PRESIDENT BUSH’S SPEECH A CHALLENGE TO CHRISTIANS

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

[fish hawk]

You are so wrong, I know there is a God and so does Millions upon Millions of people. Jesus knows there is a God and so does Satan. You will know too someday, probably soon.

[Abe Froman]

LOL

Even if Romans 13 is interpreted as a blanket obligation on subjects to pay their taxes, this makes no moral judgement on the subsequent use of said monies. If those taxes are taken from one class of citizens and given to another then it is theft just as if one citizen stole from another and gave it to his preferred recipient. Moreover, the Constitution (with respect to any welfare, medical, or social security schemes) has not changed since Madison (as President) said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Therefore those taxes are illegal and the first duty of the Christian is to obey the higest law of the land----which, in the United States, is the Constitution, not the arbitrary proclamations of our Washington rulers.

You can also be thankful to the founders that they didn't have the same interpretation of Romans 13 or we would be paying our taxes to Tony Blair right now.

I'm not quite sure what your definition of pre-emption is but I suspect that it's different than mine. My definition is the taking of offensive action to eliminate a possible threat. However this by definition includes every country or person on earth that is physically capable of attacking one, some, or all of the 50 United States or United States-owned territory.

We are not the nation of Israel (a.k.a. God's chosen people) and God is ostensibly not operating in the same manner following Jesus' fulfillment of God's covenant with the Israelites. I have not heard George Bush, or anyone else, claim that God has commanded the United States to Invade Iraq. That He commanded the Israelites to do so in the ancient past is of no consequence to us. Now that He is not giving us direct revelations such as that we must apply an unchanging, Biblical, and objective test to our considerations for use of military action.

[Abe Froman]

As stated in the previous post, even if Romans 13 is interpreted as a blanket commandment to pay our taxes, it invests no moral judgement on the use of that money by government. Insofar as we, ostensibly, ARE the government in the United States (by virtue of our consent to be governed) we are giving that money to ourselves for the lawful and common purposes outlined in the Constitution. Anything else (by the federal government) is illegal and therefore can (and should) be opposed by whatever means neccessary, including withholding of tax money. In addition, implicit in the derivation of power from the consent of the governed is the right to revoke that consent if the conditions warrant it, such as the federal government ignoring and overstepping its Constitutional bounds.

Caesar was a sovereign ruler, not deriving his power from the consent of his subjects but by virtue of his being Caesar, and under no effective law other than that which came from his own mouth.

One of the "hallmarks" of a Christian President is to obey the law----the law being the Constitution that he is sworn to uphold and defend, the document that is intended to ensure rule by declared law rather than by the whim of man (precisely because we don't want a president to rule based upon his own, possibly arbitrary, religious convictions.) Anyone who will argue that President Bush has not broken that oath is deluded (campaign finance, declaring his intention to sign the AWB bill if it comes before him, the Patriot Act, proposal of a myriad of of new unconstitutional programs or enlargement of existing unconstitutional programs, etc...)

[thinktwice]

we must apply an unchanging, Biblical, and objective test to our considerations for use of military action.

That's the dumbest thing I've read today. It's akin to letting chaplains run battlefield operations.

[Jorge]

The gospel of Christ is not metaphysically based in reality, it is based in faith and mysticism.

I hope you can take confidence in this line when you stand before Christ on judgement day.
"Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
We best be prepared to meet Him.

[Jorge]

I don't know if there is a God or not. No one does.

Are you kidding? Do you really think the God who created this world is not going to reveal Himself to mankind? And that there are not men who KNOW God?

God says there is NO EXCUSE for those who say there is no God..that He has made Himself more than evident in His creation.

The Bible tells us "the Fool hath said in his heart, there is no God".

[Jorge]

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.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, and included manuscripts that predated previous oldest copies by 1,000 years.

Fragments of every Old Testament book and some complete manuscripts were found. The careful work of textual comparison found that there was no difference between the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls and those used to write our Old Testament.

One of the most important was a copy of Isaiah. It revealed a document that is essentially the same as the book of Isaiah that appears in our own Bibles, even though these scrolls were copied almost 1,000 years earlier. On the basis of this astounding evidence, we can be assured that the Old Testament text has been accurately preserved, and can be confident that the Bible we hold in our hands was translated from texts that for all practical purposes are the same as the originals.

What has been said of the Old Testament can also be said of the New. New Testament scholars and textual experts have studied with painstaking care the thousands of manuscripts that have been discovered.

They assure us that the texts from which our Bibles were translated are virtually identical to those written by Matthew, Paul, and the other New Testament writers. There are some minor variations, but none of them change the meaning of the passage in which they are found. Most of these differences are variations in spelling, like the British "labour" and the American "labor."

A huge number of manuscripts or fragments of the New Testament have been discovered and compared. *It is by far the most well-attested document of its era.* Consider these comparisons:

For Caesar's Gallic Wars there are 10 manuscripts, the earliest dating to AD 900.

Livy's History of Rome, 20 manuscripts, AD 400 the earliest. Thucydides'History, 8 manuscripts , back to AD 900

Herodotus' History, 8 manuscripts , to AD 900 Compared to;

The New Testament which has 14,000 manuscripts dating back to AD 125.

Two important finds have been made in recent years that have added significant evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament text.

The first, the Rylands Library Papyri, contains a fragment from John 18 that has been dated at AD 125.

The second,the Chester Beatty collection of papyri, contains almost all of the New Testament and dates between AD 200 and AD 275. The meticulous work being done in textual studies of both Testaments by brilliant scholars, most of them non-Christians, has given us every reason to be confident that we know what the original manuscripts said--even though we do not have any of them. True, there are variants, but they are very minor in importance and affect no essential teaching. The protection of the text, both in unity and in preservation, is another reason we can trust the Bible.

[AbsoluteJustice]

You will just never get it. You repeat the same old same old even after I take you point by point then you repeat the same old same old like a broken record. I am not trying to win you over (this is already a lost cause) but when I take you point by point and you stil repeat the same old same old it is futile. Oh well another anti war sheeple lost to the wolves. Some will never see the bigger picture in things.

[thinktwice]

Are you kidding? Do you really think the God who created this world is not going to reveal Himself to mankind?

You can go right on thinking that you were created in the image of God, but please realize that such is wishful and self-serving thought.

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson

[Abe Froman]

That post wasn't directed at unbelievers. It was meant to apply to the conduct of Christians.

And no, it is not akin to that. It is the method by which Christians would determine when to use force. It should be clear to believers that a policy of "pre-emptive" force against a "possible" threat is not something that is justified by the Bible.

[Abe Froman]

The "same old same old" remain the facts. I see that in the absence of any valid argument against them you will start making more assumptions about my character.

You don't know me or my political leanings. That I am against an unjustified "pre-emptive" war does not mean that I am against justified, defensive war or revolutionary war when it is needed. Furthermore I submit that it is you that are the member of the Karl Rove flock of devotees. I am willing to bet that you are only a fan of this war because our president currently has an (R) next to his name.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Ok let me make this simple for you.
-Attempted assasination of an American president.
-14 Resolutions.
-Firing upon Unites States aircraft.
-Non disclosure of WMD.
-9/11 and the changing of the War on Terror to ensure ROGUE NATIONS not in compliance of a cease fire agreement to end the first Gulf War does not sell WMD's
-Documented contacts between Al Queda and Iraq.
-The killing and torturing of hundreds of thousands.

How much more simplistic can I make this argument for you?

[thinktwice]

a policy of "pre-emptive" force against a "possible" threat is not something that is justified by the Bible.

Common sense has, does, and will forever pre-empt dumb passages within the Bible; and pre-emptive strikes against any nation that aids and abets anti-American terrorists makes sense.

You are treading on treason when you support the sheltering of anti-American terrorists.

[Abe Froman]

Yeah that charge will stick.

A "terrorist" who hasn't done any actual terrorizing isn't yet a terrorist. It's not illegal, anywhere, as far as I know, to train a terrorist in any way, unless there are actual crimes involved in the training. It's the terrorism itself that is a crime. Just as we consider it wrong to arrest and jail someone because they *may* commit murder, even if it appears that they are planning and preparing for it, it is immoral to attack another country because someone is inside that country that *may* attack the United States. Rooting out the terrorists themselves? Perhaps that could be justified given the nature of the problem but overthrowing Iraq did exactly nothing to that end.

People in this country used to understand the doctrine of "first do no harm", however apparently we have become so complacent that upon the first incident of trouble we feel as though we have license to run roughshod over the earth with our superior firepower just to get our revenge out of our systems, for someone had the gall to actually attack the United States and dammit someone's going to be punished for it, if not the actual guilty then someone guilty for some other reasons we'll think up.

Perhaps you would like every human being in the world with a disagreement with the United States government coupled with the capability to attack the United States in any conceivable way to be wiped from the earth. Actually, I suspect that deep down you would, though you aren't about to admit it.

[Abe Froman]

What if other nations considered pre-emptive strikes against the United States because they know the United States would pre-emptively strike them if some terrorists decided to set up camp there, and they want to eliminate the possibility? You can logically take this as far as you want. The pre-emption is pre-empted, and so forth and so on. The business of attacking someone in advance for what may or may not happen in the future is a dangerous and logically ridiculous game.

[sweetliberty]

"Those of us who are Christians must never seek a permission slip from the politically correct, the pagans, or the American anti-Christs to defend this nation by proclaiming Jesus Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life.”

Worth repeating.

[thinktwice]

It's not illegal, anywhere, as far as I know, to train a terrorist in any way

It's called conspiracy, and it's illegal.

[thinktwice]

What if other nations considered pre-emptive strikes against the United States

Bring them on ...

[sweetliberty]

"In reality, Christ lived and died, but ... his resurrection is not historical reality, it is a matter of mystical faith."

Evidence for the Resurrection

by Josh McDowell

For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.

A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"

"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?

A QUESTION OF HISTORY

After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.

From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.

LIVING WITNESSES

The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?

Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

---

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

[Abe Froman]

Bring them on ...

Yeah I'll bet you are just chomping at the bit for another reason to start attacking someone else, aren't you. I mean hey, it's fun to watch our bombs fall on those degenerate savages out there, and you aren't risking anything to do it, so why not? Let's show that world who's boss!!