Posted on 12/19/2019 4:53:36 PM PST by mkleesma
Unless what I’m reading is wrong, the Graham’s still have ownership
Please don’t assume Graham is aware of this!.....especially don’t assume Graham agrees.
Shining example of useful idiots.
Is left-wing-Christian a term?
Well, most “Christian” churches today are rainbow churches of the here and now, deeply apostate, pro-abortion, pro-homo, left wing, with female clergy.
As Luther would say, “the whore church”.
Christianity Today has long since become “Apostate Christianity Today”. I wouldn’t use their rag to wipe my Baptist butt.
...except Donald Trump.
This columns violates all the templates they claim to be for, political neutrality where Christians can stay above the fray and put their focus on Christ. This column clearly fails that goal.
They still have Billy Graham as an Honorary Chairman, Franklin needs to have his father’s name removed from this organization if the Graham’s have nothing to do with them.
Using Billy Graham’s name is giving them cover - I have zero tolerance for shit like this
“Before becoming a journalist he was a Presbyterian pastor for 10 years; he subsequently changed his denominational affiliation to Anglican.” - Wiki
Yeah, an ANGLICAN knows a lot about evangelicals...and Jesus Christ!
Broke the 9th Commandment.
Yep.
Galli is Latin for Gay.
“the Graham’s still have ownership”
Ownership does not mean close editorial control.
Let us see what the family does now.
secular mag covering itself witha real thin veneer of ‘christianity’
The writer is trying to give the impression he speaks for Billy Graham.
“But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”
The writer is not a Christian in my view, unless he seeks to escape under the umbrella of self-imposed ignorance of the full context of what he speaks.
He primarily ignores the heart of the context, which began before the President was elected.
The government of Ukraine was plagued with corruption and suspicion of corruption on the part of various Ukraine officials. That is why in Ukraine, after Trump was elected in the U.S. there was a new election, in 2019, with a new leader elected on an anti-corruption platform.
But before that, before Trump was elected in 2016, there was a number of insidents where corruption in Ukraine intersected with and at one point interfered with politics in the U.S.
We had a sitting Vice President, Joe Biden, that threatened to withhold $1 billion in vital aid to Ukraine if they did not remove one of their prosecutors from office. It so happened at that time that that prosecutor was investigating a Ukraine company on whose board of directors sat a son of the sitting U.S. Vice President.
Whether or not Mr. Biden ever ran for office again, and even if he did, that incident was, and should have been, of cocern to a new U.S. administration, no matter who was the U.S. President from January 2017 on. Mr. Biden cannot claim his current candidacy for office as a protection from scrutiy of those events. For any current U.S. President to not be concerned about those events would be to give Mr. Biden a pass.
Then in 2016 there were events where certain Ukraine officials intersected with representatives of the DNC, in events and actions that amounted to Ukriane collusion with those representatives in political league against the presidential candidate of the GOP. Those shenanigans should not have been going on, but they did.
President Trump before his phone call with the new president of Ukraine was seeking assurances that that new government was not going to continue the corruption of the previous Urkaine government, and particularly as that corruption related to the U.S.-Ukaine relationship;.
The Trump phone call sought no political quid pro quo. The Trump phone call made no threats. What took place was a conversation between the two leaders and they discussed a number of things.
And yes the new leader of Ukraine was asked - not threatened, not given a demand - if the above noted issues were going to be looked into by the new government of Ukraine, as it was in the U.S. interests - the national interest - that such incidents not continue under the new Ukraine government. In that call the leader of Ukraine agreed with the U.S. president on those concerns.
Thst is what took place. That was, in its full context, NOT a matter of “The president of the United States [attempting] to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents.” That interpretation is a fiction that suits the political talking points of the Democratic party.
It seems to me that it is vary un-Christian to either be intentionally ignorant of important facts you wish to state an opinion about, or to intentionally ignore important facts you know well, but fail to acknowledge because doing so would be counter to the opinion you want to express.
Most Christians I know are not this stupid.
Perhaps the deep state has made Mark aware of some photos they have.
In a nutshell, this is what’s wrong with Christianity today.
In a nutshell, this is what’s wrong with Christianity today.
They only list Billy Graham now as founder (in 1956). The Graham family or the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (headed by Franklin Graham, a big Trump supporter) has nothing to do with them.
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.