yea I know Rome was home to freedom of thought and religious freedom
People were just dying to get in
Posted on 02/12/2003 8:35:27 PM PST by rwfromkansas
In the spring of 1999, as George W. Bush was about to announce his run for President, he agreed to be interviewed about his religious faith -- grudgingly. "I want people to judge me on my deeds, not how I try to define myself as a religious person of words."
It's hard to believe that's the same George W. Bush as now. Since taking office -- and especially in the last weeks -- Bush's personal faith has turned highly public, arguably more so than any modern president. What's important is not that Bush is talking about God but that he's talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush's theology – from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to affect Bush's approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency.
On Thursday (Feb.6) at the National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence. ... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."
Calvin, whose ideas are critical to contemporary evangelical thought, focused on the idea of a powerful God who governs "the vast machinery of the whole world."
Bush has made several statements indicating he believes God is involved in world events and that he and America have a divinely guided mission:
-- After Bush's Sept. 20, 2001, speech to Congress, Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson called the president and said: "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought -- God wanted you there." "He wants us all here, Gerson," the president responded.
In that speech, Bush said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." The implication: God will intervene on the world stage, mediating between good and evil.
At the prayer breakfast, during which he talked about God's impact on history, he also said, he felt "the presence of the Almighty" while comforting the families of the shuttle astronauts during the Houston memorial service on Feb. 4.
-- In his State of the Union address last month, Bush said the nation puts its confidence in the loving God "behind all of life, and all of history" and that "we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. May He guide us now."
In addition to these public statements indicating a divine intervention in world events, there is evidence Bush believes his election as president was a result of God's acts.
A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported, "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment.
"All sorts of warning signals ought to go off when a sense of personal chosenness and calling gets translated into a sense of calling and mission for a nation," says Robin Lovin, a United Methodist ethicist and professor of religion and political thought at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Lovin says what the president seems to be lacking is theological humility and an awareness of moral ambiguity.
Richard Land, a top Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the White House, argues that Bush's sense of divine oversight is part of why he has become such a good wartime leader. He brings a moral clarity and self-confidence that inspires Americans and scares enemies. "We don't inhabit that relativist universe (of European leaders)," Land says. "We really believe some things are good and some things bad."
It's even possible that Bush's belief in America's moral rightness makes the country's military threats seem more genuine because the world thinks Bush is "on a mission."
Presidents have always used Scripture in their speeches as a source of poetry and morality, according to Michael Waldman, President Clinton's chief speechwriter, author of "POTUS Speaks" and now a visiting professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Lincoln, he says, was the first president to use the Bible extensively in his speeches, but one of the main reasons was that his audience knew the Bible -- Lincoln was using what was then common language. Theodore Roosevelt, in his 1912 speech to the Progressive Party, closed with these words: "We stand at the edge of Armageddon." Carter, Reagan and Clinton all used Scripture, but Waldman says their use was more as a "grace note."
Bush is different, because he uses theology as the guts of his argument. "That's very unusual in the long sweep of American history," Waldman says.
Bush has clearly seen a divine aspect to his presidency since before he ran. Many Americans know the president had a religious conversion at age 39, when he, as he describes it, "came to the Lord" after a weekend of talks with the Rev. Billy Graham. Within a year, he gave up drinking and joined a men's Bible study group at First United Methodist Church in Midland, Texas. From that point on, he has often said, his Christian faith has grown.
Less well known is that, in 1995, soon after he was elected Texas governor, Bush sent a memo to his staff, asking them to stop by his office to look at a painting entitled "A Charge to Keep" by W.H.D. Koerner, lent to him by Joe O'Neill, a friend from Midland. The painting is based on the Charles Wesley hymn of the same name, and Bush told his staff he especially liked the second verse: "To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill; O may it all my powers engage to do my Master's will." Bush said those words represented their mission. "What adds complete life to the painting for me is the message of Charles Wesley that we serve One greater than ourselves."
By 1999, Bush was saying he believed in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." He talked of being inspired to run for president by a sermon delivered by the Rev. Mark Craig, pastor of Bush's Dallas congregation, Highland Park United Methodist Church.
Craig talked about the reluctance of Moses to become a leader. But, said Mr. Craig, then as now, people were "starved for leadership" -- leaders who sacrifice to do the right thing. Bush said the sermon "spoke directly to my heart and talked about a higher calling." But in 1999, as he prepared to run for president, he was quick to add in an interview: "Elections are determined by human beings."
Richard Land recalls being part of a group of about a dozen people who met after Bush's second inauguration as Texas governor in 1999.
At the time, everyone in Texas was talking about Bush's potential to become the next president. During the meeting, Land says, Bush said, "I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK." Land points out that Bush didn't say that God actually wanted him to be president. He said he believed God wanted him to be president.
During World War II, the American Protestant thinker Reinhold Niebuhr wrote about God's role in political decision-making. He believed every political leader and every political system falls short of absolute justice -- that the Allies didn't represent absolute right and Hitler didn't represent absolute evil because all of us, as humans, stand under the ultimate judgment of God. That doesn't mean politicians can't make judgments based on what they believe is right; it does mean they need to understand that their position isn't absolutely morally clear.
"Sometimes Bush comes close to crossing the line of trying to serve the nation as its religious leader, rather than its political leader," says C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a clergy-led liberal lobbying group.
Certainly, European leaders seem to be bothered by Bush's rhetoric and it possibly does contribute to a sense in Islamic countries that Bush is on an anti-Islamic "crusade."
Radwan Masmoudi, executive director of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, worries about it. "Muslims, all over the world, are very concerned that the war on terrorism is being hijacked by right-wing fundamentalists, and transformed into a war, or at least a conflict, with Islam. President Bush is a man of faith, and that is a positive attribute, but he also needs to learn about and respect the other faiths, including Islam, in order to represent and serve all Americans."
In hindsight, even Bush's inaugural address presaged his emerging theology. He quoted a colonist who wrote to Thomas Jefferson that "We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" Then Bush said: "Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate, but the themes of this day he would know, `our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.'
"We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today; to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.
"This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."
yea I know Rome was home to freedom of thought and religious freedom
People were just dying to get in
I deemed none of our Revolutionary Forebears "irrelevant", as you well know.
That is nothing but a willful FALSEHOOD on your part; a deliberate violation of the Ninth Commandment against a Christian (me), for which you are not even remotely ashamed ~~ let alone penitent.
And why must you fabricate Falsehoods about me, attributing things to me which I did not say and which you know I did not say?
It is so that you may provide yourself with an artificial pseudo-intellectual fig-leaf, a tissue of lies by which you may deny the PLAIN FACT of American Revolutionary History:
I'm not "casually dismissing" the fighting contributions for Independence by any of the other Religionists who participated in the American Revolution.
I am just observing that by comparison to the contributions of the Calvinist Presbyterians (all but one of Washington's colonels at Yorktown and well over half of his soldiery) and their Calvinist allies (probably bringing the total to over 90% of the American soldiery)... *most* of the other "christian" Religionists in America didn't show up to fight for American Republican Freedom at all (and that is nothing but a simple statement of numerical fact).
And if you don't believe that this is the case... why are you so utterly unable to answer my questions?
Why, oh why, do you suppose? Why why why why why?
Were they deceived as to the reality of events, and you are not? Were they confused? Perhaps hitting the hookah pipe a bit too hard?
If you can bring yourself to answer those questions above honestly... but, of course, you can't.
But your willingness to construct ad hominem Falsehoods rather than admit historical Facts, you have shown yourself to be one who loves Lies better than Truths.
So be it... after all, the reason that America is a Free Republic today, is quite precisely because the Nation's Independence was primarily executed as a Calvinist Presbyterian enterprise, prosecuted for the benefit of all other Americans. Even for the benefit of those who prefer Falsehoods to Facts, such as yourself.
No. No. No. Your slander and lies are knit together with the skill of a serpent. There was no wholesale liquidation of Bohemian Protestants. There were wars, battles, and mass immigration. You twist statistics in order to make your accusations appear as something more than pure trash when all that the statistics show is that people died in war and huge numbers of people fled the region. Such misuse of statistics and history is pure propaganda and used to hurl lies against the Church, it is a demonic enterprise.
I am sorry to say, Madam, but "bollocks" is not "crude language", unless you have a moral objection to the language of the Bible. Was this why you objected to my (now-deleted) post -- because your ears were offended by my "coarse" language?
If the Lord Jesus Christ could say to Saul the Persecutor, "Saul, Saul... I am your Lord and your God... why are you behaving as if you want to kick me in the balls?"... then it is fitting enough language for me, as a Protestant Servant of the Lord Christ, to likewise use when it is appropriate.
As a Roman Catholic, you may have a "moral objection" to the language of the Bible, for it is not your Final Authority on matters of Faith and Practice.
But I am a Biblical Christian.
I have No King but Jesus.
And I have no "moral objection" to using the "coarse" language of my Lord and my King when it is appropriate.
You may invent any Pharisaical standard you please. I will be content to understand that there is no higher "moral standard" for Language, than the language of My Christ.
That silly objection put away...
No. No. No. Your slander and lies are knit together with the skill of a serpent. There was no wholesale liquidation of Bohemian Protestants. There were wars, battles, and mass immigration. You twist statistics in order to make your accusations appear as something more than pure trash when all that the statistics show is that people died in war and huge numbers of people fled the region. Such misuse of statistics and history is pure propaganda and used to hurl lies against the Church, it is a demonic enterprise.
There were Wars, Battles, and Massacres (not just "mass immigration").
You say that the factual historical identification of Roman Doctrinal Intolerance (claimed by the 1911 Roman Catholic Encyclopedia as a "moral duty"!) is a "demonic enterprise".
Well, I say to you, the Constantinian Error of Conversion by the Sword at the very heart of Roman Catholicism is a "demonic enterprise".
Even the Pope himself has "apologized" for the greivous sins of the Roman Catholics against their "separated brethren". But Roman Catholic parishioners like yourself are still unable to face the Facts of History.... engaging in the Holocaust Denial language of "mass immigration" ("We're just Relocating the Jews to the East") rather than admitting what actually transpired: MASS MURDER.
And why can Roman Catholic parishioners like yourself, not admit the Historical Facts for which the Pope himself has apologized?
Because you are deeply ashamed of the actual Historical Record of "Roman Intolerance".
Well, then, try to wrap your Mind around this fact of History...
The Pope is Morally Correct to Apologize for the Sins of his "church".
Considering the actual Historical record of "Roman Intolerance", You SHOULD BE ashamed.
Where does one go to find that little addendum?
SORRY?!?! For what are you sorry? I was busy on another Thread. It was "your turn" to return the Serve.
Don't apologize, Steve. It's not a problem.
As I have said before -- as a Five-Point Calvinist, I have no greivous Theological Objection to playing "Doubles Tennis" with a Classical Amyrauldian. (It's just darn hard to find a "classical amyrauldian", True Amyrauldians are as rare as a needle in a haystack)
By contrast, the Roman Catholics say that the Bible is the "Magisterial Center" of their Church Tradition.
Well, it would be hard enough for Protestants if Roman Catholics even knew their own Magisterium, and their own Tradition.... but they don't.
But what is worse, Roman Catholics don't even know the "Magisterial Center" of their own Church Tradition... the God-Breathed Bible.
There is NO excuse whatsoever for a Roman Catholic saying that "Bollocks" represents "coarse language", considering that the Lord Christ Himself used such language to condemn the Persecutions of Saul the Pharisee:
"Saul, Saul... I am your Lord and your God... why are you behaving like you want to kick me in the balls???"
Gosh, I'll bet that the average Roman Catholic DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE that Jesus was specifically employing this allegedly "coarse language" for the specific purpose of accusing the Pharisee Saul, a great LEGALIST as he once was, of a violation of Levitical Law against his own God (Leviticus 21:20, Deuteronomy 23:1).
Roman Catholics like to talk about their "Magisterial Tradition" in regards to the Christian Bible.
The fact of the matter is...
They glory in their Traditions, but I say... My Kingdom! My Kingdom for a Roman Catholic who actually knows the freakin' Patristics!!
And as for a Roman Catholic who knows The Bible... now even for the great Gerry Matatics, I fear that is entirely too much to ask.
Your turn to Serve the ball, my Amyrauldian compatriot.
Goad, Rod, Prick... whatever.
The Hebrew word for testicle is stone, and wood is also a rod, or the male organ. (http://www.kingdomlife.com/kingdom/woodandstone.htm)
The implication is that Jesus was accusing the Persecutor Saul of kicking God in the pricks (or "goads", if you prefer Ancient English for some reason)... a violation of Levitical Law against his own God (Leviticus 21:20, Deuteronomy 23:1)
As such, Siobhan's objection against the language of bollocks, or "kicking against the pricks", just represents a Roman Catholic objection to the language of the Bible.
In short, it is Pharisaical.
As for myself, I'll stick to Biblical Terminology, and will not be ashamed.
The Lord did not mean genitalia here. Prick, when used elsewhere in the KJV does not mean genitalia. The Lord is telling Saul that his actions are futile. He is engaging in an activity that is similar to, and as ignorant as, kicking against a sharp stick.
As such, Siobhan's objection against the language of bollocks, or "kicking against the pricks", just represents a Roman Catholic objection to the language of the Bible.
No, it is an objection to a bizarre interpretation.
In short, it is Pharisaical.
In short, it is personal interpretation.
As for myself, I'll stick to Biblical Terminology, and will not be ashamed.
You don't stick to bible terminology. You created a convoluted maze, just so you could justify an earthy Jesus and your own inappropriate language.
ke/ntron, ou, to/ a sharp, pointed instrument used for piercing to hurt or kill; (1) literally, of insects with a poisonous tip stinger (RV 9.10); figuratively, of death power to hurt (1C 15.55); (2) literally, of prodding instruments goad, spur; proverbially, of a driving or impelling force that is hurtful to resist strong conviction, emotional pain (AC 26.14)
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.