Posted on 12/01/2002 5:22:20 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, December 1, 2002
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Bob Graham (D-FL) and Richard C. Shelby (R-AL); Mohamed Baradei, director general, International Atomic Energy Agency; former secretary of state Henry Kissinger; and former Senate majority leader George Mitchell.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Bob Woodward, author of "Bush at War"; Michael Beschloss, author of "The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler's Germany"; David Halberstam, author of "War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals"; and Garry Wills, author of "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America."
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA).
THIS WEEK (ABC): Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network; Israeli Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu; Daniel Benjamin, former member of the National Security Council; and Mohamed Baradei.
LATE EDITION (CNN): Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Evan Bayh (D-IN); Robin Wright, author of "Sacred Rage: The Wrath of Militant Islam"; Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-GA); Patrick Lang, former Defense Intelligence Agency Middle East analyst; former ambassador Joseph Wilson; Victoria Toensing, former Justice Department official and prosecutor; George Mitchell; Henry Kissinger; and Mohamed Baradei.
Same difference.
I know how much prideful you are, that you're poor; however, one's monetary worth, doesn't prove that one is a member of the " NWO " , nor much of anything else. Neither, BTW, does having a face lift ( no, I haven't had one and you can't afford one ) doesn't make one unConservative. :-)
Because this is an unusual war, with wide-ranging goals and missions, it is equally difficult for Bush to claim credit or victory. But clearly, this was an essential first battle that needed to be won. If we were still bogged down with the Taliban in control, the media would surely report that.
Bush has some tricky PR ahead of him, but I think his team is up to the task.
We all know how Godly lies and deception are huh?
dreamusic: "Same difference."
I'm no fan of Robertson by any means, but I'm sure he believes that too.
Stephie was trying to put the word *evil* in Robertson's mouth for a reason.
Sounds as if you would have taken the bait.
For the first time, Robertson made it a point to praise GWB for the way he is framing the war (because of geo-political realities).
Here again is the exchange for those who didn't see it:
ABC This Week - Sunday - 12-1-02 with George Stephanopolis
At the beginning of the segment with Pat Robertson, Stephie shows a clip of Bush (in answer to a reporter's question), saying:
"There have been comments made by some prominent, well-known personalities that do not reflect the position of this Administration, nor the majority of the American people. Islam, as practiced by most Muslims, is a peaceful religion."
[INTERJECTION by M-PI: Please note that Bush did NOT say that Islam is a "peaceful religion". What he did say is that most Muslims are peaceful in their practice of Islam. MAJOR, MAJOR important difference!!! Those are wise words. To frame things any other way would be to incite, inflame and escalate terrorist activity, and gain them sympathy from other (so far *peaceful*) Muslims. NOT SMART -- STUPID, in fact.]
Stephie said to Pat Robertson, "It sounds as if you are saying that it [Islam] is evil at it's core."
Robertson replied, "I didn't say it is evil at its core, I said it is violent at its core. Bush is very smart not to set this up as a holy war, even though his words have caused confusion among many Christians. But they [his words] are politically smart because he's dealing with geo-political realities. His use of the terms is artful, but his base (Christians) know better."
Stephie said, "But his words have caused consternation among many in his base, so what do you think the consequences of that will be?"
Robertson said, "No consequences among his base because we all love him. We know that Bush doesn't want to make this a Muslim/Christian fight. And we know that the terrorists have always tried to make it that."
She has had her face lifted and her husband has too (his viagara add makes them fair game..they are pathetic IMO..and I am allowed my opinion)..Is the only truth around here allowed to be about Democrats??
What does the Bible say about liars?
When the Nazis came knocking on their door to ask if the family had seen these Jews. They lied and said, "no".
In #177 - you asked: "What does the Bible say about liars?"
I don't know. What does the Bible say about liars?
The controversy surfaced again among Reformed Baptists in the 1970s, at the time when the Reconstruction Theonomists were having an ugly influence within the Reformed movement.
The Baptist answer which emerged is that we are not under codified law and that we are to be governed by the Spirit who has in-lawed us to Christ. In short, we must act out of love. And it would certainly appear that prevaricating to save someone's life is appropriate. As Paul would say in his anti-legalistic Book of Galatians, "Against such things there is no law."
The case of Rahab is interesting in that she is in the Hall of Fame of Faith despite the fact that about the only thing which she ever DID in the OT record was to lie to her fellow countrymen to protect the people of God.
Spurgeon thinks she shouldn't have done this. But I think Spurgeon was reading too much of the Puritans' cut-and-dried legal theology. (It was one his biggest mistakes, IMO. His worst was probably premillenialism.)
The fact is, Rahab was not even under the Law Code of Sinai. She was a Gentile. Of course, she knew by Adamic instinct that lying for personal advantage or for the purpose of cruelly harming another person is evil. But she saw nothing whatsoever wrong in protecting the people of God. In fact, I suspect that she would have seen everything wrong with not doing so.
(The notion that she should have just trusted the Lord to take care of the men of Israel apart from her strategic deception is tantamount to saying she should have suffered them to be killed. To "trust the Lord" to take care of them, under the circumstances, would have been to tempt God, in my opinion. The test of her faith, IMO, is largely one of whether she understood that. In other words, she had to commit to the people of Jehovah, and her commitment, interestingly enough, was the dangerous and therefore selfless prevarication itself. I maintain that if she had refused, she would have wound up in hell forever estranged from the commonwealth of Israel and forever estranged from the God of Israel.
In short, I think Spurgeon is just ignoring the point of Rahab's valor as cited in the Book of Hebrews. I think that this is is an odd case of Spurgeon violating the Book of Hebrews. [And I think that the Puritans violated the Book of Hebrews more than most Reformed folks like to admit.])
Is God sovereign or do you only pay lip service to that ? Did God have a plan or not? Was it necessary to break Gods commandments to carry out HIS plan?
I don't know. What does the Bible say about liars?
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8 (KJV)
Is there a situation ethics clause I have missed in the Bible?
Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
That is what the word of God says..Sovereign or not MPI?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.