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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Masturbate?

Heh. I don’t recall you giving Mitt Romney the same courtesy…

The difference, Buy Danish, is one religion is Christian by its theology and the other one is a polytheist cult that teaches us “God” was once a sinning man who became god after going before a council of other gods who had the same pedigree, Jesus is not the only Son of God, but merely number one with Satan number two, etc., and etc.

Mitt Romney isn’t a Christian any more than Maliki is.

Well that clinches it, now doesn’t it!

No, it doesn’t clinch it you lying and/or intellectually challenged cow. It destroys her point about there being no evidence at all for Hillary being a Christian.

If she claims to be a Christian, I’ll buy that barring evidence to the contrary.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Heh. I don’t recall you giving Mitt Romney the same courtesy, but don’t take this as an invitation to argue that point all over again. I merely aim to illustrate your unequal application of giving people the benefit of the doubt.

The point, Miss Anthrope, is she attends religious services regularly.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Well that clinches it, now doesn’t it! For someone who falsely claimed that I made an assertion of “proof” earlier, you certainly use irrelevant arguments to “prove” your case, and give far more weight to symbolism over substance in the process.

dominigan on September 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM

I don’t see it as bashing Christians so much as saying, “Don’t you dare judge me!” (or Hillary in this case).

One thing I have no doubt that Hillary believes is that “the elite win power by the will of God” convincing the rest of us that we helpless and ignorant peasants require their Nanny State leadership in order to thrive.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Ditto for MSNBC and Olberman
and Fox and Geraldo.

Their playground, their toys. Right?

Here’s evidence of Hillary flip-flopping on being a “lifelong Methodist”:

Last week I decided that even if life is absurd why couldn’t I spend it absurdly happy? Define ‘happiness’ Hillary Rodham, acknowledged agnostic intellectual liberal, emotional conservative.

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?

Umm, domingan, did you miss the parts where it’s “his blog” and he’s actually an atheist?

And where he defended Hillary Clinton for her faith?

And did you completely miss the fact his entire post was about Hillary Clinton’s claim to Christian faith and did not — with even one word — bash Christianity?

In short, you owe Allahpundit an apology.

I’m considering removing Hot Air from my feeds because you’re polluting the conservative environment of Hot Air by attacking the majority of conservatives at this site.

I am quite certain you’re not forced to stay here. By all means, close your mind further.

If you can’t hack a post about a Democrat who claims she’s a Christian, then you need to get a grip on yourself.

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?

AP: You tend to post excellent articles on Islam and terrorism, but I wish you would stick to those topics. When you start bashing Christianity to drive traffic to your blog, based on your own personal views, it just makes you look… rather pathetic.

You need to refocus your articles. You certainly aren’t as neutral as you profess to be. And honestly, I’m considering removing Hot Air from my feeds because you’re polluting the conservative environment of Hot Air by attacking the majority of conservatives at this site.

And you’re damn right I’ve discounted them, based on the rest of her actions and comments. That’s my right

How do you discount that which doesn’t exist? Either it (at least some evidence for her Christian beliefs like going to church for example) exists and you don’t buy it… or it doesn’t exist? Which is it?

But thanks for the insult!

No problemo.

Those two statements do not contradict one another. The actions you describe indicate a “Christian” on the outside, but I’m talking about her real motive. And you’re damn right I’ve discounted them, based on the rest of her actions and comments. That’s my right

And I will continue to view her with suspicion because of her Socialist stance, not her religion. That’s the other thing you misunderstand. I don’t give a damn about her religious actions, except in the political arena. And again, since she is a public servant, that’s my right.

And no, boredom strikes me when I see no point in continuing a discussion that benefits nobody. But thanks for the insult!

Doing tends to be stronger evidence than saying.

In any case, what you said is:

I have every reason [emphasis yours] to believe she’s not sincere. I have yet to see anything [emphasis mine] from her that identifies her supposed “Christian” beliefs.

Yet those blanket statements are contradicted by your statement:

Just because she does all those things…

That’s the whole stinkin’ point, there’s no way to verify you’re right either.

Of course there isn’t. The point is you have “every reason” to believe she’s not sincere and you haven’t seen “anything” from her that identifies her supposed Christian beliefs.

Except you have. You’ve just discounted them.

Bored now.

Boredom always strikes when your point make no sense.