spirit you have: the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Likewise the Lord said (Matthew 5:22):
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

And then again in James, "The wrath (or anger) of man does not accomplish the righteousness desired by God."

This is an infallibly wise teaching and also a solemn warning. God's anger is righteous and perfect, his fire holy and destructive, his rejection perfect and justified. But it is not for us to use this. We are not wise enough, truthful enough, or holy enough.

Multiple times (so many time it would take me an hour to look up and qute it all) we ar told to live in peace, to be patient, to bless, and specifically to bless our enemies.

This doesn't mean that Hagee can't say "the Catholics are in serious error." Let his say it. Let him prove it, if he can.

But don't call my Mother a whore.

[Cronos]

This doesn't mean that Hagee can't say "the Catholics are in serious error." Let his say it. Let him prove it, if he can

He can't -- he's a showman who thrives on telling tales skillfully, so he gets his audience

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I think you should say whatever you want to say to and about Hagee. Whether he is right or wrong is not my issue on this thread. My issue is whether a politician should condemn a person, be it you, Hagee, whoever, for his firmly held religious beliefs. The nature of believing is that you beileve this and not that. A belief that embraces all as equal is non-belief. It's like if everybody is special then nobody is special. If everybody is right then nobody is right. That said, in a land where we enjoy freedom of religion, government does not choose sides in religous debate.

My comparison in my last post to you still stands. I stated very strongly my belief that Brian McLaren is a tool of satan. That's a similar form of criticism to Hagee's. Am I anti-heretic? You bet! Anti-emergent church? Proudly! That doesn't mean I am a threat to his physical well-being or his right to refute my statement. I think his ideas should lose, that they lead people straight to hell. Even at that, I do not think it is the role of a politician to condemn him.

If I can't say what I really believe, there is no religious freedom. Government doesn't go around condemning people's religious beliefs.

[mountainlyons]

I have listened to Hagee on several occasional and I think most of the things are taken out or context. The only time that I have heard him say the word whore was with the whore of Babylon. He is a bit outspoken but not hateful. It would be easier to vote for Hagee than McCain. I do not know who started this whole thing but I suspect the agenda is to cause a rift in the Christians against McCain. The timing is highly suspect.