PRESIDENT BUSH’S SPEECH A CHALLENGE TO CHRISTIANS

Moody News ^ | 21 January AD 2004 | The Revd. Dr. Moody Adams

[thinktwice]

If you claim to be perfectly rational, then answer this ...

If God created all that exists in reality, how is it that people can think that God exists in reality?

Did God create God?

[keats5]

Simple. Your premise is faulty. Think about it.

[TexasBlues]

How amusingly circular but of little value. One might also reason that if there is an infinate amount of possible knowledge in this world which the history of learning would suggest then it is also true that there is an infinate amount of things you do not know. God is just one of them.

[The Old Hoosier]

The question makes no sense. You treat "reality" like it's some kind of dimension, rather than simply that which is.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

But it is going to take an energized, massive Christian army to help pass a constitutional amendment that will stop the activist judges trying to re-define marriage.

If GWB can't get 60 votes to get a judge ratified, what are we to make of his calling for control of 67 votes in the Senate, two-thirds of the House, and of 3/4 of the state legislatures? If you can't impeach a judge (and not necessarily a justice of the SCotUS) you can't ratify an amendment.

If you impeach a judge, you don't need an amendment, and if you can't inpeach a judge, what would an amendment do even if you could get it? How, exactly, does passing a law or constitutional amendment stop a lawbreaker from breaking laws?

[Wolfstar]

I'm all for defending our country when it has been attacked. I just can't seem to recall when the Iraqi military, or any agents acting under direction of any Iraqi authority, attacked one of the 50 states or any United States territory. Someone remind me when that took place.<.i>

Abe, while enough information may never be made public to confirm this, I believe the reason the President decided it was imperative to remove Hussein was the anthrax attacks. Any well-informed, fair-minded person has to acknowledge that prior to mid-2003, virtually the entire world believed Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

It is a fact that he used them both on Iranians and on Kurdish Iraqis. It is a fact that UN inspectors found and documented stockpiles before they were thrown out of the country in 1998. It is a fact that he supported terrorists; even paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each. It is a fact that he had proven himself time and time again to be a dangerous, destablizing influence in the Middle East.

Even moreso than the 9/11 hijackings, the anthrax attacks raised the notion that a rogue state might pass such materials on to terrorists from merely the stuff of novels and musty studies to a very real, immediate possibility. The anthrax attacks are still very much a mystery today, over two years later. Did the anthrax come from Iraq? Perhaps we'll never know. Could it have come from Iraq? Yes.

In any case, faced with the actuality of those attacks, no president, no matter his ideology or party, could fail to take measures to at least try to prevent it from happening again. President Bush has said it over and over and over again. He did so again last night. In his judgment, we could not and cannot afford to wait until monsters like Hussein, Kim Il Jong, Osama bin Laden, and others pair up suicidal fanatics with something that can kill millions.

President Bush has also said many times that he believes the first duty of any president is to protect the American people. One of the tactics he decided to employ was to take out Hussein. Remove him as a potential threat and make an example of him at the same time.

Now, fair-minded people who understand and acknowledge all of the above might still disagree with the President's judgment to take out Hussein. Fine. But to demean him (and all Christians) as "clueless," and to pretend that there was no valid reason at all for taking out Hussein, not only marks you as a bigot, but may very well mark you as a pretty dim bulb as well.

[Wolfstar]

Don't respond to Abe he is a sort of hit and run tactician.

See my response to him in post #26. Also, I believe it is worthwhile to respond to such people if it can be done in a reasonable and calm way, avoiding the kind of tit-for-tat nonesense such people like to suck the rest of us into. Why respond? Because it's best not to let such bigotry or stupidity stand unchallenged.

[thinktwice]

The question makes no sense. You treat "reality" like it's some kind of dimension, rather than simply that which is.

If you think "That which is" entails more than that which exists, you have entered the realm of fantasy.

[thinktwice]

How amusingly circular but of little value.

Time will tell.

[thinktwice]

Your premise is faulty.

In what way?

[keats5]

Because God created all that exists, except Himself. Therefore, He didn't create all.

[thinktwice]

Because God created all that exists, except Himself. Therefore, He didn't create all.

You say ... "God created all that exists".

And you also say "He didn't create all."

What you've said is that God doesn't exist in reality.

[keats5]

No I didn't. You deleted part of my statement and represented it as an entire quote.

How rat-like.

[thinktwice]

You deleted part of my statement

I presented exactly what you wrote and then commented on it.

[u-89]

>Sometimes you have to "pre-empt". When Pearl Harbor was bombed we declared war on Germany. At that point we had not been attacked by Germany.

Correction. Germany declared war on the US BEFORE the US declared war on Germany. A pre-emptive strike is what the Japs did to us. They did it because they understood war was inevitable and figured their only chance of success was to deliver a crippling blow right off. Just for the record we considered their Pearl Harbor strike a very low down, dastardly, treacherous act. Our current policy is not pre-emption though, it is more properly called pre-ventative. If we had spotted the Japanese fleet off the Hawaiian coast and hit it before they hit us that is pre-emptively striking a blow before a sure and immanent blow is received. The policy Bush outlined is that we will strike anyone we consider to have the potential to be a threat. Big, big difference.

cordially,

[rj45mis]

God needs no one come to his defence. However, Scripture reveals that "the god of this world (ie satan) has blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them."

You are free to believe as you wish but you will be held accountable some day for your choice in this matter of eternity.

[L,TOWM]

You know, you have a point. I mean, have you actually seen me? Have you heard my voice?

Since I don't exist, I certainly don't need to reply to you, then.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"God needs no one come to his defence. However, Scripture reveals that "the god of this world (ie satan) has blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them."

"You are free to believe as you wish but you will be held accountable some day for your choice in this matter of eternity."

People that always ran around life quoting scripture all day were those I most feared. they typically were the kind that would throw a biblical quote at you everytime they "deemed" you have sinned. These types are rather fanatical and quite scary. Although I DO RESPECT your beliefs. That is your right and I respect it.

But please tell me.....
Who is right and who is wrong?
Believers in
Buddah
Christ
Judaism
Hinduism
Resurrectionists
Realists
Mormons

All will tell you the same line if you do not believe you will suffer this and that, you will burn in hell, hades, christian science melting pot. None can tell me which is right or which is wrong. I may change my mind down the road I may not. Conservatives like myself always espouse base your quotes with FACT. Can one person in here tell with "tangible" evidence they have spoken to "god" and he has said to you "out loud" that he is speaking to you? Or can buddists claim that Buddah has spoken or has been seen?

Why is it that your are so right and any of the afore mentioned beliefs are so wrong?

I find it very hypocritical for those that can actually claim this then offer up no proof other than a "belief" a "book" that has been rewritten 100 times over in different versions and 100 different beliefs.

But like I said before I DO RESPECT your belief and would not stifle or infringe upon it any way.

If it was mandated that school prayer were in effect for my daughter when she reaches of age to attend school I would respect it and if she so chose to partake in it then I would respect it as well it does not infringe upon my rights.

[k2blader]

Sorry, I just don't view our President as a spiritual leader.

[Abe Froman]

I am a conservative Christian, in fact I am employed by the evangelical church I have attended since I was born. I wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions.

Apparently "defense" no longer means defensive, retaliatory military use. It now means wiping out any government we don't get along with that may or may not own weapons we don't like.

Well....we better get started. We've got China, North Korea, and a few dozen more countries to invade and overthrow. Should probably include Russia in that list. They might use one of those thousands of ICBM's that are actually pointed at our cities right now (something Saddam could only envision in his wildest dreams.)

Then again one of our allies *might* become our enemies in the future (Iraq ring a bell??) so we should probably go ahead and take care of them too. Pony up, ridding the world of any disagreement with the U.S. government will take a lot of time and money.