Re: “The Bible teaches that Christians are to fear God – and only God,”

When the Bible speaks of “fearing” God, it referred to not only physical fear of the power of God, but also a “reverence” of Him and His Law, His majesty and character. For example, the midwives “feared God more than pharaoh” - they disobeyed the governing authorities because, not only did they fear God, they feared disobeying His moral law more than what pharaoh could do to them,

Christians, and all people of Godly moral character, reverence and fear God and His moral law more than man’s temporal, immoral whims. Therefore, they vote, when the choice is permitted, to support God’s moral character and Law, primarily because they do “fear” God and recognize that any nation that disregards God’s moral law will ultimately pay a spiritual and physical consequence.

I am reminded of Jefferson’s quote, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Re: In defense of this claim, he referenced several passages from the Bible including 1 John 4:18, which states, “there is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.”

This passage is talking about the individual Christian not needing to be afraid of God’s judgement of their sin because of the forgiveness brought by Jesus’s sacrifice on our behalf. Christians can now love and serve God without that fear of judgement hanging over them. It is true that Christians shouldn’t be living and acting out of “fear” of other opinions, or loss of status, material things, etc.

In other words, Mr Frea took the passage out of context.

Or Obama??

"God D*** America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11"

--Rev Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's "Black Liberation"(Communist) pastor for 20+ years

Image result for 911 world trade

"America’s chickens... are coming home... to ROOST!!"

________________________________________________________

The Real Story Behind Rev. Wright's Controversial Black Liberation Theology Doctrine
Monday , May 5, 2008
FoxNews/Hannity's America
[special Friday night edition--original airdate May 2, 2008]

(some key excerpts)

["(Jose) Diaz-Balart is the son of Rafael Diaz-Balart y Guitierrez (a former Cuban politician). He has three bothers, Rafael Diaz-Balart (a banker), Mario Diaz-Balart (a US Congressman) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (also a US Congressman). His aunt, Mirta Diaz-Balart, was Fidel Castro's first wife."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Diaz-Balart]

JOSE DIAZ-BALART, TELEMUNDO NETWORK: "Liberation theology in Nicaragua in the mid-1980's was a pro-Sandinista, pro-Marxist, anti-U.S., anti-Catholic Church movement. That's it. No ifs, ands, or buts. His church apparently supported, in the mid-'80s in Nicaragua, groups that supported the Sandinista dictatorships and that were opposed to the Contras whose reason for being was calling for elections. That's all I know. I was there.

I saw the churches in Nicaragua that he spoke of, and the churches were churches that talked about the need for violent revolution and I remember clearly one of the major churches in Managua where the Jesus Christ on the altar was not Jesus Christ, he was a Sandinista soldier, and the priests talked about the corruption of the West, talked about the need for revolution everywhere, and talked about 'the evil empire' which was the United States of America."

REV. BOB SCHENCK, NATIONAL CLERGY COUNCIL: "it's based in Marxism. At the core of his [Wright's] theology is really an anti-Christian understanding of God, and as part of a long history of individuals who actually advocate using violence in overthrowing those they perceive to be oppressing them, even acts of murder have been defended by followers of liberation theology. That's very, very dangerous."

SCHENCK: "I was actually the only person escorted to Dr. Wright. He asked to see me, and I simply welcomed him to Washington, and then I said Dr. Wright, I want to bring you a warning: your embrace of Marxist liberation theology. It is contrary to the Gospel, and you need, sir, to abandon it. And at that he dropped the handshake and made it clear that he was not in the mood to dialogue on that point."

Source: The Real Story Behind Rev. Wright's Controversial Black Liberation Theology Doctrine:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354158,00.html
_______________________________________________________

From "45 Communist Goals", as per "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
#27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120227183203/http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

__________________________________________________

From HumanEvents.com...
April 29, 2008

"Obama did not address the [Rev Wright] issue squarely until forced to justify his relationship with Wright, his pastor at Trinity United Church in Chicago, for over 20 years. In a speech several weeks ago, Obama denounced Wright’s comments but justified them by saying that America didn’t really know Wright. Obama’s connection to the pastor runs deep, as he titled his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after a sermon Wright gave. Wright also baptized Obama and his children as well as performing the marriage ceremony of Michelle and Barack Obama."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26261

Fea's claims that "Evangelicals hate Hillary Clinton,"--taken out of context of the imperfect human being, Clinton, acting out a decades-long history of creating self-selected "baskets" of likewise-imperfect "other" human beings whom she would favor as worthy, or "deplorable," or "irredeemable," based on whether they agreed with her Progressive ideological tyranny of mind--is a flawed conclusion at best, and a deliberate smear, at worst!

Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint. [* * *] All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone.Thomas Jefferson, TITLE: Statute of Religious Freedom. EDITION: Washington ed. viii, 454. EDITION: Ford ed., ii, 237. PLACE: [none given] DATE: 1779

What Evangelicals may "hate" is the tyranny of mind personified in Clinton's unbending insistence upon substituting and imposing Progressive ideological demands on fellow citizens whose loyalty and fealty is to the philosophy and principles of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States. . . ," not the prevailing ideology of the so-called "Left" in American politics.

“Evangelicals are not supposed to hate,” he wrote, “But many hate Hillary Clinton.”

. . . And this fear, according to Fea, has historical context. “It is…possible to write an entire history of American evangelicalism as the story of a people failing miserably at overcoming fear with hope, trust, and faith in their God,” he insisted.

Christians are not supposed to hate. Period.
Christians are supposed to love, because God is love. Does that mean that I should express love by helping someone whose history disqualifies her from public trust, against someone who - while also imperfect - does not have a disqualifying history?
Donald Trump is on tape having, as a private citizen in an unguarded moment when he did not know he was being recorded (something which is not legal everywhere in the US) confessed to pursuing a married woman and having said that some women make themselves available (you can even grab them . . . ) to celebrities. Apparently a lot of pro basketball players would find the contrary proposition laughable. Mr. Trump is also, it has to be said, the first POTUS who divorced his wife and remarried (Reagan’s first wife divorced him against his will, which is not the same thing).
Stipulated.
Hillary Clinton, OTOH, became First Lady by covering for worse behavior towards women than is seriously alleged against Mr. Trump. Secretary Clinton also is obviously guilty of setting up a communication system (server) for two illegal purposes:

Evading Freedom of Information access to information to which the public is legally entitled, and
Evading accountability for grossly insecure handling of highly classified documents, to the detriment of the public interest.
Her mishandling of information which should not have been indiscriminately divulged has to be seen in the context of the the illegitimate accessing by, or at least enabled by, someone important in the Clinton White House of raw, unconfirmed FBI dossiers which were compiled on people who had been considered for service in previous administrations but who (including but not limited to over 500 Republicans) were not being considered for appointments by President Clinton. That happened on Bill Clinton’s watch, and Bill Clinton is therefore responsible - but Craig Livingstone was never prosecuted, and the identity of the important person in the Clinton White House who hired him was never identified - and President Clinton never admitted that he had done so. It follows that everyone in the Clinton White House, most certainly including Hillary Clinton, is under a cloud of suspicion of having been responsible for hundreds, perhaps over a thousand, counts of a felony.
The Constitution (read, the law of the land) enjoins,
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
. . . and yet Hillary set up a foundation in the Clinton name and, as Secretary of State, actively solicited contributions to it from foreign governments without obtaining a vote of consent by Congress. IMHO that seriously violates the Constitution.
Hillary would have named a SCOTUS justice and other justices of whom I would have disapproved, and who would have compromised the rights of Christians. Mr. Trump promised - and has delivered - a SCOTUS justice and other judges of whom I approve, and who, I am confident, will not violate the rights of Christians.
Hillary would have extended the reach of socialistic (atheistic and cynical) government. Mr. Trump has not done so, and has promoted deregulation instead. The former would have tended to stagnate employment and wages/salaries; the latter has in fact boosted employment and wages.
In short, the shortcomings of Mr. Trump pale in comparison to the reasons why I did not wish to entrust Hillary with the responsibility and authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” As a matter of prudence one should never trust anyone who demands to be trusted, and I would say that the same applies to anyone who demands that I trust someone else. Trust has to be earned. The author can throw a charge of “hate” at me if he wishes. I’m not buying it.

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.