'Believable' Huckabee Soars in Crucial Southern State

By Michelle Vu|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee soared to the top of the GOP pack in the key state of South Carolina in a major poll released Friday.

Huckabee captured 24 percent of registered GOP voters, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. His closest opponent, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, garnered 17 percent.

When the same poll was conducted in July, Huckabee had only three percent of the voters’ support. The survey suggested his drastic improvement was in response to his personality – the former Baptist preacher tops the list of the most believable candidate named by likely GOP voters.

While Huckabee soars, some of his rivals have plummeted in the latest poll.

In July, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani led in South Carolina with 30 percent. He now, however, has dropped to third place to tie former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 16 percent. For Romney, the poll result was a big improvement compared to his six percent of support in the previous survey.

Similar to Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona was also disappointed by poll results which show he fell from 21 percent in July, the second highest, to fifth place with 13 percent. Following McCain, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas took in 11 percent – a sizable increase from the two percent in July.

Friday’s CNN survey showed different results compared to the Mason-Dixon poll released last weekend. The Mason-Dixon poll had also showed Huckabee in the lead, but by only a modest margin.

In the Mason-Dixon survey, Huckabee came in at 20 percent with Giuliani, rather than Thompson, coming in a close second at 17 percent. Romney was still third at 15 percent, followed by Thompson at 14 percent, and McCain remained at fifth with 10 percent.

The latest CNN survey also conducted a hypothetical face-off between Republican and Democratic top contenders. It showed the two major parties are in a dead heat in the Palmetto state.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York was at 48 percent compared to fellow New Yorker Giuliani with 47 percent.

Meanwhile, Clinton had slightly less support than Huckabee in South Carolina, with 47 to 48 percent, respectively.

The survey suggests Democrats have a realistic chance of winning South Carolina for the first time in 32 years. Former President Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic candidate to win over a Republican state.

South Carolina’s GOP primary is set for Jan. 19.

Next Story : Survey: High School Seniors 'Graduating from God'

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

azurewaffle »

Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:40 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I would just like to briefly point out that, as a whole, Christianity is declining both here in the US and worldwide. On the home front, Christianity is losing ground to the non-religious and to the Wiccans and globally it's losing out versus Islam. As with everything else, Christianity must evolve to meet the present or go extinct. When I was much younger I simply accepted everything that was thrown at me in church, believing in the literal truth of the bible. Now, much older and (hopefully) wiser, I understand that the bible isn't literal at all. More and more people are beginning to discover that the bible can be interpreted to mean whatever it is that you want it to and why so many devout literalists have to reinterpret it. Take Deuteronomy 13.7 - 13.11 for a prime example. It's message is abundantly clear, yet everyone is telling me that it has to be "interpreted" correctly. All of this begs the question, "what is 'true' Christianity and is there such a thing?
What jesus4me is really saying is that he HAS to be right because he believes it. When he makes comments against evolution he only displays a high degree of ignorance. He doesn't know what evolution is or why it is so important. Thank god that most of us do know about evolution and that we will continue to educate people in a wider reality and not focus on the attitude that "I'm right and your wrong!"
GMG »

Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:26 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

didymus - it is rather difficult at times to try to figure out if you are just pulling someone's chain or really mean what you say. Jesus4me is passionate in his beliefs and this is his way of addressing issues; it does help clarify what he's getting at.

I take it you're not part of the religious right!! So what would you call yourself?
jesus4me »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:51 pm Agree: 5 Disagree: 0

The emerging church movement, teaches an extremely liberal/progressive/seeker sensitive social gospel that is meant to tickle people's ears. Rick Warren, Brian Mclaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Campolo, ROb BEll, to name a few are all part of this ecumenical drive to reinterpret the Bible. They all need to repent of this false doctrine and teaching. They encourage ecumenicalism of all religions and this is why they are so well liked in the world, but they have so much division with many Born Again Christians. If anyone wants to know more about this emerging church heresy and the damage it is doing to the Body of Christ, go to www.understandthetimes.org, as well as www.apprising.org.
jesus4me »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:28 pm Agree: 5 Disagree: 0

Didymus, i went to your blog site and you have everything emergent church and emergent village. No wonder you have a distorted view of conservative Christians. Your whole blog site revolves around liberal progressivism. I also have issues with the books your're promoting on evolution and your famous little quote at the top of the header link that says "And then God said let there be evolution". No wonder you felt it was stupid for the Institute for Creation Research to disprove mana made knowledge called evolution on that other post. No wonder you also felt like I was putting you on trial. Your own site gives away your post modern liberal views that twist the Scriptures to man's wisdom. Man, I'm seriously gonna pray for you; I think you better "rethink" this whole emerging thing, because it's gonna bring you down bro. I mean that. You're being seriously deceived by them, and the sad part about it is that you don't see it, or you refuse to see the deception in the emerging church.
jesus4me »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:26 pm Agree: 5 Disagree: 0

Didymus, I'm sorry too, but please remember that when you want your true expression of opinion here, by all means post it, you have the freedom to do so, but if it is something that will contradict Biblical Christianity, you will be challenged, and questioned by myself and others. If you went to CNN, CBS, Air America, or National Public Radio, maybe people would agree with you more because of their overrall progressive/liberal slants, and spinning of truth, but because this is a Christian site, people of a variety of very conservative opinions will post here, and will give you a biblically based answer - not a post modern/emergent, or progressive one.

In the meanwhile, i will pray for you.
didymus »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:54 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 5

jesus4me,

I’m sorry to hear that you think that way.
mcfbc »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:28 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

There are many things to respond to so I will do my best to hit everything.

First, I agree in theory that the goverment does not do a good job of taking care of the poor, and shouldn't be involved except for a few exceptions. I also agree in theory that the church is the one that should be caring for the poor. The church is the only one with the love, compassion and grace that comes from Christ.

But I am also a pragmatist. I appreciate jesus4me that you have good experiences with churches helping the poor. That is not my experience. I live in one of the most affluent county's in the country. It is also very conservative and has many many churches. In this town their has been an tremendous influx of affluent people that have moved to one part of town. And with those people have gone the churches. There used to be a church on every street corner in my neighborhood. Now there are two or three small congregations left. All the other churches went where the money is. A few of these churches will come in from time to time wanting to do a big event to help the poor folk. But the real ministry I need from them, which involves building into the lives of these kids and adults, they don't want to be a part of.

One of you said that we need to stop with handouts, and i agree. That's why our ministry focuses most of our time on providing services that will help with long term changes, job training, mentoring, life skills. These are the things these people need. And they need some Christians who are not afraid to get their hands dirty and get involved in their lives. Not just bringing Christmas presents to them once a year.

Finally, I never said I was voting for a Democrat. We as Christians need to demand more from our leaders on the left and right. We need to broaden our expectations of what our leaders should be about. Abortion and the family are important. But so are these other things. One of you said that the goverment has yet to solve these problems. That doesn't mean that we should ignore them or ask our politicians how they plan to deal with them. I was very excited when President Bush talked about compassionate conservatism but that led to nothing. We need to demand answers to all these problems, from the church and from our government.
jesus4me »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:24 am Agree: 5 Disagree: 0

didymus, i think you forgot to mention that the third party you would be willing to vote for is a muslim in congress because as you stated on your previous post he would understand the middle east better? Now let's see, it is the muslim country's that want to do away with Israel, and you want to even suggest voting for a muslim president (if he ran)? I fail to see the logic in your reasoning. Also, the reason i post all these quotes by you is that on every single article I go to where people show a conservative Christian opinion, you always have to post your cleverly devised "devil's advocate" comments and slander Christianity while you're at it. I'm not making false accusations at you, but your sarcastic comments about conservative Bible based Christians who want sound doctrine taught in churches and want people in office who will uphold moral standards in society are toally uncalled for, and then when people quote you word for word, then you have the audacity to speak as if you're being insulted, and people are taking you out of context and are misunderstanding you. You almost sound like John Kerry flip flopping all over the place when he had direct questions posed to him. He never had a direct answer to anything. He was always ambiguous and rather shady in his answers and then expected the American people to read through his "fluff". If you want people to trully know how you feel about something on this blog, please make your true self be known, but don't hide your comments in blur, and ambiguity if you don't expect to get a little challenging remarks responding to you.
didymus »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:53 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 5

GMG,

jesus4me has problem. It is apparent that he thinks he is in a courtroom somewhere presenting evidence. Positing my own words against me. He’s weird. This is not a discussion with him… it’s a trial. And he is the self appointed prosecutor.

When I said in my original post, “Ya-know, I’m beginning to think Hillary will make a fine President”, he assumed that I plan to vote for her. I don’t plan to vote for her (I actually plan to vote for a third party, or maybe Obama, but not Hillary). But I do think she will ultimate win this election despite me not liking her, and I think she’ll make a better president than any of the current Republican contenders.

But jesus4me is not interested in discussion; he is only interested in accusations and drowning out discussion. He has purposefully not understood a single post I’ve made, neither in this thread nor in the others. And I mean purposefully, not accidentally, since I know he is not that stupid.

I post here to occasionally discuss, to air my opinion, and sometimes to see what others think of things (and of course to poke a little fun at the religious right now and then). But I am not here to be put on trial in jesus4me’s kangaroo court.

Also, his reposting of all my comments over and over and over again and again is totally unnecessary. I have often posted my blogsite address, and anyone interested in my POV can go there and judge me however they’d like (my sites comments sections are open for anyone to post their dissenting POV).

http://didymuspov.blogspot.com
jesus4me »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:05 pm Agree: 4 Disagree: 0

Continued to Didymus:

To show why I challenge didymus in their statements, as well as their Christianity, I have taken the liberty of posting for y’all the statements Didymus also wrote in an article from the CP titled: Creation College Seeks Texas’ Approval to Train Science Teachers

And I quote Didymus word for word:

“That’s the way to do it, bring the educational equivalent of Afghanistan to Texas. Considering that this is the state that brought us George W. Bush this might actually be an improvement.”

Now you have the rest of the story as to why I always question your Christianity Didymus. When you come up with absurdly anti-Christian worldview comments like this talking about the Institute for Creation research, I have a real problem with that; especially when they teach a biblical world view.

So yeah Didymus, you can mock me all you want, but the Word warns us that in the last days there will be mockers. Just like I asked you on another post, go read your Bible in context, and pray that God give you discernment, because you are behaving like a non-believer with your comments about voting for Hillary Clinton, your ambiguous stance on whether homosexuality is a sin, and on your clear attacks on biblical Creationism being taught in the public sector to inform people of God and why Creationism can be proven both historically, contextually, scientifically, and biologically, while evolution can’t. Evolution is man’s wisdom, which is foolishness to God. When you post opinions that are contrary to the Word of God, and to the Biblical ways of doing things, and you choose to mock me and others like me who want to obey God, and preserve the integrity of the Word of God, as well as it’s teachings, you’re really mocking God’s way of doing things; not us. It really makes me and other’s question if you truly know Christ.
jesus4me »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:03 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

Didymus wrote:

“Ya-know, I’m beginning to think Hillary will make a fine President (or at least one that is a whole lot better than any of these Republican presidential wannabes).”

When I responded to their error of voting for Hillary, didymus responded:

“jesus4me,

It appears obvious to me that you have absolutely no clue what I believe. Misrepresenting what I’ve said and misrepresenting my beliefs doesn’t inspire me to listen to you.”

I responded to the error in their statement again, and didymus responded:

““jesus4me,

You said, “Would you like me to quote exactly what you said; so as to not have any misconceptions or "mischaracterization" as you just called what I did?”

Feel free to do so. You have my permission to waste your time. But I’m not going to waste my time discussing Hillary with you, since you ignore most of what I say and you misrepresent the rest.”

Shortly afterward, didymus wrote:

“For anyone bothering to read these comments,

I think it sad when the only thing to discuss when someone disagrees with you is whether you are a “real” Christian or not. It shows a real shallowness in being. And think it unfortunate that so many so quickly use this cheap shot to score a point.”

I responded biblically in context the best I could and

Didymus continued:

““You’re a waste of time jesus4me, sorry.”

Furthermore, Didymus wrote:

““mcfbc,

Unless you become a street-preaching fanatic I don’t think there is any physical way you can “respond biblically” to jesus4me.

I think just about the only worthwhile thing to do with jesus4me is to mess with his mind.”
jesus4me »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:15 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

One more thing mcfbc, when the Gospel of Christ is preached, and people accept it, take it into their lives and hearts and they REPENT of their sins, and choose to follow Christ, His Way, then God starts doing a miraculous work in them, that no state funding, federal funding, or soup kitchen could do for them. I also have to point out that if churches (no matter if in the inner city, suburb, ghetto, out of the country, or in the country) were doing a better job of teaching their congregations word for word, chapter by chapter, verse by verse in context from the Bible so people grow spiritually and use their gifts for the edification of the Body of Christ, we would also see more fruit in the form of lives transformed by the Gospel. Let's remember bro, our primary goal is to address men and women's need for a Savior, and as we are doing that, let's not neglect the physical needs of the least amongst us by showing Christ's compassion in action. Amen!
GMG »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:13 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

didymus, you said:
mcfbc,

Unless you become a street-preaching fanatic I don’t think there is any physical way you can “respond biblically” to jesus4me.

I think just about the only worthwhile thing to do with jesus4me is to mess with his mind.

This is one christian talking to another christian, about a 3rd christian? And our Lord is glorified in this?

Two huge issues in everyone's platforms are abortion and issues on homosexuality. Addressing these issues is not ignoring other issues that our christianity calls us to care about. However, murdering innocent victims and supporting gay marriages are divisive issues to say the least, certainly of great enough importance to use to begin weeding out candidates in our choice process.

Our "social ills" have been with us since the beginning, will be with us until the end, and have no easy one-size-fits-all answer. Of course they need to be addressed, on an on-going basis. If you think the democrats with their entitlement mentality have the answers, and that is of the utmost importance to you, then vote for them. But remember that no administration has solved these problems yet. However, abortion and homosexuality are at this point very active considerations in legislatures throughout our nation's states, and if we as christians are going to have a say on these issues now is the time to give them serious consideration when electing those who respresent us.
jesus4me »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:04 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Continued to mcfbc:

I now live in Texas, and I go out street witnessing and door to door evangelism with a brother in Christ who subsequently goes to Downtown Dallas and preaches the Gospel to the homeless as well; after they've sat down and talk about Christ and His offer of Salvation, then he offers them food, and takes them to Burger King, and even tries to find good homeless shelters, or homes for them. One testimony is a man that was living in the streets; he had the Gospel of Christ preached to him, and he decided to give his life to Christ; he is now residing in a shelter temporarily; has obtained a good paying job again, and he's back on his way to being a useful member in society.

But you know what the key was - it was the Gospel; it wasn't a social gospel, it wasn't a soup kitchen subsidized by state funds, no it was the pure unadulterated Gospel of Christ that set this man free from his alcoholism, and from homelessness. It was not more federal, and state funds (funded by hard working tax payers), no it was the Gospel. It was not Rick Warren and his pseudo social gospel together with secular politicians, it was the Gospel of Christ. See, I think that the funds set aside in this country for the poor, should be for the really needy, ad for enough time for them to get up on their feet again; not to be welfare moms and dads, and creating a welfare culture; it should not be there for people who blatantly avoid responsibilities in society, nor for those who want to lean on the system, and claim that they are poor while they drive a newer car than most people can afford to pay monthly.

I don't believe the answer lies in just giving handouts. The answer lies in the Gospel, and then in meeting the temporary needs of people. True compassion is shown when people are introduced to Christ, and as they are being introduced to Christ, they see Christ in us, by the "good works" that flow forth from obeying Christ; it's not the other way around.
jesus4me »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:03 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

mcfbc wrote:

"Jesus4me
Do you mean to tell me that I have to give you biblical reasons for why it is important to care for the poor and disenfranchised in our society. Do I need to pull up Bible verses to prove to you that we need to be caring for widows and orphans. I see your posts and I know you are more Biblically literate than that. The Bible speaks more about caring for the poor than just about any topic......."

and you wrote:

"And by the way, I agree with you that only one who has the answer to these problems is Christ. The problem is I can't get any churches to come into our neighborhood to show that love of Christ. They are to busy on the other side of town reaching out to rich white people and hiding in their gated communities. "

mcfbc, I hear your pain for your community; I’m not disagreeing that Christians shouldn’t be proactive in the community helping the poor, but this is done wit the Gospel being first preached, and as you’re preaching the Gospel, you are living the Gospel out in the “good work” of clothing them, feeding them, etc. I also have to disagree with you in that not all churches are in the "white" gated communities of the suburbs.

I grew up in a primarily white and mixed (meaning mulato or black hispanic) lower middle class suburb in Miami Florida , and there were plenty of churches that were involved in the community helping the homeless, etc.

I used to be involved in an inner city homeless feeding ministry in Ft. Lauderdale. We used to go out and feed the hungry every Saturday. However, we would invite them over for Breakfast for the next Saturday, and when they'd come over to get their food, they would have to stay for the preaching of the Word of God. See, some of them gave their hearts to Christ, while other's continued on in their old ways.
didymus »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:56 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

mcfbc,

Unless you become a street-preaching fanatic I don’t think there is any physical way you can “respond biblically” to jesus4me.

I think just about the only worthwhile thing to do with jesus4me is to mess with his mind.

:^)
maranatha7593 »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Go Huck! :-) I don't see that Christians have any other viable choice this go-round.
mcfbc »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:40 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Jesus4me
Do you mean to tell me that I have to give you biblical reasons for why it is important to care for the poor and disenfranchised in our society. Do I need to pull up Bible verses to prove to you that we need to be caring for widows and orphans. I see your posts and I know you are more Biblically literate than that. The Bible speaks more about caring for the poor than just about any topic. And exactly where was my half truth statement?

Captete said:
How can any 'real' born again Christian vote for somebody with that supports abortion?

And my response was to ask if this was the only thing that Christians should be concerned about when they cast their vote. Show me the half-truth here?

And regarding your statement about voting for the one who will most impact those who live around you, that is exactly what I want to do as well. Let me tell you about my neighborhood. I have a ministry in lower income suburb. I live there and work there. My neighbors are the poor and the disenfranchised. My neighbors are the widows and orphans. My neighbors are the gang members, the drug dealers, the prostitutes. These are my neighbor. And what has compassionate conservatism gotten for my neighbors over the past 7 years? How about continued cuts in funding even for the most basic of services for the poor, while we continue to spend an ungodly amount on this war. To me this is a sin that God will call us to task for every bit as much as abortion. I agree that abortion is horrible. But as Christians we need to broaden our agenda's. There are people dying in other parts of the world because of our war machine, and there are people dying in the streets of our country every day because we are more concerned with the war on terror than on our own hurting people.

And by the way, I agree with you that only one who has the answer to these problems is Christ. The problem is I can't get any churches to come into our neighborhood to show that love of Christ. They are to busy on the other side of town reaching out to rich white people and hiding in their gated communities.
jesus4me »

Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:12 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

mcfbc, why don't you ever respond biblically to the challenges set before you whenever you make a half truth statement huh?
jesus4me »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:40 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

mcfbc wrote:

"So what you are saying is the only issue we as Christians should be concerned about is abortion? What about issues related to poverty and the war? How about AIDS? How about inner city issues like gangs and drugs. These are life and death issues both here and around the world. Should we not be concerned with how the candidates look at these issues? "

No that is not what we are saying at all. stop spinning everything into your own little liberal overtones. The Gospel of Chrst is what will change lives. How am I as a Christian going to vote for someone who publicly endorses homosexual marriage, the killing of unborn children, the raising of taxes to provide more condoms in our public schools to keep up with the teen pregnancy rate and the STD's and AIDS? Should not I be voting for a President that will not only want abstinence being taught in public schools, but also one that would allow for Bible clubs to meet after school to tell other's about Jesus Christ the Only One who can save and transform their lives from the inside out? Mcfbc, who do you think can heal the broken hearted, the fatherless, the widow, the homeless, the AIDS patient, the homosexual, the bisexual, the adulterer, the murderer, the gangster, the thug, the thief, the drug smuggler, the pornographer, etc.? The only one who has the answer is Christ, and if I am called to vote my conscience on the issues that most likely impact my society and the people around me, then by goly, i'm voting for a conservative born again Christian if there is a choice out there at the time of voting, (in this case, it wuld be huckabee, or Ron Paul) but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Giulliani, because both are social liberals, and if it comes down to the wire, i will seriously pray about not voting if i have to.
mcfbc »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:46 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 4

So what you are saying is the only issue we as Christians should be concerned about is abortion? What about issues related to poverty and the war? How about AIDS? How about inner city issues like gangs and drugs. These are life and death issues both here and around the world. Should we not be concerned with how the candidates look at these issues?
Captpete »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:09 am Agree: 4 Disagree: 1

How can any 'real' born again Christian vote for somebody with that supports abortion? There are over 4000 aborted babies every day! Check the CDC website for the current statistics. But as a Christian I'd like to know how in the world you can do that and then face Jesus on judgement day. What are you going to tell him? The Bible is clear on homosexuallity when it calls it a sin. There's no interpretation necessary. Anybody that calls them self a Christian and votes some one of either party that supports values that are not Christian according to God's word needs to examine them self in view of scripture to see if they really are Christian.
jesus4me »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:50 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 1

didymus wrote:

"For anyone bothering to read these comments,

I think it sad when the only thing to discuss when someone disagrees with you is whether you are a “real” Christian or not. It shows a real shallowness in being. And think it unfortunate that so many so quickly use this cheap shot to score a point."

I find it unfortunate as well, that you would throw a cheap shot at the "republican wannabe presidents" again didymus, the real question is why would a born again Christian vote for a liberal whether republican or democrat? why would you vote for hillary to start with; or let me rephrase the question, why would you imply that hillary would make a better presidential candidate than the "wannbe republicans"? And if you think it shallow that I'm asking this, then again i'm sorry you feel that way. This is not a discussion on me disagreeing with you on whether you think red is red, or red is burgundy. This is a conversation we are having about voting one's conscience. If you yourself can't see the difference between disagreeing on minimal non-essentials and disagreeing on voting for someone who believes murdering an unborn child is ok, then I believe the sad one is really you - didymus, and anyone else who ha been reading the post can see the clear difference between the two issues, so please don't confuse people questioning one's Christianity on non-essential things, and shame them by saying their trying to score points by throwing cheap shots, vs one questioning someone's Christianity based on one's liberal world view on certain sins, on repentance, etc.
didymus »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:03 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

For anyone bothering to read these comments,

I think it sad when the only thing to discuss when someone disagrees with you is whether you are a “real” Christian or not. It shows a real shallowness in being. And think it unfortunate that so many so quickly use this cheap shot to score a point.
jesus4me »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:58 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

didymus, i'm sorry you feel this way, but if you're gonna post something as controvercial as voting for a woman (hillar clinton) who clearly edorses the aborting of unwanted preganancies on a Christian site as what you have posted, be prepared to give a response on your posts. Because you may not respond to me, but I'm sure other Christians will have the same questions for you as I have already read at least one on this article that questioned whether you were a Christian or not, and judging by your responses, this is the impression you leave.
didymus »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:39 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

You’re a waste of time jesus4me, sorry.
jesus4me »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:28 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Didymus wrote:

jesus4me,

You said, “Would you like me to quote exactly what you said; so as to not have any misconceptions or "mischaracterization" as you just called what I did?”

Feel free to do so. You have my permission to waste your time. But I’m not going to waste my time discussing Hillary with you, since you ignore most of what I say and you misrepresent the rest.

Didymus further wrote:

Considering how much of a disaster our current “Christian” President is, maybe it wouldn’t be so bad to have a Muslim president. No seriously! He’d certainly understand the Middle East a lot better than the current crusader president. And a lot of Islamic thought isn’t all that bad, read Rumi (pretty good stuff). Thinking about it, if Rep. Keith Ellison (first Muslim in the U.S. Congress) were to run for president… and considering all the other guys (and gal) running, both Democrat and Republican… I think I’d vote Keith Ellison.

http://didymuspov.blogspot.com

Didymus wrote:

Ya-know, I’m beginning to think Hillary will make a fine President (or at least one that is a whole lot better than any of these Republican presidential wannabes).

Didymus wrote:

jesus4me,

It appears obvious to me that you have absolutely no clue what I believe. Misrepresenting what I’ve said and misrepresenting my beliefs doesn’t inspire me to listen to you.

Didymus lastly wrote:

jesus4me,

You said, “Would you like me to quote exactly what you said; so as to not have any misconceptions or "mischaracterization" as you just called what I did?”

Feel free to do so. You have my permission to waste your time. But I’m not going to waste my time discussing Hillary with you, since you ignore most of what I say and you misrepresent the rest.

Hey Didymus, can you please let me know which part of these quotes I am mischaracterizing your belief of being a liberal/progressive/emergent Christian?

I know you think this is wasting your time, but it is clear by the posts posted by your own computer keyboard that this is what you believe, so no, unless you further explain yourself, I as well as any other Christian here is going to ask you if you are a Christian, and if you are, why in the world would you side with people that are totally antichristian in their beliefs?
jesus4me »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:12 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Further views quoted word for word from Didymus on the article titled:

"maranatha7593 (& braveheart as well)

You mention, “The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of BSA to set their own standards, so I do wonder why Philadelphia City Solicitor Romulo Diaz said the group’s currently policy amounts to discrimination and has set a Dec. 3 deadline for the Boy Scouts to either renounce their moral standards or lose the headquarters they have rented from the city for $1 a year since 1928.”

Basically, it appears the reason Philadelphia ruled that way is because, once you sit down and crunch the cost accounting numbers, the homosexual community is paying the BSA to discriminate against.

Ultimately, the issue at hand is: should the homosexual community be forced to pay (through taxes) Christian groups that discriminate against them, and judge them, an tell them they are going to hell?

To reword this into a question you can ask yourself: Should homosexuals have to pay (as in $) for the gospel that you want to give them?

http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/ "
jesus4me »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:05 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Didymus wrote on article titled: "Philadelphia Sets Deadline for Boy Scouts to Renounce Anti-Gay Policy" And I quote word for word didymus.

ifeelfine72,

I recommend Brian Mclaren, I recently finished one of his earlier books, “A New Kind of Christian”, the other day. It wasn’t great, but it’s a good opener on emergent church stuff. I think better and deeper stuff can be found at http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/ and the book series they are releasing. I’ve read both of the books already published. That second one, by Caputo, titled “What Would Jesus Deconstruct?” I think you would appreciate.

http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/

Another word for word quote from Didymus off the same article:

"ifeelfine72,

You said, “Homosexuality might not be in the majority but it is certainly normal. And every society has and had gay people. And with somewhere between 5-10% of the population I can't imagine societies going extinct specificallly because of that. It might be an evolutionary anomaly but it certainly isn't abnormal.”

You definitely bring to light some of the things that make my argument not so great. But still, I do think that the church at least should approach such an issue as this with trepidation, even if we were to determine that it’s just “cultural”, we in the church would still have to deal with Romans 14-15.

GMG,

I completely agree with ifeelfine72, stop trying to define all homosexuals by the example of some extremist group. You don’t like it when conservative Christians are defined by Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, or Eric Rudolph and the Christian Identity movement (or at least I hope you don’t like it), so stop associating homosexuals with NAMBLA.

http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/ "
jesus4me »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:58 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord... 1Corinthians 4:2-5
didymus »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:56 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

jesus4me,

You said, “Would you like me to quote exactly what you said; so as to not have any misconceptions or "mischaracterization" as you just called what I did?”

Feel free to do so. You have my permission to waste your time. But I’m not going to waste my time discussing Hillary with you, since you ignore most of what I say and you misrepresent the rest.
jesus4me »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:38 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

didymus wrote:

"jesus4me,

It appears obvious to me that you have absolutely no clue what I believe. Misrepresenting what I’ve said and misrepresenting my beliefs doesn’t inspire me to listen to you."

Didymus, if you recall jc4me; well, that is me, except, now I'm signing under another post. With regard to mischaracterizing what you believe, think I've seen enough of your posts to determine at least part of what you believe. I hae exhorted you, as well as Ifeelfine to search the Scriptures and show me ad any other Chrstian where in the Bible, it would condone homosexual behavior; yet none of you as been able to do it. Would you like me to go to the other posts where you clearly defended people who thought homosexuality was not a sin; yet they claimed they were christians? The only verse I recall you pointing to ifeelfine as a possibility for them being wrong was Romans 14-15. Would you like me to quote exactly what you said; so as to not have any misconceptions or "mischaracterization" as you just called what I did? I can go back to the CP article where you posted it, and just copy and paste word for word what your intent was at the time of posting. I can do that so people will know your stance not just on politics, but also on post modern interpretations of the Word. Do you recall me asking you to read the Book of Jude, and you sarcastically asking me to please quote it for you several times? I can gather up those quotes from at least one article such as "Philadelphia Sets Deadline for Boy Scouts to Renounce Anti-Gay Policy"?

Your stance on that article was rather ambiguous concerning homosexuality and the church, and you even sided for the most part with ifeelfine? Would youl ike me to quote you even advising ifeelfine to check out Brian Mclaren; the post modern liberal/emerging church spokesman who has made his very unorthodox views on hell and homosexuality very well known? Maybe I can refresh your memory over your clearly liberal interpretations of the Word. Not just in that article, but other's alike. Wuld you like to now start a dialogue? SInce I pointed out your choice for hillary was a poor one judging from the Word?
didymus »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:38 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

jesus4me,

It appears obvious to me that you have absolutely no clue what I believe. Misrepresenting what I’ve said and misrepresenting my beliefs doesn’t inspire me to listen to you.
jesus4me »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:14 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

Didymus wrote:

"Ya-know, I’m beginning to think Hillary will make a fine President (or at least one that is a whole lot better than any of these Republican presidential wannabes). "

Alas, you show your true colors again Didymus. First you hurrayed post modern interpretations of the Bible on other articles (particularly those of your views which claim homosexuality is not a sin) ; yet you call yourself a Christian. Furthermore, now you insinuate that hillary rhodam clinton could be a better president than any of the republicans? Do you have any idea what this woman stands for? She stands for everything antibiblical there is starting with murdering the unborn and agreeing with woman making a "choice" to abort their "unwanted" preganancies. I would agree that many in the republican arena would not make good presidents (starting with those that side socially with hillary - Giulliani, McCain, etc), but i would have to say that Ron Paul, and MIke Huckabee are still good, viable candidates for the Republicans. If it comes down to th wire between hillary and another social liberal, particularly those diguised as republicans, i will seriously have to pray about not voting, but voting for hillary? Are you nuts????????? The woman t agrees that aborting an unborn fetus is right. What side are you on anyway? Are you trully born again, or have you just adopted a form of religiosity to conform to your world view? Obviously from you posts, you indicating that you are a post modern emergent which has no different views on society than secular progressives do?
didymus »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:52 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

InSpirit&Truth,

You said, “I just can't believe you think that Islamic thought isn't all that bad. Did you know that Islam teaches that ANYTHING you do to further the cause of "Allah" is okay? Lying, murder, whatever....it's okay as long as it is for "Allah". Most muslims don't take it that far, but the teaching IS THERE.”

Why do you expect Muslims to interpret the Koran the way you want them to?

How many Christians interpret the Bible the way you do? I mean all of them, all the different kinds, Catholics, Orthodox, the various Protestant and evangelical, etc., how many of them interpret the Bible the way you do? I bet the number is few. A similar dynamic is happening in the Muslim world. People interpret scripture in various ways.

Think about it… do you like being stuffed into an interpretive box? Do you like being called, as some Muslims call you (very few do), a mass murderer of innocents, who (figuratively, or maybe literally) walks ankle deep in the blood of his victims for the glory of Jesus? Are you not a Christian? Therefore you are murderous Christian crusader who loves nothing more than to kill, pillage, and destroy.

I doubt you’ll like being stuffed into that interpretive box. I imagine it doesn’t reflect who you are; it doesn’t describe how you interpret the Bible. I imagine Pope Urban II is not one of your spiritual heroes (at least I hope he isn’t).

But if you don’t like it, why do you stuff Muslims into that interpretive box?
InSpirit&Truth »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:20 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

didymus, are you even a Christian? Just curious.....

I just can't believe you think that Islamic thought isn't all that bad. Did you know that Islam teaches that ANYTHING you do to further the cause of "Allah" is okay? Lying, murder, whatever....it's okay as long as it is for "Allah". Most muslims don't take it that far, but the teaching IS THERE.
InSpirit&Truth »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:17 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

drnewknee asks about Mike Huckabee pardoning murderers.....knee, if THAT were the criteria, then NONE of the candidates should run. They ALL do it. They all have issued questionable pardons (that is, if it's in their scope of responsibilities). The ones who haven't, only the fact that they don't have that power has stopped them. The problem with the entire pardon system in this country is that only the facts that they want a governor to hear is what they are fed, and they make decisions based on flimsy information at best. Clinton pardoned all kinds of horrible riff-raff.....and nobody seemed to mind. Bush has also made some questionable pardons. They all have.
didymus »

Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

Considering how much of a disaster our current “Christian” President is, maybe it wouldn’t be so bad to have a Muslim president. No seriously! He’d certainly understand the Middle East a lot better than the current crusader president. And a lot of Islamic thought isn’t all that bad, read Rumi (pretty good stuff). Thinking about it, if Rep. Keith Ellison (first Muslim in the U.S. Congress) were to run for president… and considering all the other guys (and gal) running, both Democrat and Republican… I think I’d vote Keith Ellison.

http://didymuspov.blogspot.com
didymus »

Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:46 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

pburwell,

You asked, “Well, how do you like my meanderings?”

Pray harder… maybe then God will give at least one little morsel of what your meanderings declare.

http://didymuspov.blogspot.com
didymus »

Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Ya-know, I’m beginning to think Hillary will make a fine President (or at least one that is a whole lot better than any of these Republican presidential wannabes).
pburwell »

Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:33 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Here is my assessment:
Mr. Huckabee will win soundly only with a slightly less lead than Ronald Reagan did, due to a series of embarassing revelations about his Republican rivals which will garner support for Mr. Huckabee unprecedented since the Reagan campaign.
Mrs. Clinton will narrowly avoid federal prison due to campaign illegalities causing the Democrat Party to find no one with any sizable following.
The Demcrat Party will win the Senate while the Republicans will narrowly win the House.
Huckabee will win a second term for President in which the house will be overturned and the Senate seats lost will be regained and more in the 2012 elections.
Roe -V- Wade will FINALLY be overturned in 2014 but not without socialism gaining ground in America.
By 2010 the Hispanic population policy of "ReConquista" will be apparent in the overtaking of California political offices by Latin Americans in nearly every sector. The resulting loss of any semblance of border control between Mexico and California will be lost.
Muslim terror on US soil will continue to be covered up by Leftist Media but the subscription of the 20 Millionth person to the Drug Report, with the failure of the New York Times Newspaper, begins to reflect that no one is listening to the socialist pandering of such outlets. Political races begin to reflect the opinion of the majority of Americans more and more.

Well, how do you like my meanderings?
zenodaddy »

Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:41 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I am not too fond of anyone running at the moment... Mike is making a good run, but his record is questionable... Thompson needs to act like he wants to be president... he would be great... this whole idea we have about someone being a Christian to be president is noble... but seriously... Clinton claimed to be a Christian... look what he did... now I am all for a brother or sister in Christ to lead this country... do not get me wrong... I just want someone who is going to win this war, lower my taxes and kill the IRS... that is the person I will vote for, regardless of their religious affiliation.
drnewknee »

Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:27 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 4

How many murderers does Huckabee have to pardon before Huck fans figure out that this guy is dangerous?
seedplanter »

Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:14 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

ProfessorX, I read your blog. Some friendly advice, Don't make your letters so big. Most of us who read on the internet prefer to speed read. People do not apreciate huge fonts.

I like Mike!
Hesadanza »

Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:08 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 4

Huckabee unfortunately will never win over any of the Democratic candidates, by a long shot. If you vote for Huckabee, you are in essence voting for Hillary.
ProfessorX »

Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:24 am Agree: 6 Disagree: 1

Why Huckabee wins the Nomination!
Why The Shift in Momentum IS FOR PRESIDENT HUCKABEE in 2008

Mike Huckabee is presidential material and is alone able to defeat Hillary & Obama. I am now convinced that those wealthier donors to Romney's, Giuliani's, and Thompson's campaign have wasted their money and if they continue, are wasting their hard earned money on candidates who do not have voter appeal or substance. As a member of the younger generation, I will tell you point blank, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson DO NOT connect with us.

ROMENY has run out of gas. He has been the worst investment money could buy. His persecution complex make him so defensive that he cracks under pressure. BOTH Romney's and Giuliani's flop flip past makes them a liability and not an asset for republicans in 2008.

Every time Huckabee is heard his approval amongst Republicans and Democrats increases even WITHOUT the majority of financial support. Just imagine what would happen if he got the major financial support. He is the Republican's secret weapon in the 2008 election. Huckabee's proven leadership can help bring America together as a team.

Huckabee is the candidate because he can not only attract republicans but also democrats to his side without compromising his principles. Both side support is needed to win this election in 2008.

22 reasons and counting for why America chooses HUCKABEE for President at:

http://evolutionfacts.townhall.com/
RickH »

Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:40 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

"We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."

That's what Ron Paul has to say ... and he's a LOT more "believable" than Huckabee.
seedplanter »

Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:20 am Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

Obama is not a Muslim, he is a member of the liberal United Church of Christ, the first denomination to officially endorse homosexual marriage.

I like Mike!
madest »

Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:19 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

Josey,
Everything you wrote is proven false on the snopes.com website. Some guy named Ellison was the first to be sworn in using the Koran not Obama. Purposely speading lies makes you a kook.
Another thing, tomorrow is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Remember to donate generously to Ron Paul!
josey »

Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:22 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 4

INTERESTING READING! THANKS Tell Oprah ...OBAMA'S BACKGROUND CHECK !!!!!! I am surprised that you have not done your homework. We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself. Probable U.S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein
Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.? When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Obama t akes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school." Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is no longer Muslim. Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta . Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, as all of our other public officials, but instead the Koran. Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest evel - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story