Bumper Sticker

If you say so, but many liberal Christians put their faith on hold when they enter the voting booth.

So, Congratulations. That makes you different :thumbs: from most of your liberal brethren.

 

I understand what I mean by Christian, and I understand what the Bible means by Christian. I don't know what others mean. Case in point, not too long ago I was talking with a young man who claimed to be a Christian. I asked what he meant by that. He said, "My mother is Greek orthodox." We talked about Christ. He did not admit that Christ was God, or that Christ was the only Savior. He expressed no personal faith in Christ. He claimed to be a Christian because his mother was a Greek Orthodox. He did not even give any testimony of his mother's faith.

So by his definition, he was a Christian. By the Bible's definition, he was not a Christian.

In the Bible, a "Christian" is a disciple of Christ, who has been saved by faith alone in Christ alone and is following Christ.

Today, for many people, "Christian" is a social category in contrast to "Muslim" or "Jew" or "Agnostic." In each case, there are true adherents to the religion, and there are people who simply use the name.

So my point is, I would want to know which.

Except I am not a true Republican. I am not a Republican at all. Of course, you have been told that before.

However, I doubt a true Republican would say that Republicans don't live by what they say?

 

Whoa, hold on: do you mean to claim that stating it is just as good as living it, even when, by your own admission, "they do not live by it?"

Notice that I am asking you, not assuming that this is what you meant.

Regards,
BiR

 

Wow, that is so sad, and yet so prevalent, huh? I work with several people who claim to be Christians, but don't have the slightest idea of what it means to be "born again." In fact, one individual claiming to be a Christian was honestly shocked when they saw me putting my tithe in the mail (I was going to be out of town for the weekend) and asked me if I really did that every other week (when we get paid). [Actually, I almost always mail my tithes and offerings to the church, as the 15th and the 30th don't always fall at the end of the week, and I strive to get it in the mail as soon as the funds are available.]

That is what I really love about this forum: though we may disagree with each other politically, I would imagine that I don't differ with some of you in terms of doctrine. Funny that some of you might find yourself in agreement doctrinally with a tree-hugging LIBERAL!

FWIW, Pastor Larry: you, your family and your ministry are on my morning prayer list every single day.

Regards,
BiR

 

No, it's not just as good. In fact, I tried to emphasize "moral foundation" rather than the practical outworking of it. I think the Republicans are horrible, but that's better than the Democrats. The R's have not done what they said they would do. They did some, early on after 94. But then got too comfortable. Bush has not been good.

So the moral foundation of the Republican party in terms of life, freedom, smaller government, less spending, personal responsiblity is better. But they don't live by it and don't vote by it.

I appreciate your prayers very much. Even though we don't always see eye to eye, I enjoy the conversation. I actually read most of your posts. Some others I just skip over ... Trust all is well. Spring has finally broken through up here. We were close to 80 today I think. Too hot too soon ... but it will cool back off.

 

Thanks for amplifying your response.

You can count on them!

Likewise..... on both counts!!
:laugh: [I really liked that one.]

I am getting a very bad case of spring fever. I can ride through downtown Richmond at night now that it is taking longer to get dark - I just love urban dwelling!

Again, I trust that all is well with you and yours,
BiR (headed to Atlanta tomorrow - looking forward to it)

 

Yet, judging by your posts, you seem to be just as beholden to the Democratic party as many here are to the Republican party.

You stated on another thread that you don't care who the next President is, as long as they're a Democrat.

I think you are much more a party-line voter than any Republican I've seen on this board. As least the Republicans here admit that they want the best Republican for the job, and not just anyone with an "R" behind their name.

What would a Democrat have to do in order for you to vote for someone else, other than changing their party affiliation to Republican?

I've seen a many Republican on this board jump ship over the last few years, yet I can't recall seeing one Democrat do the same. Why is that? Will it take 12 years of the Democrats being in power and riddled with corruption before you all see what many of us have seen about our former party?

That's sad.

 

Excellent post and my sentiments exactly! Often today we are not voting for someone as much as we are voting against someone. Lesser of two evils per say.

So because a gay man becomes a Republican it disqualifies the moral ground of the Republican party? All one has to do is look at the issues they push and then how they vote. There is no hiding that. The Democratic party often supports and advocates gay rights over traditional family or Godly values.

This is simply misleading so to set the record straight. Yes, there have been more Republican "presidents" during the passage of Roe v. Wade but the Democratic Party had control over Congress since 1954 and until recent. The Republican's gained the Senate for the first term under Reagan but lost it during his second term. They then gained control of both houses of Congress in 1994 during the Clinton Administration. Thus the Democratic party pretty much controlled all of Congress for some 40+ years, which included the time during and after the passage of Roe v. Wade. In addition, it would take a super majority to overturn Roe v. Wade and that is something which the Democratic party will fight tooth and nail, fact, period!
Again one only has to look at the legislation pushed and then how the votes fall. Case in point, Bush and the Republicans introduced legislation outlawing the horrendous practice of LATE TERM ABORTION. The measure barely passed only because virtually all the Republicans voted for it, whereas in contrast virtually all the Democrats voted against it. That pretty much says it all. A couple of Democrats went against their party and voted with the Republicans, thus the measure passed.
Then again, Bush and the Republicans introduced legislation requiring Parental notification with abortion. This required that parents should have the right to be informed if their child is considering an abortion. Again virtually all the Republicans voted for the measure, whereas virtually all the Democrats voted against the measure. The measure barely failed due to a few swing votes.

I will say that Bush squandered an real opportunity for change as the Republicans had control of both the Congress and the Presidency.



In regards to the OP. Yes, Democrats can be Christian also. Just as Republicans can be non-Christian. Being Christian is simply your relationship with Christ Jesus.


But what does it say when a person belongs to an organization and feels the need to proclaim they are a Christian in contrast to that?

For me, I wish a good Independent would step up about now.:jesus:

 

Really!!!

That pretty much explains your dislike, if not hatred for Christian Democrats.

 

An amazing statement. This is the end result of someone confusing politics with religion. This is exactly what the GOP manipulators who run the party love to hear.

 

Who made this claim? I certainly didn't - merely made an observation.

That's not exactly true, is it? Please show us where this was the choice put before the floor as a vote.

No, it's true. The GOP has had the Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court for most of the past few years (not all of them). Abortion WILL NOT be outlawed. The GOP is not going to reverse the decision handed down by Roe v. Wade. Whether or not you want to admit it, it isn't going to happen, and the GOP is simply using this issue as a rallying cry to the two-issuer voters. Case in point: is anyone talking about abortion right now? Is there any pending legislation to achieve this? Nope - nobody is talking about abortion.

Agreed on this point.

The same thing that is said for a person who belongs to a political party who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

Regards,
BiR

 

There are too many pro-choicers in pro-lifers clothing in the GOP to do anything about abortion.

I do think you will find more pro-lifers in the GOP camp than you will in the Democratic camp though.

I think the pro-life Dems and pro-life GOPers should form a party together. We have more in common with one another (pro-life Dems and Republicans) than we do with other members of our parties on many issues.

I guarantee you that I have more beliefs in common with Zell Miller than I do with Rudy Giuliani.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Hello All,

You made that claim! Come on BiR, please don't tell me you need someone to interpret your words for you? Just kidding!


Your premise was to discredit the moral high ground of the Republican party in responding to two points made by Sober_Baptist. I responded to that as your reply was misleading and factually incorrect.

original quote by Sober_Baptist :".....I beleive Republicans have the higher ground.....since at least they don't have homosexuality and abortion on their official platform.
You then responded on both points in discrediting the Republican "higher ground" in those regards.

That is pretty plain and simple!




You then went on to give out some erroneous information in attempting to back up your claim. I was not attacking you but simply sought to correct and point out some things. You stated "...For most of the time since Roe v. Wade, the GOP has been in control...."

I correctly pointed out, with exception of Presidency, the Democrats had actually been in control. They in fact controlled the Congress from 1954 until recent. With exception of "Senate" control under Reagan's first term. Some 40 years. Therefore the Democrats had control long before, during, and after Roe v. Wade was enacted. You now half heartedly correct yourself in stating the GOP has had control "...for most of the past few years..." There is a HUGE difference in stating control for the last 30-40 years and now simply that they had control the last "few" years.



But again, as I pointed out, simply having majority control would never be enough to overturn or change Roe v. Wade. As pointed out, the Democrats can and have effectively blocked all such issues in regards to abortion. I then gave several blatant and recent example's of such. Which dealt with significant issues as Late Term Abortion. This is the brutal killing of fully formed children who are near or even during birthing. The President and Republicans fought against it, the Democrats fought for it! What else needs to be said!?

As another example and in regards to gay or traditional issues; the President and Republicans fought for recognizing the Sanctity of marriage whereas the Democrats fought against such. I could care less if a Representative is actually gay, that's their business, but I do care when it becomes issues for them to push or advocate.



By the way, and in replying to your other statement/question, these and numerous others issues were ongoing issues. They were not simply during election years. However, as it stands today and because of Bush's fumbling, there would be no conceivable attempt in changing any abortion laws. I believe had Bush quickly and decisively made an effort to control the Border, his popularity would not have plummeted as such. For me, the issue of Iraq and the Border go hand in hand; because you cannot say you are at war in doing everything to protect America, yet you do nothing to protect America's borders. Both parties of course are guilty of this.

I do support the president and our troops, especially when a decision is made to go to war, but the President failed when he did not do all that needed to be done. He has also been more of a liberal Democrat fiscally speaking. Therefore, the President squandered a real opportunity for significant change in regards to some of these issues. They lost the Congress because of it.

If he had done the things that needed to be done, continued to press certain issues, he would have retained a certain popularity. More seats in Congress could have been gained, as it was in his first term, and the Democratic party would have been helpless to certain change. In regards to issues involving Abortion and Traditional family or Godly values.




By the way, I am not disagreeing with everything you say, only with certain things.

Take care and have a good day.:godisgood:

 

This is the standard liberal Christian excuse for checking their Christianity at the door of the voting booth. they accuse Bible believing Christians of being "one issue" or "two issue" voters.

The only real issue is Christ and one either takes his Christianity with him all the time, wherever he goes, or he is "of the world" and Christ is not in him.

 

Chihuahua's are good at judging character. If you find that they respond negatively to your presence, well....

 

Contrary to your twisted opinion, there are scores of Christian Democrats around the country, get used to it, we're growing!