God is not a Republican.
But Satan is sure as hell a Democrat.
I'm sure God is watching "Desperate Housewives" and "Sex and the City" up in heaven. God is always about being down with the popular culture, don'tcha know...
Sorry about the double post. Sometimes the comment doesn't post and when you go back to post it, it double posts.
Do you believe that the hand of God was on the 2000 election? Imagine how different the world would be today with Al Gore as president at that time. I believe that the Lord absolutely has George Bush in the place that He wants him to be. The Lord has plans for each and every one of His creations and to recognize that is not necassarily being political. Some do invoke the name of God for their own personal glory. Hillary comes to mind when right after the 2004 election she gave a speech in which god was used about every fifth word. The reality is that Christ would have been apolitical. But our politicians (human beings) must woork within the framework that has been established. George Bush is a good and faithful servant of the Lord and the more influence people such as he have, the more Satan will use others to knock him down. There is a reason that there is such pure hatred by the liberals towrds Bush and to not understand that this is actually spiritual warfare is very dangerous.
I have never once heard GWB claim that he had a corner on God. His CLAIMS are that he is a born again Christian. He has never claimed that he speaks for God. Or that God has told him to do this or that. Or that God has annointed him. He has claimed that he spends time in prayer, SEAKING to do the right thing. And SEAKING to do Gods will.
The label of God being for one party or the other is PRIMARILY a MSM fabrication. Though those of us who truely follow Christ feel that the Republican party, and the people in it, is the one that more closely adheres to Gods principals and laws. There is a difference, AND I MEAN A HUGE DIFFERENCE, between people associating a person or party to being more inline with their God, than someone claiming that their God is inline with their party.
One view tries to align man to God, the other God to man.
Quit drinking the MSM Koolaid. Diseminate information for yourself. And discern the information for yourself. Don't allow someone else mold your opinion to theirs.
FR is a great place to balance info from the outside world. But its not the end all of all discussions. But TRUTH is TRUTH, all the time. Its not relative, and its not only when it serves our view. Seek out the TRUTH.
There is no record of John the Baptist having enforced his recommendation by telling a soldier to take the second coat from the person with two, and give it to the one with none.That process, which is what the Democrats promote, actually precludes private charity. First by giving the glory not to God but to the government for clothing the poor. And second by assuring that the non-poor will not trouble to earn the money for a second coat since they know that the government would just take it away anyhow.
I saw a couple of incredibly offensive billboards last year in my city (a very reliable red state!) from a group called "Grassroots Democrats". One said "Jesus helps the poor. So do Democrats." I do not remember what the other one said but was in the same vein. Both were placed on a very heavily travelled street across the street from the courthouse, jail, and lower-income neighborhoods. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine the GOP doing something like this!!
"The God’s-on-our-side rhetoric is looking even less credible now..."
George Bush never said that.
Bump for later.
This from a party that doesn't even acknowledge that HE exists?
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
i.e. only an idiot becomes a liberal.
Thats too silly even to say.
Don't get hung up over "third parties"; the two-party system - with the threat to each main party that it is not guaranteed to remain a main party as a discipline to it - is a good system.Granted that neither of only two parties is ever likely to exactly fit your preferences or mine, the limiting case of rejecting parties is that everyone goes into the ballot box and writes in his own name - resulting in a tie.
Granted that neither of the two main parties may nominate the best person for the job. But what system actually can place the best person in the job??? If there are even as few as three choices to select from, there is no principled way to gurantee that the best candidate will prevail. If one gets 45% of the vote and another gets 40% of the vote, are you guaranteed that the candidate who only got 15% of the vote is not the most acceptable to the most people? Or that he is?
If you do not have word directly from God, you will always be reduced to voting for one fallible person or another (or, if you consider "third parties," another or another or another . . .). Better we have two parties which cull our choice down to manageable proportions, and hold those two parties responsible for their choices. Which is why I found the decision of the NJ Supreme Court so offensive back in '02 when it allowed the Democratic Party of New Jersey to replace its nominee on the ballot after the deadline to do so had passed. Doing so "gave the good people who vote Democrat a real chance" - but it allowed the Democratic Party to escape the consequences of its own venality in renominating a crook (Robert Torricelli) to be its candidate for the US Senate.
I agree. But we have to be careful not to classify all mentions of the Lord the same way. If we are honest and have our eyes open, we can generally tell if someone is being sincere or not.
Care to show me a quote where GWB says "God is on your side"?????
The Founders were confident that God was "on our side," while constantly invoking his protection, guidance and wisdom.
I'd ask this smart-@ss Tom Krattenmaker whether it "backfired" on them as well?