Posted on 12/02/2007 5:47:26 AM PST by fweingart
Listening to liberal politicians attempt to speak about Biblical Christianity is something akin to quizzing porn stars about the finer points of acting. ...And if you're last name is Clinton you may qualify for both - but I digress.
They know it's not their best subject. They know they have no clue about it's authenticity, but the leading Democratic candidates continue to believe that they can somehow trick those who do into thinking they are one of us. We've already been panderbyted by both John Edwards and Barack Obama about the Gospel according to liberalism but this week it was Hillary's turn at bat.
Speaking to the congregation and additional visitors at Saddleback Church, from behind the podium, while standing on the stage, to those in attendance IN the worship center, in the church building Hillary Clinton opened up about her spiritual "journey:"
"My own 'faith journey' is approaching a half century, and I know how far I have to go."
Which is an odd thing to consider for the Biblical Christian. For when one thinks about it we know two truths to be the exact opposite of that statement. First the only journey of faith worth taking is not something that requires fifty years to clarify, and secondly none of us - not one - can begin to fathom the gap of "how far" we are seperated from God in our state of sin. Understanding this is key of course because in reality we can't "go" any distance to make up that gap. For us to try to ascertain legitimate standing before the God who made us it would be likened to the impossibility of standing on the top of the Empire State Building in New York City and attempting to shoot an arrow from a bow in hopes of striking the target dead center in the middle of the fifty yard line of the Rose Bowl in Pasedena California.
She continued:
"But I have been blessed in my life, with my family, and in the church of my childhood, to be guided every step of the way."
Ok that one makes us chuckle on its face doesn't it? Would anyone who has tolerated serial adultery, first hand accounts of rape and sexual assault against other women, and an infantile like obsession with never being criticized call their "family" (i.e. the philanderer she's married to and bore a child with) a blessing? And for Bible believing Christians being "guided every step of the way" is a pretty gigantic claim. After all I do not know a single fellow Christian who would claim to live their life in such away as to have reflected biblical guidance through every single step. The more important question being - guided by what? One Clinton's amorous ambition for Hillary's assistant? (Actually that one applies to... well... take your pick.)
And then there was of course the actual point of her appearance. Speaking on the subject of how she would address the issue of AIDS-HIV in front of Rick Warren's congregation and guests, in his building, from his stage and behind his podium (but not from his pulpit) Hillary let loose:
"Jesus never asked why someone was sick!"
A statement so chock full of deception, innuendo, and double meaning one could write a book about it. Designed to be technically true but with a meaning that could also be parsed to infer additional things such as, "don't speak about behavior related to AIDS." Technically true but yet with a completely different meaning - sort of like the meaning of "is" is.
In her attempt to seem biblically literate she sends the double sided message of threat to those who speak accurately of the dangers of homosexual behavior, drug use - particularly with shared needles, or even reckless one night stands (something her hopeful future first lady could speak on with authority). The message is clear: cure the illness and leave the behavior alone.
Of course you understand definitively though don't you that what she means is the certain equivalent of curing a child of intestinal parasites that threaten their lives - while then sending them back to their village to drink more fecal tainted water supplies.
Note to Hillary: The world's AIDS crisis can not be cured with your gospel of condoms.
Should we do all that we can to cure those who are afflicted? Sure, starting first with those who were infected with the disease through no fault of their own. They get the drug cocktails first. Yet whether it's in our homosexual communities in America or the horrific myths told in Subsaharan Africa to men who rape virgins wrongfully believing it to cure the virus - behavior must change for AIDS to be stopped.
She was technically correct - Jesus didn't usually ask why someone was sick. Neither do doctors today - though they do tell patients to make major life changes in order to not have the problems return.
Sadly Hillary has vocally bragged about how the snowjob being done to the Rick Warrens of America is working. She even relayed to reporters recently that liberals would do better in 2008 because people like Warren are closing the gap for the leftists.
Liberals on Biblical Christianity just like Porn Stars on great cinema... trying to fool only those who want to be!
LOL! That’s hillarious!!
The problem is...when I did a find for apostrophe....I only find one error you’re instead of your. All of the other apostrophes that it found are correct. Now, I wonder if this person is talking about quotation marks, instead of apostrophes, even then it would be a huge stretch to say that the writer doesn’t have a clue what they are for. But, I really can’t fathom why one mistake would bring about a statement of “doesn’t have a clue what they are for”.
So, I’m sort of with you.....what would make the person focus on the one apostrophe mistake, instead of the content of the message?
(On a side note (while we are speaking about grammar): Did anyone notice how Hillary said “I couldn’t be prouder” in her statement to the press immediately after the hostage situation and no one said a word about it? Oh, I know that people make mistakes and I can live with that. But, my point is....if that had been a Republican that said “I couldn’t be prouder”, there would have been entire hour long news reports on “how can we expect someone to be capable of leading the country, if they do not know any better than to say “I couldn’t be prouder”.)
He should be condemned for the above, if nothing else. But his points are all well taken, and they'll be even better received in the future if he learns how to write.
“it’s” (contraction for “it is”) is used at least twice incorrectly instead of its (possessive).
I really don't understand why someone hasn't challenged this? There is just no logical reason why one side can get away with this.
I really don't want the Churches hurt but this field needs to be leveled. Does anyone know where I could write to challenge this obvious inequity?
What about world’s......is that used correctly? Just askin.
The Purpose Driven Lie and It’s Enabler...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgB1KiOpbRc
What say you Rick Warren?
Apologies to the apostrophe police.
Very good article by Kevin McCullough. Thanks for posting.
“Sadly Hillary has vocally bragged about how the snowjob being done to the Rick Warrens of America is working. She even relayed to reporters recently that liberals would do better in 2008 because people like Warren are closing the gap for the leftists. “
And Warren belongs with Osteen, Meyers and teh rest of the feel good Christians. Don’t woory about the message my friend, we just want everyone to feel good.
They sell coffee mugs there also!
There was also his inability to spell, punctuate, or form paragraphs.
His analysis seemed accurate enough, but mundane.
An apt analogy. "Drivel" is a fairly charitable characterization though--I'd call it spew.
Wonder if Jesus was mentioned in her cliches??
Pray for W and Our Troops
I wouldn’t use it at all. World AIDS crisis vs. World’s AIDS crisis? Eh.
“Sadly Hillary has vocally bragged about how the snowjob being done to the Rick Warrens of America is working. She even relayed to reporters recently that liberals would do better in 2008 because people like Warren are closing the gap for the leftists. “
“Hillary Clinton Goes to Church, Brings Media”...here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1933739/posts
I see it’s in there two times and its in there once. Yes, I missed one. The second “it’s” should actually be “its”. However, the first one is correct. The “its” is correct. So, make that two mistakes in the entire thing. If it’s the point you don’t agree with, then tell why. However, this grammar was not horrible enough to warrant the type of response it got, especially when the one responding is wrong about part of it.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. (hehe..I guess that can apply here.)
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.