Posted on 08/30/2008 7:09:59 AM PDT by chessplayer
Taking a look at the stories in the Old Media will show that the Media is turning attack dog ASAP on McCain's choice for vice president, Sarah Palin. Notice the main meme is her supposed "inexperience." Funny how Palin was the VP pick for about 15 seconds before the Old Media went after her "inexperience" while they have yet to hit Barry Obama on HIS inexperience at all and he's been running for president since 2004. We should also note that Palin didn't get the honeymoon that Biden got when his announcement was made. But, the worst is yet to come and the Daily Kos is doing its level best to mine the lowest of lows. In a Kos diary today, it is being alleged that Sarah Palin "faked" the pregnancy of her last child, a baby born with Down's Syndrome. The claim is that it was her teenaged daughter's child, not hers. And, true to form, the Kossacks took that absurd calumny and hate even further in the comments.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I lived in Japan for six years and most of the people there (over 98%) are pagans, or more accurately atheists, with some spiritual "feeling." They involve Shinto priests at birth, marriage and burials, as a tradition. Yet the Japanese have a very strong sense of moral code, of the right and wrong.
Again, one must move beyond the "fly over" mentality (and I don't mean that in an offensive way because closed communities exist everywhere) and realize that the whole world is not created according to our myth or legend or mold.
The easiest way to create the world in your image is to never poke your head outside of your window.
But I also feel that your view is inherently flawed because it suggests that any religion is intrinsically better (in a moral sense) then atheism. Can you show me why any religion is better? And if not, who is the supreme arbiter appointed here on earth to say which is?
Apologies for including you in the ping list which I simply copied wihtout editing. My mistake. You requested that I don’t post to you, and I am trying my best to take your name out before I respond. This time I failed. Sorry again.
How convincing! Old Testament holy wars and Paul's interpretation of Christ he never met.
But what did Christ teach? Perhaps if the evangelicals were more focused on the Gospels they wouldn't be calling wars "just" and being ambassadors of Christ would not mean Crusaders. Rather it would mean being like Christ.
It sounds like I’m arguing with Democrat Talking points.
We DID send troops to Afghanistan. First, as a matter of fact. Gen. Franks first overthrew the Taliban government of Afghanistan BEFORE we overthrew the regime of Al Qaeda supporter, Saddam Hussein.
The resolution of Sep 18, 2001 did not require that we be able to prove that anyone had a role in 9/11. It only required that we be able to establish aid/abet/comfort, etc.
The US Congress SEPARATELY added further approval with a specific Iraq approval. That dealt with Iraq’s refusal to abide by the restrictions imposed after the 1st Gulf War.
I am not among those who blindly believe that Iraq was incapable of arming terrorists with small quantity WMDs. It has been established without a doubt that they kept some WMDs, kept precursor chemicals, kept delivery systems, and absolutely kept quick-process recipes for making WMDs.
Osama has been hiding in the mountains of Pakistan/Afghan for years. Our relationship with Pakistan has prevented our invading that region to press hard upon Osama bin Laden.
Incidentally, the US had it correct. It was not the person, Osama, it was the harboring nations. We took out Afghanistan and Iraq, we cowed Libya, and other countries provided access and assurances (to include Saudi) that al-Qaeda’s resources and abilities would be targeted in their own countries.
It has now taken as long to capture Osama in Pakistan as it did to capture Rudolph in my parent’s North Carolina Nantahala-area mountains, an area I know extremely well. They are nothing as remote as those in eastern Afghanistan/Pakistan.
What is wrong with evangelicals? Are they not your fellow believers in Jesus Christ?
What specifically about an evangelical Christian influence bothers you? What is inherent in this influence that is contradictory or antagonistic to the welfare of this nation and the world?
(Please don't spend time replying according to some straw man argument like Larry Craig. Stick to the tenets of a basic Christian faith, founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the New Testament and the fact that Colossians 1 is true, if indeed, you believe it is.)
Amen.
There may be members of Christ's flock among Islamic countries, but He will not leave them there. Eventually their islamic belief will serve to contrast the true God when and if He chooses to reveal Himself to them.
There was no connection between Iraq and the attack on 9/11 that could be established. I am sorry. I wish there were, but even the Administraton had to admit there wasn't (after the fact, of course).
There is a strong link between arming and funding terrorists by Saudi Arabia however, and 90% of those directly involved in the 9/11 murder were Saudi citizens.
At any rate, Iraq didn't do anything Saudi Arabia or other Muslim countries are not doing, which is overt or tacit support for Palestinian intefada and terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, or Taliban; Syria, Iran, or Pakistan being more prominent among them. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq at the time of 9/11.
There were no WMDs in Iraq either. Our intelligence was either a miserable failure or, more likely, cooked. I am sure if there were any WMDs we would have found them by now.
Some of our arguments included computer-generated drawings of "chemical trucks" which were used in the embarrassing UN presentation by Collin Powell that made us a laughting stock of the world. Other "evidence" was a ratio controlled plane with about a 100-inch wingspan described as a "WMD," that only added insult to injury, insult to human intelligence notwithstanding.
This country was founded by deists. Now you declare that "unsettling?" I do think that anyone who declares everything (s)he does as being God's will is unsettling, even dangerous. Because God only knows (no pun intended) what such a person can do next and justify it as "divine" guidance.
Your info is so politically correct, k50, and straight out of Daily Kos and the mainstream media. Al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11 and not Saudi Arabia. It was a terrorist operation and not the act of the Saudi government. I don’t know where people come up with this stuff.
JVeritas, an Arab language expert, has translated a number of the Iraqi documents, and they prove Iraqi ties to WMDs and terrorist organizations, to include Al Qaeda ties. Al Qaeda’s lead man, al Zarqawi was in Iraq before, during, and after the American action in Iraq.
The administration, unable to find stockpiled, bunkered, battlefield quantities of WMDs has downplayed WMDs altogether.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1986706/posts?page=1
see here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2034822/posts
and here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2063313/posts
God has "declared the end from the beginning." It's more than simple knowledge of the future. God is not a soothsayer, reading tea leaves to know whether or not He should bring an umbrella tomorrow.
From the moment of creation, God numbered every hair, named every star, ordained every atom, and determined the course of the planet up to and from Calvary, all by, for and through the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." It's part of His job description.
If at any time God wanted something else to happen, something else would happen. It's God's creation. Life is not spinning out of control along some haphazard trajectory determined by chance. God is in control.
Or else there is no God, Christ was not resurrected from the dead and our hope is in vain.
But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." -- Deuteronomy 7:7-8"The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
Either Colossians 1 is true, or it isn't. Do you believe Colossians 1:16-17?
BTW, while I like Rush Limbaugh, I seldom have a chance to listen to him. No stations carrying his program has a good signal where I’m at out here in rural S. Ohio.
Only two of them were deists. Both were Christian deists. Tom Jefferson translated the bibe, and it was his book of constant reference. Ben Franklin spent his time looking for opportunities to listen to George Whitfield preach.
Some "deists." :>)
As an "absolute foreknowledge" type Arminian, while I am not a (acceptable?) calvinist, I do admit that the doctrines of the Anglicans, Congregationalists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians, of that era were calvinistic. There's no denying it.
|
|
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.
These signers have long inspired deep admiration among both secularists (who appreciate the non-denominational nature of the Declaration) and by traditional religionists (who appreciate the Declaration's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated by the document). Lossing's seminal 1848 collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence echoed widely held sentiments held then and now that there was divine intent or inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Lossing matter-of-factly identified the signers as "instruments of Providence" who have "gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land."
From: B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], pages 7-12:
From no point of view can the Declaration of American Independence, the causes which led to its adoption, and the events which marked its maintenance, be observed without exciting sentiments of profound veneration for the men who were the prominent actors in that remarkable scene in the drama of the world's history...From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1975), pages 27-28:The signing of that instrument was a solemn act, and required great firmness and patriotism in those who committed it... neither firmness nor patriotism was wanting in that august body...
Such were the men unto whose keeping, as instruments of Providence, the destinies of America were for the time intrusted; and it has been well remarked, that men, other than such as these,--an ignorant, untaught mass, like those who have formed the physical elements of other revolutionary movements, without sufficient intellect to guide and control them--could not have conceived, planned, and carried into execution, such a mighty movement, one so fraught with tangible marks of political wisdom, as the American Revolution...
Their bodies now have all returned to their kindred dust in the grave, and their souls have gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land.
Liberally endowed as a whole with courage and sense of purpose, the signers [of the Declaration of Independence] consisted of a distinguished group of individuals. Although heterogeneous in background, education, experience, and accommplishments, at the time of the signing they were practically all men of means and represented an elite cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Everyone one of them of them had achieved prominence in his colony, but only a few enjoyed a national reputation.The signers were those individuals who happened to be Delegates to Congress at the time... The signers possessed many basic similarities. Most were American-born and of Anglo-Saxon origin. The eight foreign-born... were all natives of the British Isles. Except for Charles Carroll, a Roman Catholic, and a few Deists, every one subscribed to Protestantism. For the most part basically political nonextremists, many at first had hesitated at separation let alone rebellion.
|
|
From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138:
Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.
|
|
LOL. Just when I think I've read the most outlandish stuff from you, Kosta, you top yourself.
Not there there's anything wrong with that. 8~)
Can you show me why any religion is better?
Yes, I can show you that Christianity generally produces more peace, tranquility, prosperity, confidence, joy, abundance, magnanimity, good health, clarity, productivity and mental well-being than any other religion on the planet.
The Protestant Christian work ethic reflects the Scriptural mandate that all work is meant to glorify God and therefore work and productivity are to be honored by dedicating their increase to the Lord from whom all blessings flow.
And if not, who is the supreme arbiter appointed here on earth to say which is?
We Bible-believing Christians know that God through His word revealed to us by the Holy Spirit instructs our lives and guides our steps.
The proof, as Christ tells us, is in the good fruit of our labor.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Men either believe this fact, or they don't. It all depends on whom we believe.
What a...
(((c~o~i~n~c~i~d~e~n~c~e)))
“We Bible-believing Christians know that God through His word revealed to us by the Holy Spirit instructs our lives and guides our steps.”
Which belief on your part is a cause of great concern among the overwhelming majority of Christians in this world...especially when its is your purpose to run a super power according to those instructions. Of late the results those instructions haven’t worked out so well for entire Christian communities. Is it that you don’t think Eastern Christians are real Christians? If so, that certainly explains why no one around here, at least no one of the Calvinist/evangelical persuasion, seems to repent of a foreign policy which seems committed to the triumph of Mohammedanism over Christianity from Kosovo to Iran. If it isn’t so, when will the repenting start? Will it start with Palin?
BTW, I think this is a very, very important discussion we are having here. I mean that, gang.
Them dad-blamed evangelicals....
Let’s go string ‘em up....at precisely the same time, of course.
Coincidence.
:>)
Where is Islam triumphing over Christianity? Ethiopia, Kenya....and now I’m at a loss.
I can show you tons of lands that used to be Christian but were lost to Islamic hordes a millenia past.
This is an imperfect world and an imperfect system of government. That does not mean we shouldn't try to govern as consistently and morally as possible in all matters.
But what hope is there if we don't even try? If we give up the fight to the secular world before we've even entered the ring?
The world kills Christians all day long, and no one cares. Isn’t Georgia the latest? Christians in Iraq. I wonder if there’s any left. China, yet the whole world wants to do business with them. Think of that when you go to Wal-Mart. India burns them alive, no one cares. My all time favorite,
Clinton bombing them and of course the Armenian holocaust which is never, ever talked about, and the murders of the Russian Christians and Royal family.
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.