Quote of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on September 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

“Clinton’s prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or ‘the Family’), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to ‘spiritual war’ on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship’s only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has ‘made a fetish of being invisible,’ former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan…

Senator Brownback understood the temptation. He used to hate Clinton so much, he told us, that the hate hurt. Then came the Clintons’ 1994 National Prayer Breakfast appearance with Mother Teresa, who upbraided the couple for their pro-choice views. Bill made no attempt to conceal his anger, but Hillary took it and smiled. Brownback remembers thinking, ‘Now, there’s gotta be a great lesson here.’ He didn’t know what it was until Clinton got to the Senate and joined him in supporting DeLay’s Day of Reconciliation resolution following the 2000 election, a proposal described by its backers as a call to ‘pray for our leaders.’ Now, Brownback considers Clinton ‘a beautiful child of the living God.’”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

The truest test of character is what some would do if they thought that no one else would ever know.

Masturbate?

aengus on September 10, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Cow? LOL.

This is not a discussion of theology. It is a discussion of sincerity. I already told you that I am not interested in re-arguing whether or not Mormons are Christians.

My point was merely to contrast how you are unmoving in your unwillingness to accept Romney’s declarations of his “sincere beliefs” while giving Hillary a total pass.

As for your claim that you “destroyed” Miss Anthrope’s argument, you did nothing of the sort.

You pointed to Hillary’s church attendance, your claim that she forgave her husband, and a presumption of monogamy as evidence that she is sincerely a Christian.

Is it possible for Atheists to be forgiving and monogamous, or is that the exclusive province of Christians? Gosh, I guess that would leave us with church attendance.

The bottom line is that Hillary is a congenital fake and anyone who doesn’t question her sincerity is probably a fool. You may draw your own conclusions of course but as far as your comments on this public forum go, your arguments are unconvincing at best.

Buy Danish on September 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Miss Anthrope, thanks for your comments.

Like Hitchens said: once again we see how the Christians love each other.

AP-this is at least the second thread in which you’ve said this. If a hateful and condemning and Pharisaical is demonstrated that is wrong, but Christians are supposed to strive for the purity of the church. That includes matters of faith and practice. You can’t just believe anything and still claim to be Christian. You can’t just habitually and consistently live a certain way and still claim to be a Christian. A Christian is to demonstrate genuine sorrow over sin and genuine desire and effort to change.

That said, as we [Christians] urge one another to a more faithful life, the New Testament is clear that this is to be done in an attitude of genuinely wanting to honor God, and with a sincere love that wants the best for the other person and a transparent humility that does not set oneself up over another as better than they. Paul, despite having apostolic authority, wrote the Corinthians, Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm. He certainly corrected that fractious church, but his love and humility, concern and sorrow, are very evident in his letters to them.

In matters of questioning someone such as Hillary and others, we as Christians are to be on our guard against wolves in sheep’s clothing. She uses a smattering of Christian vocabulary and a few outward activities to act as religious cover to forward her political agenda. She has yet to walk the talk.

The patriotism of many Democrats has become a joke. Why? Because it has become obvious that they’re just using a word to further their own political agenda without any demonstration that that word actually means something to them.

Expect to see more of the same kind of religious maneuvering by Hillary. We would be remiss if we did not warn you.

INC on September 10, 2007 at 6:08 PM

I wouldn’t say Hillary is a good Christian. I wouldn’t even say she is a good atheist.

She supports legalization of child murder.

But I’d say she meets the definition of a Christian by being a member of a Christian church and claiming to believe. Yes, she may be insincere, but I have no way of knowing that.

Romney, whom I like, may be very sincere about being a Christian (if he ever said that), but he isn’t anyway because his church isn’t a Christian church.

It’s a polytheist cult founded by a con-man, sexual abuser, fake that teaches god was once a man, there are innumerable Gods, everyone (well, not you, but I) can become a god… etc.

It is not Christian. It’s an example of their cult’s deception that they claim to be Christian now… while before they adamantly stated they weren’t.

In so many ways they simply aren’t Christian no matter how much their leaders lie and say they are or how sincerely their members believe it.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Christoph, please see my comment above yours. Church membership and claiming to believe is not the definitive last word on whether someone is a Christian.

INC on September 10, 2007 at 6:13 PM

AP posts an inflammatory article against Christians, on a conservative site, just to drive traffic to his blog? Does this seem a little unethical to anyone else?

It does to me. Unless you consider the motive. He has said many times that he posts religious stuff just to get comments, and hits. But is it right to bait Christians on a conservative website? No, but he does it anyway, shamelessly. Buddhists, Hindus, or animists like native indians, seem to be off limits however. If it wasn’t for his anti-islamic side, it would be no different that the views of Christianity at the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. And yet we also get it here.

But don’t blame him. Blame the person that pays him to do that very thing. If his boss didn’t approve of his behavior, she wouldn’t pay him to do it. Many have asked for him to be replaced with an actual conservative, not an atheist libertarian, but his boss thinks he is just perfect for the Hotair blogger job.

So that means we have to live with the sneers and the smug condescending remarks about Christianity from the moderator of a supposedly conservative website. This is what passes for intelligent blogging on Hotair.

jihadwatcher on September 10, 2007 at 6:15 PM

From the apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians [my emphasis]:

For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.

INC on September 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Christoph, please see my comment above yours. Church membership and claiming to believe is not the definitive last word on whether someone is a Christian.

Of course not. That would be an issue between God (if there is a God) and the believer. If there is no God, then Christianity could simply be defined by being a member of a Christian church.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM

But **I** have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton isn’t a Christian — hell, I don’t know the women, but I do know plenty of Christians who don’t go to church as often as her.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 6:21 PM

So that means we have to live with the sneers and the smug condescending remarks about Christianity from the moderator of a supposedly conservative website. This is what passes for intelligent blogging on Hotair.

In what sense do you “have” to live with it?

If it’s Michelle Malkin’s fault and Allahpundit’s… how are you forced to be here?

Why not just read Robert Spencer and Bryan’s posts? (Is Bryan a Christian? I don’t know.)

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Christoph, it’s also a matter within the church. The church is to be a witness that brings glory to God by a consistent lifestyle. Again from Paul, this time writing to the Corinthians:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.

But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one.

INC on September 10, 2007 at 6:26 PM

INC, then there aren’t many Christians in the world and none in government or on the workforce. Also none in the military.

A lot of the Bible can’t be followed literally.

I’m not defending the Bible anyway. Just saying that Hillary may be a Christian whereas Romney definitely is not. Even if he thinks he is.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 6:32 PM

jihadwatcher,

Genuine disagreement I am OK with. Baiting to get comments I am not. I don’t get on every thread for this reason.

I think I waited until the 3rd Mother Teresa thread before I said anything because of this. I did stop and pray–and I felt that I wanted to go ahead and speak regarding doubt for anyone who might be struggling.

INC on September 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM

If it’s Michelle Malkin’s fault and Allahpundit’s… how are you forced to be here?

Who said I was forced to be here? But if we want to read the threads, we are forced to put up with His Royal Smugness. Malkin makes her Christian readership, the vast majority of her readership, put up with his Christian bashing simply because she values his ability to bring in traffic, ostensibly by baiting that very readership.

But then again, what do you expect of a site that ironically calls itself Hotair? Hot air is a derogatory term for impassioned but empty bloviation, hardly a term for a notion one would want associated with a conservative treatise on politics. It is essentially a title of self-mockery. And we see that irony again manifested in the moderator’s baiting of his own readers.

jihadwatcher on September 10, 2007 at 8:17 PM

I’m not defending the Bible anyway. Just saying that Hillary may be a Christian whereas Romney definitely is not. Even if he thinks he is.
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 6:32 PM

I have not seen all your posts stating Romney is definitely not a Christian, but Hillary may be.
Could you obliged me and in two sentences or less explain your position regarding both?

Thanks in advance.

Mcguyver on September 10, 2007 at 8:23 PM

No, not in two sentences or less.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3