Reply With Quote
For Crazy, I don't have to. He is a minister. Man get out of your
bottle and watch the President tonight. Either that or take another one
of those little pills and chill out. You have a problem.
And I promise u will spin for him.
For Crazy, I don't have to. He is a minister. Man get out of your
bottle and watch the President tonight. Either that or take another one
of those little pills and chill out. You have a problem.
No, u spin for Bush all the time. You have a problem because you support a president that makes ppl suffer.
Did too! Did not! Did too! Did not!Get over yourselves people!
u first.
Okay -- there are those on the political right (including some in this forum) who, for example, label those who promote church/state separation as hostile to religion or even non-Christian. There's no apparent concern for the qualifications of those people to make those judgments, but when someone wonders aloud about the President's commitment to the tenets of Christian faith, there's a hue and cry about qualifications to make that judgment. Those two things can't be squared to me, other than as a political point, which has little or nothing to do with religion at all.Could you be a little more vague with your questions FWD?
Was your post rhetorical? If not maybe you can direct in a more personal way to those "some" on the right and be more specific about the "sorts of judgements" they are making and list one or more of "those pronouncements".
^^^
Rumor has it those on the right like people to do as they say not as they do.
To the right if you speak out against the war you hate your Country and the troops.
To the right if you support a woman's right to choose you are a murderer and support death over life.
To the right if you speak about seperation of Church and State you a non-Christian and a non-believing devil worshiper.
To the right if you are for civil liberties you support the terrorists.
[QUOTE]I honestly don't know of anyone or of any post where someone was told or someone stated that they were not a Christian because of their stance on the Church/State separation issue.
You're free to defend SA210 but his outright statement that the President "is not a true Christian" goes far beyond someone wondering aloud about the President's commitment to the tenets of Christianity. It doesn't take much in the way of qualifications to wonder but the qualifications that would allow one to know calls for far more than a hateful biased opinion
If I were a jurist that had just considered the evidence in a trial and I could only state that I wonder if the accused is guilty as opposed to flat out stating that I know the accused is guilty would it be still be okay for me to come up with a finding of guilty?
Now there's a refreshing view as opposed to all of the partisan opinions we get in here.
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]So Bush has a commitment to the tenets of Christianity? What Bible do you go by? I'd really like to know what Bible condones Bushs' actions. Please let me know. Show me the bible that Bush and you go by. Because no matter what You say, the meaning and word "Christian" stands for something.someone wondering aloud about the President's commitment to the tenets of Christianity.
What does being a Christian mean? Seriously. Just because You belong to denomination? Stop trying to be political about it and tell me what a "Christian" is. A derivative of Christ. Yes or No? To be and to try to be Christ-like. Bush is nothing of the sort. Put your political spin on it all you want. I still want to see the bible that condones a "Christian" to do Bushs' deeds.
Where in the Bible?
I know of several such posts and have always resented the notion that my faith could be so easily questioned by people who, in essence, are violating a basic tenet of the Christian faith by standing in judgment of me. They don't know me -- they know that I think the state should stay out of religion and should not endorse the Christian faith over others, or that I believe a woman has a right to decide how her body will be used -- but that doesn't stop them from deciding that I am not a Christian, a view that is completely false.
I'm not defending SA210 at all; but I am asking for consistency. If it's improper for people to question the President's faith, it's equally improper for anyone to question my faith or the faith of others who believe as I do.
It certainly would be improper -- just as it is improper when applied to conclude that political liberals are anti-religion or non-Christians, or whatever.
James 2:17,24
JFK was a catholic.. and a JFK was a womanizer and got the ball rolling in vietnam and had a great bay of pigs strategy... jimmy carter was a born again christian.. and oh well we all know what he did.. turned a blind eye to the dirty wars of south america.. pulled his support for the shah of iran.. ushering in radical islam in the middle east... encouraged saddam to go to war with iran.. clinton and gore were both southern baptist and had no problems dropping bombs on kosovo... and clinton had no problem with adultrey... yeah .. all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... even ole jesse jackson... fathering a child out of adultrey as well....
Thanks
You have a good point
There's nothing wrong with asking for consistency (doesn't mean you'll get it).
Not sure why you chose to bring it up in response to one of my posts though or are you suggesting that I've been inconsistent in this area?
Again you're clueless when it comes to argueing because I never said that, FWD brought it up and I was quoting him to make a point. Once again your rambling thoughts are disconnected to the point where they have no credibility or relevance.
I would ask you to go back and review the dialogue but I think you're probably honestly doing the best you can with what you have.
Bush is the one with NO credibility. Your spinning and words of nothing aren't going to change that. Whether You say he is Christian or You say U believe he is Christian doesn't change the fact that I am speaking of the bible. I am speaking of the teachings of Jesus Christ. So speak the blind Bush love nonsense that u have to tell yourself.
I am speaking of what is actually "biblical". What does it mean to be Christ-like? What is a Christian, not as different religions or how You wanna see it. What is Christ-like according to Christ himself and the Bible? Does that equal to Bush. NO. That is plain and simple.
So, go on a spin and play with words on who said what and how I said it. Doesn't change the facts.
SA210, the Incarnate Tool of NbaDan, why don't you stick to awnsering xray's response and stop spinning yourself.
I personally wouldn't question your Christianity. I don't know much about your religious beliefs but I have read many of your opinions and I haven't seen anything in your posts that would lead me to believe that you are not a Christian especially in light of the fact that you say you are.
world history 101...
the State Department's declassification of more than 4,600 previously secret U.S. do ents on human rights violations under the 1976-83 military dictatorship in Argentina. (I wonder who was president for 4 years during the dirty war in argentina)
The main conflict between human rights and U.S. interests came in Carter's dealings with the Shah of Iran. The Shah had been a strong ally of America since World War II, and was one of the "twin pillars" upon which U.S. strategic policy in the Middle East was built. However, his rule was strongly autocratic. Though Carter praised the Shah as a wise and valuable leader, when a popular uprising against the monarchy broke out in Iran, the Carter administration did not intervene.
The Shah was deposed and exiled. Many have since connected the Shah's dwindling U.S. support as a leading cause of his quick overthrow. Carter was initially prepared to recognize the revolutionary government of the monarch's successor, but his efforts proved futile.
saddam and Jimmy..
For Americans 9/11 is a day of mourning, but for Iranians it should be 9/22! That's the date when Saddam's Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, leading to an 8-year war causing over 1 million deaths. It is one of the greatest human tragedies in recorded history. If America is so bent out of shape with 3000+ deaths on 9/11, and now over 1000 American military deaths in Iraq... How should Iranians feel?
New information, coming out of events related to the recent invasion of Iraq suggest that Saddam did not act alone. It was kicked off on August 10th 1980, when Saddam Hussein was invited to his first state visit to Saudi Arabia, the first for any Iraqi President. This was a historic meeting. Prince Fahd had been asked to convey a private message of support for an invasion of Iran by Saddam from President Carter.
Think back to the summer of 1980. Jimmy Carter was running for reelection as President. The Mullah's in Iran had turned against him holding Americans hostages at the US embassy in Tehran (even though he had brought about the Shah's demise). Carter had also been secretly briefed about private meetings between the Mullah's and the Republican Party... to hold the hostages until after November elections... to humiliate him and engineer his loss. The Mullah's had betrayed him.
With his back against the wall, Carter pushed for a quick decisive invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein... hoping for a quick demise of the newly installed Islamic regime. The Saudi's and other allied Arab states had been asked to assist. And assist they did...
Carter currently teaches a Sunday School class at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia. He is also an accomplished amateur woodworker and has occasionally been featured in the pages of Fine Wood Working magazine, which is published by Taunton Press.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
