Christian news - breaking headlines from around the United States and the world. Trending hot topics in Christianity.

Republican Lawmaker: Conservatives Need to Reclaim the Bible from Liberals

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Republican Lawmaker: Conservatives Need to Reclaim the Bible from Liberals

    A GOP lawmaker from Virginia said that conservatives need to take back their Biblical rhetoric and not allow liberals to use it against them.




    More...

    #2
    Over a fifth of Syrian refugees are adult males between 18 and 59, and not a one of them is a widow or an orphan. It would be most foolish for anyone not to be concerned about letting in terrorists infiltrated in the refugees from a country we're at war in. Neutral countries should take the refugees, especially those closest to Syria in geography and culture. Any help the US wishes to provide should be by means other than taking refugees. My first choice of means is for the US to pull out of the middle-east so that we're not making more refugees.

    How does the Republican lawmaker propose Conservatives reclaim the Bible from Liberals?






    Comment>

      #3
      You have to be joking, right? Try emailing them or calling them. They don't even respond from party headquarters. The reason they don't answer their phones is that there is too much money involved to change what they are doing. Second, Democrats are shaking hands at the pols trying to make friends with everyone. Republicans don't show up to shake hands, make friends, etc.

      Christians were in both parties and Democrats kicked some of the real Christians out because they decided the power was with the people or the number of votes.
      Businesses are in the Republican party which don't have the votes. So Christians side with the business party that doesn't give those whom Christians are to help anything. By your love people will know you are Christ's disciples and areas of the countries where the homes cost $300-400K, the PSAT scores are high and in areas where the homes cost less, the PSAT's are lower.

      So basically Christians are using big business or heathens to dictate Christian policy and it won't work. If you have a moderate on the Republican side, whom do you think they side with to get things done? Democrats.

      By Christians siding with business in the Republican party, you alienate yourselves from those whom you are to evangelize.

      The lawmaker can get in touch with me if he wishes to change anything.
      Comment>

        #4
        Originally posted by Chuckt View Post
        areas of the countries where the homes cost $300-400K, the PSAT scores are high and in areas where the homes cost less, the PSAT's are lower.
        Interesting, no wonder only property owners used to be able to vote. The thinking, I believe, was that property owners have an invested interest in the country, moreso than those that do not. Of course those invested in property pay education taxes, the more wealthy areas having more invested resulting in more finances for academics. If voter restrictions were ever used to make voting more difficult, such as a certain PSAT score, or literacy test, the advantage might just very well be a more informed electorate.
        Comment>

          #5
          How can conservatives reclaim the Bible when Evangelicals reconsider Republican ties?

          US evangelicals question Republican ties

          US evangelicals question Republican ties - BBC News

          The other problem is that Republicans are electing unelectable people for office that few people will vote for and that can be seen in previous elections that they lost. The Republican party use to have more moderates but it has been dominated in the news by a few people with media problems:

          Several Republican candidates made comments on social issues during the 2012 election cycle that received criticism from the public. In August, U.S. Senate candidate and former U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., received backlash when he made comments about “legitimate rape” rarely resulting in pregnancy. He later lost the election by a wide margin to Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill.

          Laura Bush Says Republicans 'Frightened' Women - ABC News

          In January, the congressman [Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.)] defended Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), saying the lawmaker was “partially right” in saying a woman could not become pregnant after a “legitimate rape.”

          Gingrey: Defense of rape comment ‘stupid’ - The Washington Post

          Her 2010 election campaign where she stated "I am not a witch" was widely mocked and parodied.

          Christine O'Donnell - Wikipedia

          Since former Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) comments about "legitimate rape," the GOP has tried to get its members to stop talking about the topic. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)

          Celeste Greig, California Republican, Claims Pregnancy From Rape Is Rare | HuffPost


          RNC Completes 'Autopsy' on 2012 Loss, Calls for Inclusion Not Policy Change
          "Priebus noted that the party's policies are fundamentally sound but require a softer tone and broader outreach, include a stronger push for African-American, Latino, Asian, women and gay voters."
          RNC Completes 'Autopsy' on 2012 Loss, Calls for Inclusion but No Policy Change - ABC News
          The theme of inclusion continued with Glenn McColl, a national committeeman from South Carolina who insisted the party seems to some as "intolerant and unaccepting of differing points of view."
          RNC Completes 'Autopsy' on 2012 Loss, Calls for Inclusion but No Policy Change - ABC News
          Priebus was asked at the end of the event during a question-and-answer portion how he will make the language of the GOP more open to gay Americans and women and Priebus noted that Sen. Rob Portman's public reversal last week in which the Ohio Republican said he now supports same-sex marriage helps the message of openness.
          RNC Completes 'Autopsy' on 2012 Loss, Calls for Inclusion but No Policy Change - ABC News

          And don't forget who is talking about leaving the GOP.

          Franklin Graham


          Are you going to stay in the Republican party?

          Comment>

            #6
            Originally posted by Chuckt View Post
            Are you going to stay in the Republican party?
            I think the GOP is being divided from Establishment politicians such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Trump and Ted Cruz have the establishment scared. As for my before mentioned posts, most Americans are repeating the same mistakes, we are no longer a nation of values - the GOP is losing its party platform. Americans are voting for people they can relate to, like Bill Clinton appearing on MTV playing the Saxophone, or a token POTUS, Obama. I think Thomas Sowell said it best:

            The Real motives of liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people. Instead they have two related goals -- to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people and to gather as much power to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives.
            I do not believe Trump is a man running a campaign on integrity, example, he boasts in bribing politicians. I think the liberals have swung us so far left at the moment that the GOP establishment looks "middle" ground, and someone like Ted Cruz appears extreme right. For me, Ted Cruz is the Conservative thoroughbred race horse, ya just show your support in the right direction and let him run. Trump is "Winging" it, Carson is learning, and Bush is dumping mass amounts of money.

            Conservative Review gives scorecard for candidates and politicians according to their voting record. I think one should vote based on the record of a candidate, there should be no surprises as to how he will "evolve" or stand on certain issues. For this reason, Cruz is my favorite. I want a "doer", and not political campaign promises despite a contrary record.

            As for the Grahams, neither of them will affect my vote. For example, losing my respect, Billy Graham or his administration deleted a previous statement by their ministry, stating that Mormonism is a Cult, right before Mitt Romney paid him a little visit. The GOP nominating Romney told me that at that time people were more inclined to vote for an establishment candidate than one according to Judeo-Christian values. I'm not voting for the Grahams, but I am voting for a candidate I can be most certain of - I want predictability.
            Comment>

              #7
              Originally posted by William View Post

              Interesting, no wonder only property owners used to be able to vote. The thinking, I believe, was that property owners have an invested interest in the country, moreso than those that do not. Of course those invested in property pay education taxes, the more wealthy areas having more invested resulting in more finances for academics. If voter restrictions were ever used to make voting more difficult, such as a certain PSAT score, or literacy test, the advantage might just very well be a more informed electorate.

              Why should Democrats vote for immaterial values over material values? How would they eat?
              Comment>

                #8
                Originally posted by William View Post

                I think the GOP is being divided from Establishment politicians such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Trump and Ted Cruz have the establishment scared. As for my before mentioned posts, most Americans are repeating the same mistakes, we are no longer a nation of values - the GOP is losing its party platform. Americans are voting for people they can relate to, like Bill Clinton appearing on MTV playing the Saxophone, or a token POTUS, Obama. I think Thomas Sowell said it best:
                The leaders are not career politicians.

                Bush ruined the party. I think the Republicans are trying not to win this election because in order to win, you have to have a Republican that Democrats can vote for. Do you see any Republicans in this last debate that Democrats can vote for?
                Comment>

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Chuckt View Post


                  Why should Democrats vote for immaterial values over material values? How would they eat?
                  The irony is that every Democracy in the history of the world has fallen around the age of 200 years. As soon as the people learn they can vote themselves an elected official that promises generous gifts from out of the Treasury, the nation collapses due to loose fiscal policy. How will Democrats eat? I suggest that question should be part of the PSAT.


                  Comment>

                    #10
                    The Real motives of liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people. Instead they have two related goals -- to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people and to gather as much power to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives.
                    I don't see it that way and historically it isn't that way. People see liberalism as merciful because they will spend your taxes on helping someone. Government has become God to these people and you've become the heathen because you don't believe in helping the little people (in the Democratic party sense). See how their religion has works? It is works without faith.
                    Comment>

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Chuckt View Post

                      The leaders are not career politicians.

                      Bush ruined the party. I think the Republicans are trying not to win this election because in order to win, you have to have a Republican that Democrats can vote for. Do you see any Republicans in this last debate that Democrats can vote for?
                      I think that is actually what the problem is. The people voted GOP last general election by a majority. Now, we have "liberal" Republicans or rather RINOS that couldn't care less about the Party Platform.
                      Comment>

                        #12
                        Originally posted by William View Post

                        I think that is actually what the problem is. The people voted GOP last general election by a majority. Now, we have "liberal" Republicans or rather RINOS that couldn't care less about the Party Platform.

                        They feel that Bush lied about weapons in Iraq and that we were drug into the Iraq war for oil and that people senselessly died as a result.
                        The reason Bush got re-elected is because they felt unsafe from 9-11.

                        The reason this administration got elected was because people were lied to about the Iraq war and because people wanted a man of color elected. Bush destroyed the Republican party.
                        Comment>

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Chuckt View Post

                          I don't see it that way and historically it isn't that way. People see liberalism as merciful because they will spend your taxes on helping someone. Government has become God to these people and you've become the heathen because you don't believe in helping the little people (in the Democratic party sense). See how their religion has works? It is works without faith.
                          I see liberalism both in politics and religion as taking a broad approach to interpreting both the Constitution and the Bible. The source text is destroyed in favor of what the reader has in mind rather than what the author(s) had in mind.
                          Comment>

                            #14
                            Originally posted by William View Post

                            I see liberalism both in politics and religion as taking a broad approach to interpreting both the Constitution and the Bible. The source text is destroyed in favor of what the reader has in mind rather than what the author(s) had in mind.

                            My definition of liberalism is to liberate you from God.
                            Comment>

                              #15
                              GOP front-runner, Trump, didn't support the Iraq war from the start. He's the most strongly outspoken against illegal immigration. And, he doesn't grovel and apologize to the PC police.

                              Jeb Bush started the campaign with a big war chest, name recognition, and party backing. He was a strong supporter of the Iraq war and doesn't want to admit it was a "mistake". He's for amnesty for illegal aliens. He tries to keep the PC police happy. And, he is floundering in single-digit support.

                              Ted "make the sand glow" Cruz seems like a good guy but his insanity-for-Israel neutralizes his conservative values -- which is a reflection metastatic cancer that is Dispensationalism. There's a half-joke in poor communities: When a thug is seen to vandalize or steal something, someone comments "That's why we can't have nice things." Similarly, with Dispies, Conservatives can't reclaim the Bible.

                              For conservatives to reclaim the Bible, religious liberty in the USA needs to be the top priority. A corollary of that is meaningful changes in education to free kids from anti-Christian public schools. Ted Cruz once said School Choice is the Civil Rights issue of the 21st century, but being a Dispie, his position on School Choice is neutralized. On his campaign for president website, under issues, "stand with Israel" is there, but "school choice" is not, not even under the in a section on "religious liberty".



                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap