Young evangelical: We need more than just pro-life policies from the GOP

posted at 5:13 pm on December 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

In which I once again try to liven up a slow year-end news day with a religion post. As I’ve said before, I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation. So does this guy, evidently, as his choice of priorities between repealing Roe and, say, organizing a congressional bailout of the world’s poor would seem to be different than our readership’s. Scoff and call him a paper tiger if you like, but The One did make inroads with young white evangelicals this year, as this NYT graphic illustrates. The question is whether they broke for Obama because he appeals to them or because leftism does — or, alternatively, because they were turned off by McCain being less ostentatious in his faith than Dubya. Pew’s poll of party ID from September 2007 suggests a trend away from the GOP beginning in 2005, which suggests a fourth possibility: It has nothing to do with Obama, McCain, or leftism, but rather with the same disaffection with Bush that the public generally has felt for the last three years. Whatever the answer, The One knows a paradigm-shifting opportunity when he sees it. If you’ve been wondering why he’s so adamant about having Rick Warren at the inauguration, wonder no longer.

Exit question: Er, why hasn’t our very devout president-elect attended a single public church service since being elected? Might he be less devout than advertised? Second look at Obama!


Related Posts:

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

vulcannomad on December 29, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Good word.

abcurtis on December 30, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Enrique on December 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Where did you get your theology from?

abcurtis on December 30, 2008 at 9:25 AM

Enrique – salvation is a gift to anybody who wants it, rich or poor, meek or mighty. It is not an entitlement, it cannot be bought or earned, only accepted as the free gift that it is.
Now you know.

abcurtis on December 30, 2008 at 9:28 AM

As a Christian, I believe politics is not religious. However, I do believe that our leaders are chosen by God and we are to submit to them. This is based upon Scripture and because of this I shall submit to Obama’s term as President. I will work to defeat him in the next election but I do believe that God will use him to his own purposes and that he is in control of everything even when we don’t understand. That is why the Global Warming hysteria is so comical. Man didn’t create this world, God (Jesus Christ or The Word) did and he is quite capable of sustaining it without our assistance…thank you!

sabbott on December 30, 2008 at 9:36 AM

I’ve always thought Christianity was more lefty than righty in orientation.

What one might expect from an atheist.

Funny how Marxists attacked all those Christian monarchies in Europe, even though they were all so lefty. Funny too how the US had to be made into a socialist country rather than having been one already on the basis of its Christianity.

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 9:39 AM

This idiot is the perfect democrat: “There are a zillion Bible verses about the poor and only a few about anal sex between men.” Brilliant.

There’s only one about beastiality. What conclusion does that lead this pinhead to?

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you,” so this sort of sets the odds of success for socialism.

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM

We need to change this.

CyberCipher on December 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

I respectfully disagree. I believe Christians should first take care of their own, which to me at least means supporting the church. I’ve seen the statistics in the past (though I don’t have the link) that says that something like 80% of church members don’t give money to their own church. And these are the members of the church, not just visitors.

How else will the bills get paid? How else will the pastor be able to feed his family? And how else will the church be able to afford to open its doors on Thanksgiving and Christmas to the less fortunate?

The fact that many churches are in debt is an absolute disgrace.

Now, I’m not saying Christians shouldn’t give more to the poor. I’d just advocate doing that in addition to giving to the church. 10% is just a number. There’s no reason it couldn’t be 15%.

I’m not saying I agree with your pastor. What you’ve done is between you and God. I’m just speaking more generally.

No, your world, you have set your own standards of faith, held accountable by whom? Yourself, by your words.

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM

There’s no reason for you to be contentious about this. Without church, we’re all still accountable to God, and with church we’re all still accountable to God. There’s no reason to assume he’s gone just because we’re not visiting his house, and there’s no reason to start a fight with someone over this either.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 9:54 AM

In short, he concedes that in both dollars and time conservatives contribute more than liberals. And that takes into account supposed “narrow” giving to churches.

BuckeyeSam on December 29, 2008 at 8:23 PM

That’s certainly fine, but the issue is not liberals versus conservatives but Christians versus non Christians.

And it wasn’t just because the temple is holy, he called the money changers “thieves.” Think about that for a moment. The money changers were enganging in simple business practices, totally unregulated. The pilgrims weren’t forced to pay their unfair rates. But because the wealthy were taking advantage over the poor in their business, they were “thieves.” I think you could argue that this comes in conflict with the conservative idea of totally free markets. That is, if your business is exploitative, you are a thief. To most conservatives, neither side of a business arrangement can be a thief if you choose to engage in the business willingly in a free market, but Jesus doesn’t seem to think so. And thievery, which Jesus says includes unfair business practices, is something that can be regulated under the law.

But that’s just my take. I’d like to hear your thoughts on what this story means.

justfinethanks on December 29, 2008 at 11:37 PM

That’s an interesting take, but I think it’s missing an important part.

These people in the temple were selling sacrifices. Sacrifices. How can you sell something that other people are supposed to sacrifice?

This goes back to Cain and Able. Cain didn’t get the point of sacrifices any more than these money changers did. God specified a spotless animal for a reason. In order to present one in sacrifice, the person would have to care for the animal like a pet, bringing it home, bathing it and giving it special care.

The act of killing it was supposed to be brutal in order to show the people what sin does to their lives.

To bypass the whole thing by selling these animals and then assure the people that they’re doing the right thing before God is to rob them of the entire process and make their sacrifice meaningless.

This is abhorrent as selling salvation.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 9:59 AM

I’ll accept that the American right is pro-life when their fertility matches that of the Mexicans and the muslims.

Kralizec on December 30, 2008 at 2:35 AM

So pro-life in your mind is having kids regardless of the consequences simply because it’s the function of your body?

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 10:01 AM

80% of church members don’t give money to their own church. And these are the members of the church, not just visitors.

This is total BS.

A whopping 96% of evangelicals gave money to a church in 2007; 81% of them donated at least $1000.

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 10:02 AM

I didn’t watch the video, just saw the screen shot with “recovering evangelical” on the bottom. Screamed lefty to me. And actually Allah, I don’t think Christianity is either lefty or righty – it is a critique on both – but I do think a key problem with contemporary Christianity in the west is that people mistake leftism for Christianity (while simultaneously complaining about the religious right)

saint on December 30, 2008 at 10:43 AM

A whopping 96% of evangelicals gave money to a church in 2007; 81% of them donated at least $1000.

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 10:02 AM

At least $1000? That’s not tithing, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Just because your church has a guest speaker one day that makes everyone in church decide to drop something in the offering plate, it doesn’t mean you’re supporting your church.

Look, I’m not ripping on Christians. I’ve stated this because it’s a fact. If church members all regularly tithed, churches wouldn’t be in debt, and many, many are. These are facts. Just find your average in debt church, then find the average income level for the area (you could even chop that number in half to be safe), add up the number of member in a church and do the rest of the math, and you see what I’m talking about.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 10:46 AM

At least $1000? That’s not tithing, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 10:46 AM

You didn’t say that 80% didn’t tithe, but that they gave nothing. Nice try, but you would be cut from the debate team for that attempted slight of hand.

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Nice try, but you would be cut from the debate team for that attempted slight of hand.

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 10:49 AM

This isn’t a debate team. It’s an Internet thread.

You didn’t say church members either. You said evangelicals, which are only a small portion of Christians.

We’d both be cut.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Some people believe that saying something stupid is better than saying nothing, contrary to what Solomon would advise.

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Some people believe that saying something stupid is better than saying nothing, contrary to what Solomon would advise.

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Yes, I’m well aware.

Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent./blockquote>

But that’s about personal edification. For a group to grow, even stupid ideas can lead to brilliant ones.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 11:32 AM

I’m a Christian. Not an Evengelical! And I tithe…but only because I choose to!

sabbott on December 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM

sabbott on December 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Good. If you were forced it wouldn’t be a sacrifice.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 11:34 AM

This idiot is the perfect democrat: “There are a zillion Bible verses about the poor and only a few about anal sex between men.” Brilliant.
Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 9:44 AM

I’ve never understood why anyone would even try to make this argument.

They’re basically saying that there is a certain ‘magical’ number of times that God has to say something BEFORE we need to take it seriously.

God only needs to tell us something ONCE for it to be taken seriously.

Religious_Zealot on December 30, 2008 at 11:39 AM

I want to get this FREAKING MORON of a PUNK KID by the lapels and shake him up very, very well, and say:

“Listen, you incredible nincompoop, those 2000 verses in the Bible that speak of caring for the poor? NOT A SINGLE DAMNED ONE OF THEM MENTIONS THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!”

And we can add, to the poor, befuddled idiot who’s now confused, “YOU are the one who’s supposed to be helping the poor. YOU!!! Not the government.”

This f***ing idiot needs to show me the verses that make it his f***ing right to spend MY MONEY on what HE thinks it ought to be spent on. I will help the poor with my own hands, and with my own funds. It’s not the government’s job. It’s mine.

philwynk on December 30, 2008 at 11:43 AM

philwynk on December 30, 2008 at 11:43 AM

The problem is, a huge number of conservatives only do lip service to that, they give that speech you just did and then dont do crap.

So color me less than impressed.

Squid Shark on December 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM

The problem is, a huge number of conservatives only do lip service to that, they give that speech you just did and then dont do crap.

So color me less than impressed.

Squid Shark on December 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Color me disgusted with liberal self-righteousness.

We’ve known for decades that genuine concern for the poor resides on the right, and that most of what happens on the left is just posturing for the cameras. Now, in 2008, that’s actually been demonstrated in peer-reviewed research.

Using the government to help the poor is not a Christian act, it’s a cowardly, selfish EVASION of Christian responsibility. In fact, it’s THEFT, and demonic manipulation. I am far, far less than impressed with this little leftist tool, and utterly dismissive of the likes of you, squiddy-poo.

philwynk on December 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM

philwynk on December 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Since I am not a liberal it would be silly of me to be projecting liberal self-righteousness. I would like to see that peer reviewed research, I live in a town where “Christians” control everything, politics, business and culture.

There are a million people in this city, hundreds of homeless. There is only one homeless shelter, founded and run by Jews and most of the people I know of that volunteer there are not church-going folk. So you can dismiss me all you want, but here in my corner of the Bible belt, the only people posturing for the cameras are a bunch of Christians.

Squid Shark on December 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Interesting how no one mentions an important facet of the term “poor.”

The Great Commission is to spread The Good News. To whom? To those who are poor in spirit. Ergo, if that interpretation is correct, “poor” doesn’t solely mean financially/materially poor.

For confirmation, read Matthew 26: 6-13. In part, Jesus says, “For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” (NRSV)

Aunt B on December 30, 2008 at 12:32 PM

The question is whether they broke for Obama because he appeals to them or because leftism does — or, alternatively, because they were turned off by McCain being less ostentatious in his faith than Dubya.

I would like to see an overlay of the economic demographics for the Evangelicals who voted this election. Could it be that the working class and poorer Evangelicals voted for Obama because they want a nanny state?

Y-not on December 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM

and there’s no reason to start a fight with someone over this either.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 9:54 AM

You assume everyone who disagrees is in a fight? It may be a discussion, maybe hard for you to grasp, but you can disagree without fighting…
Does this wrap up sound like a fight?

So, I am wrong on that assumption, and wrong all all the others. So maybe it isn’t giving you strength.
Whatever, you are content…that is the only thing important, that you are satisfied.
I envy you…

right2bright on December 29, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Maybe you are the one trying to pick a fight…
Next time, pick a fight with someone else.

right2bright on December 30, 2008 at 1:42 PM

You assume everyone who disagrees is in a fight? It may be a discussion, maybe hard for you to grasp, but you can disagree without fighting…
Does this wrap up sound like a fight?

absolutely it does!!…you’ve offended the most holy esthier…righteous doom will fall upon you!!!

perhaps if repenent in sackcloth and ashes….

right4life on December 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM

perhaps if repenent in sackcloth and ashes

sorry…perhaps if YOU repent in sackcloth and ashes…you’ll be shown mercy!!

otherwise its the outer darkness for you!!

right4life on December 30, 2008 at 2:06 PM

right4life on December 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Oh goody.

Squid Shark on December 30, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Oh goody.

Squid Shark on December 30, 2008 at 2:09 PM

glad to see you too squiddy!! hope you have a happy new year!!

right4life on December 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Squid Shark on December 30, 2008 at 2:09 PM

your blog has been removed..what happened?

right4life on December 30, 2008 at 2:14 PM

The Great Commission is to spread The Good News. To whom? To those who are poor in spirit.

Aunt B on December 30, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Actually, the Great Commission tells us to spread the Good News to ALL NATIONS:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
There is no designation here over rich or poor (whether in terms of money or spirit).

Religious_Zealot on December 30, 2008 at 2:15 PM

right4life on December 30, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Long Story :)

Squid Shark on December 30, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Long Story :)

Squid Shark on December 30, 2008 at 2:22 PM

well I hope its not financial difficulties…which are all too common as of late…

right4life on December 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Sorry R_Z, but you missed my point.

Aunt B on December 30, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Sorry R_Z, but you missed my point.

Aunt B on December 30, 2008 at 2:43 PM

No, I got your point.

And as far as a discussion on what Jesus meant by “Blessed are the poor in spirit”, it was a good point.

But you went off the track when you tried to (literally) connect the Beatitudes with the Great Commission.

Not that I necessarily have a problem with the theology…

…it’s just that the Great Commission ALREADY has an answer to the question of ‘to whom?’ – and that answer is “all nations”, not “those who are poor in spirit.”

We just need to be careful and accurate when we’re quoting scripture.

Religious_Zealot on December 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM

What a misinformed and confused young man.

The Young Evangelical: “I voted for Obama and the Democrats this time because they care about the more important issues — poverty, caring for the sick and elderly, the planet. The Republicans only cared about the insignificant issues of abortion and gay marriage.”

Perhaps he was living under the rock and/or drank the Democratic/Obama kool-aid, but what in the world is he talking about? Over the last 8 years, the Bush Administration and the Republicans have expanded the size of government, both domestically and overseas. We increased the budget on these like pell grants, housing for the poor, medicine for the elderly. On the foreign front, we liberated two countries in the middle east and given the most money and resources to African countries than any other administration in history. On abortion and gay marriage, the Republicans have spent about 2 years total on those issues, and didn’t even go very deep into those issues.

Then there’s the laughable stats, he pulled out. Notice that he compared the abortion rates in the United States to the number of poor/dieing people in the entire world. If he compared the # of abortions worldwide to the # of sick people worldwide, he wouldn’t be triumphing his numbers.

Frank T.J Mackey on December 30, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Akzed, your figures are wrong. Here’s what the article you linked to said. Bottom line: 83% of evangelicals gave at least $1000 to churches and other non-profits in 2007, not only to churches.

Giving to Places of Worship and Other Non-Profits

In 2007, 84% of all adults donated some money to churches or non-profit organizations. That figure has also remained consistent in recent years.

Evangelicals Christians distinguished themselves in their generosity. More than four out of five (83%) gave at least $1000 to churches and non-profit entities during 2007, far surpassing the levels reached by any other population segment studied.

Almost two-thirds of the public (64%) donated some money to a church, synagogue or other place of worship. The median amount donated to those religious centers was $101; the mean amount was $883. Those figures were up slightly from the previous year.

jim m on December 30, 2008 at 3:45 PM

I know Chris, and I know my theology (my area of study) and nothing makes me more angry that a Christian spouting poorly thought out political sound bytes and talking points that are nothing more than fashionable at this time. This is a travesty – an I-don’t-want-to-be-labeled-republican-but-still-want-to-go-to-their-parties-and-make-a-name-for-myself travesty. Theology comes first – and while maybe conservatives need to be louder about the poor, abortion and gay rights are two VERY important issues that should never be downplayed for political expediency. I don’t think Chris and I disagree on either of those issues, but the overall tone of his interview is “let’s get over abortion and homosexuality and really focus on the poor” which only reinforces a stereotype of conservatives and republicans that isn’t true and just happens to be in vogue; this notion that social justice isn’t a concern for conservatives and republicans is wrong. He’s implying that liberals have pegged conservatives and republican’s correctly; and he is wrong. *sidenote, his theology is deplorable and it makes me angry beyond words that someone would dress non-conservative liberal talking points in the guise of theology–and bad theology at that.

parcley on December 30, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Akzed, your figures are wrong.
jim m on December 30, 2008 at 3:45 PM


These statistics are for individuals who call themselves Born-Again Christians.

16% do not give any money whatsoever to their church

Only 8% actually tithe to their church, which means 92% of those who attend church do not tithe

The average amount given per month is $112.00

These are not the newest numbers available I’m sure, but I only have so much time to scour the net to devote to refuting manisfestly ridiculous assertions.

Akzed on December 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM

There are a million people in this city, hundreds of homeless. There is only one homeless shelter, founded and run by Jews and most of the people I know of that volunteer there are not church-going folk.

Most giving of time and donations for the community are done through the church by holding various functions and drives or through internal means. It is not necessary to found a homeless shelter when things can be accomplished through the church. I’m speaking from my own personal experiences though. Maybe it’s different where you are, but not here where I am.

Vaporman87 on December 30, 2008 at 4:44 PM

In the Orthodox Christian Church we fast on Wednesdays and Fridays(+other fast days..42%-62% of the year actually) and give the money for food that we would have eaten to the poor. It’s called almsgiving.

SaintOlaf on December 30, 2008 at 5:59 PM

It’s called almsgiving.

SaintOlaf on December 30, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Similar to the tribes in New Guinea…where they share their food with local tribes…usually a missionary that they have for dinner, they call it armsgiving…

right2bright on December 30, 2008 at 6:38 PM

I think I understand now why the man in the video is confused. At first I thought he had a point about republicans, but after reading the comments that you have all posted now I’m thinking differently.

The man in the video is lamenting the fact that Christian republicans don’t pay enough lip service to the needs of the poor and children and so on, the people Jesus largely, though perhaps not exclusively referred to when he said “the least of these”. The man criticized republicans Christians focus mainly upon abortion and homosexual marriages.

But caring for the poor and for children are actions which are desired. The issue of abortion and gay rights refer to behaviors that are undesired. And that’s the primary difference as to why abortion and homosexual marriages get discussed by republicans during election coverage, and caring for the poor and children do not. It’s not that Christian republicans care less about those things. Rather, republican Christians refer to Paul’s teachings about cheerful giving, and refer the outward actions of Christian faith to the individual and to the private sector. As christian republicans we desire and feel that scripture compels us to meet the needs of the poor at the individual level, at the level of a willing, and cheerful, private sector. Taxation does not amount to cheerful giving. Not only that but government is far less efficient than the private sector at caring for the poor. Abortion and homosexual marriages are prohibitive issues, and that is why they are discussed in the context of public policy, of governmental influence. For areas like abortion which are considered sin, Christians seek to make laws prohibiting these actions.

To deal with people like this Recovering Evangelical effectively, in terms of PR strategy, republicans need to spend time articulating these things, so that democrats and more importantly independents understand the difference between the role of the private versus the public sector on issues that are important to Christians and republicans. This man is obviously attempting to take advantage of a policy vacuum on the issue. Many of the posts I’ve read have already outlined what I’ve said here. But we need to explain our position about the poor and the homeless more effectively as a party during campaigns, during elections, and so on. We need to learn to articulate our republican ideology and how it is consistent with what Jesus and Paul have taught. This will become increasingly important of course as/if the economy worsens.

tartan on December 30, 2008 at 7:34 PM

I think I understand now why the man in the video is confused.
…This man is obviously attempting to take advantage of a policy vacuum on the issue…

I notice I changed my mind during my own post. I don’t know if he is honestly confused or making a deliberate political point. I don’t know.

tartan on December 30, 2008 at 7:36 PM

The money changers exchanged all international currency for special temple coins, the only money the merchants would accept, and were deceiving the foreigners of their true value, taking advantage of travelers coming to worship. This was not cool with Jesus, and any practice that interferes with worshiping God angered Him.

right2bright on December 30, 2008 at 1:39 AM

I think you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Skyfox was saying that the only reason that Jesus called the moneychangers thieves was because they charged unfair rates. My response to him was that he could have been calling them thieves for any number of reasons besides that because money changers were famous for being thieves. I was not insinuating that the money changers were not thieves because they were, or else he wouldn’t have identified them as such.

NeverLiberal on December 30, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Yes, modern evangelical Christianity is closer to left than right.

They are wrong.

spmat on December 30, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Does this wrap up sound like a fight?

Yes, very much so. It sounds like sarcasm or else condescension. Most likely the latter when considering that the entire time you were mocking the concept that one can be a Christian without going to church as though it’s the only place where one is held to any standards.

Maybe you are the one trying to pick a fight…
Next time, pick a fight with someone else.

right2bright on December 30, 2008 at 1:42 PM

So my comments are picking a fight but yours aren’t? All I was doing was asking you not to jump on someone. If that’s picking a fight, then why isn’t your comment about how some people are just so lucky to be godless?

perhaps if repenent in sackcloth and ashes….

right4life on December 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM

When we first came to disagreement it was because I wasn’t holy enough to even be considered a Christian by you and people like you. Now suddenly you’re mocking my supposed holiness.

Of course. Why not.

Eh, I decided over Christmas that I’m not going to fight with you. In fact, I’m not a great Christian, and I’ve used that as an excuse to refrain from praying for others, but I’ve decided that I have to start somewhere. So instead of fighting, I’ll try praying for you. Surely that’ll help at least one of us.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 8:42 PM

You assume everyone who disagrees is in a fight?

And since this ends with a question mark, I’m going to answer it.

No, I certainly do not.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM

I think you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Skyfox was saying that the only reason that Jesus called the moneychangers thieves was because they charged unfair rates. My response to him was that he could have been calling them thieves for any number of reasons besides that because money changers were famous for being thieves. I was not insinuating that the money changers were not thieves because they were, or else he wouldn’t have identified them as such.

NeverLiberal on December 30, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Not to be nitpicky, but that wasn’t me.

SKYFOX on December 31, 2008 at 4:58 AM

Not to be nitpicky, but that wasn’t me.

SKYFOX on December 31, 2008 at 4:58 AM

My bad, I was thinking about looking back to double check the name but I didn’t feel like it.

NeverLiberal on December 31, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Eh, I decided over Christmas that I’m not going to fight with you. In fact, I’m not a great Christian, and I’ve used that as an excuse to refrain from praying for others, but I’ve decided that I have to start somewhere. So instead of fighting, I’ll try praying for you. Surely that’ll help at least one of us.

Esthier on December 30, 2008 at 8:42 PM

Ummmm, Esthier look again at what you are quoting…

If that’s picking a fight, then why isn’t your comment about how some people are just so lucky to be godless?…
perhaps if repenent in sackcloth and ashes….

right4life on December 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM

I am a different person…
That is why it is important to READ.
I will be praying that you learn to read and not attack falsely someone…
People like you with a chip on their shoulder usually end up doing what you just did…looking for a fight, and walking into the wrong bar…

right2bright on December 31, 2008 at 10:36 AM

I will be praying that you learn to read and not attack falsely someone…

right2bright on December 31, 2008 at 10:36 AM

you just called her a godless heathen liar…and you call yourself a ‘christian’ you pagan dog!!

you should be ashamed…go repent in sackcloth and ashes…and maybe, just maybe, it’ll be ok….

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such vile evil before….

right4life on December 31, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3