Posted on 12/09/2008 6:32:38 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Glad you enjoyed it. Now here's what I have to say to you:
Those who stand for nothing, will fall for anything.
True, but there’s a difference between “standing for” a principle (refusing to change our opinion on it) and actively fighting for it. There’s more than enough to stand for, so why not focus our energy on issues where we have a chance of accomplishing something?
Maybe in the nuanced thinking of liberals and other crypto-new agers, there is.
It is impossible for you to actively fight for everything you believe in. Does the fact that you have to pick your battles mean you don’t really believe in the things you don’t actively fight for?
I haven’t got a chance to try to verify if that is for sure true or not, so take it for what it is right now — a rumor.
Thanks. And I’ve been admiring the way you’ve taken on some of the local know-it-alls. They have no clue about making reasoned and reasonable presentations of fact. They seem to prefer blustery bloviation and assiduous abusiveness (the Carville school of tact).
Thank you. I am honored. I very much enjoy your posts. They are the deliberations of a serious afficionado of history. In your post to mine, you made at least 15 salient and substantive points to sustain your premise. Keep up the good work.
You said — “First of all, you need to learn some HTML coding, because with your constant ‘You saids’, plus the fact that you appear to love to use 10 words when one will do, you’re gobbling up JimRob’s bandwidth like ‘Rats gobble up federal funding knowing GWB can’t find his damn veto pen.”
Well, first of all, in regards to using HTML, I already know it and have used it in the past, here on Free Republic, but I don’t like it and text takes up less room. Whatever words *are* used — HTML coding will add an invisible layer of extra text (i.e., the “coding”) that the web browser will use to interpret the layout and formatting. I prefer to not use it at all. When I have a choice on e-mail (for example), I’ll always pick the “text” choice for e-mail and avoid the HTML coding. Since this is a “message” on here, it’s much better for the message to be here absent any formatting. I only use “text formatting” which is at a very minimum, compared to HTML, which allows a lot of formatting and other types of layouts. Now, if I wanted to format like crazy, then I would go to HTML coding.
So..., “how” I want to communicate the message is up to me (straight text vs HTML).
BUT, the really ridiculous part of what you said, up above, on HTML coding is that you seem to think that a “text message” takes up too much bandwidth, as compared to what else is normally done on Free Republic.
That sort of reasoning means that all the Freepers should not comment on any thread unless they have something important enough to say (and who is to say what is more important?). There are many threads that go into thousands of comments and we have gotten nowhere near that.
Furthermore, if one (i.e., just *themselves*) was *really concerned* about this bandwidth (that means you...) — THEN — that person would simply *not respond* to any comments. Since you’re responding, then I surmise that this “concern” of yours for “bandwidth” is simply a “ruse”... LOL...
—
As an additional comment here — I’ll make a comparison between a graphic and text for those who may be concerned about *their own bandwidth*. And if you were concerned with bandwidth, then you simply would not choose a thread that had a lot of comments listed (which shows on the abbreviated form on Free Republic).
The comparison I’ll make (for an example) is between a small 10K graphic and the corresponding “text”. The amount of 10K for text would be (roughly) 5 double-spaced pages of text from top to bottom, on an 8-1/2 x 11 piece of paper. Or, if you went single-spaced, it would be about 2.5 pages of text (again *single-spaced*) from top to bottom, on that 8-1/2 x 11 paper.
Now, this is bandwidth that the user will expend for receiving that on Free Republic, because Free Republic only has text and not graphics (the graphics are hosted elsewhere). But, it is still bandwidth for the user who receives it. The comparison was given to show the respective differences between graphics and what difference just *one* graphic makes in comparison to *five pages* of double-spaced text.
Now, as a final comment on my methodology for posting and my own procedures for posting — it’s simple — if you don’t like it, then don’t read it. If you comment on it, then that’s what you get...
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
As you said — “Now, we can get started with your latest verbose missive.” LOL...
—
You said the following below — in answer to this comment of mine —
My comment — “That’s the “fiction” that I’m talking about. No such thing is going to happen. There’s going to be no powder, wet or dry, fired at anyone in the government — except for the *crazies*. Perhaps you are one of them, I don’t know...”
Your comment — “You would classify our Founding Fathers as ‘crazies’ then, because they dared to resist with force, a tyrannical regime hellbound and determined to oppress the colonists (in their day, that regime was based in London).”
—
Well, you’ll notice that I didn’t call the founding fathers “crazies”. You’re the one who is trying to “stretch it” to include them in that statement.
I said *you* are the “crazy” one — if — you think that we are going to, in this present time, engage in armed revolution. *That* is the “crazy” idea and the crazy person is the one who thinks that is going to happen.
I already said that the founding fathers depended upon the power of our Creator God, the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in order to *establish* and then *maintain* this country of the United States of America. And in that light and in that understanding, they had established a *righteous cause* for doing what they did. That’s not the definition of “crazies”...
You and your idea of creating an *armed revolution* against our government — is — the definition of “the crazies”....
It’s the founding fathers who gave us *this system* within which we are supposed to work and — therefore — not have to resort to armed revolution, because we have the tools they gave us to resort to elected representatives and change what needed to be changed when it needed to be. We work through the system now.
The thing that you are forgetting, here, is that *if* the “people” are not of a mind to adhere to the same principles as the founding fathers adhered to, including keeping God in our country and government and schools — then — no armed revolution is going to “beat back the people” themselves. You would, basically, be fighting back and then “oppressing” the people, themselves, who brought in the type of government you don’t like.
The *key* is in “changing the hearts and minds” of the people — and that only happens through God, Himself and through the Savior, Jesus Christ. Otherwise, the “people” will get exactly what they deserve — which is, in this case — Obama and his government. And that turns out to be a “judgement” for what the people have chosen. You’re not going to undo God’s judgement, unless the people, themselves (as a nation) repents of what they’ve done in chasing God out of their lives and the government and the schools...
If anyone engaged in an armed revolution with the mass of the people preferring the Obama government (and very few desiring an armed revolution *at all*) — then all you could do would be to create a *dictatorship* of those with guns — over and against those who chose Obama through the electoral process that the founding fathers gave to us.
You would simply be condoning an “armed revolution” for the sake of setting up a dictatorship in the name of those who carried the guns, oppressing the mass of the other people — and nothing more than that. You would *no longer* have *any legitimacy* with the principles of the founding fathers — or — the “righteous cause” from God. You would create nothing less than a tin-pot dictatorship, a third-world country type of politics...
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
I said, in the last post — “As far as the movie that you refer to with Charleton Heston in it..., well, I wouldn’t use his name — but rather Moses and I would take the Bible exactly at its word and know that God did that very thing. Now..., if you think that’s fiction (instead of the stuff you wrote up above) then you’re just like Obama in his denigrating the Bible and those who believe exactly what God said He did...”
And then you replied — “Don’t be putting words in my mouth or reading things into my posts that aren’t there. The fact is, what Charlton Heston portrayed in his role of Moses in one of the best movies of all time was NOT an exact portrayal of events, it was a DRAMATIZATION of Biblical events. Did Moses split the Red Sea? Of course he did. Did Moses look like Charlton Heston, and did Pharaoh Rameses II actually look like Yul Brynner? Here’s your clue Sparky, “probably not”. The fact is, NOBODY living today was around in that day to know exactly how the events played out EXCEPT for what is described in the Bible, and the Bible (accurate as it is) simply does not provide the microscopic details that you (or anyone) may wish to impart to it.”
You’ve completely lost your original train of thought. You’ll have to remember that *you* were the one who brought up Charleton Heston (not me). And *you* were the one who brought up the idea of the “dramatization” in the movie you’re referring to (not me).
And my response was to dismiss Charleton Heston as not relevant and dismiss the movie as not relevant — and point to the Bible and to Moses as the relevant point, in response to your original comments.
However, you seem to be *stuck* on some connection (apparently in your mind only) of this movie to something or other — that no one else can figure out, since I never mentioned Charleton Heston and I never mentioned that movie. You did.
Then, you start making all sorts of “counter-points” to things that were never brought up or said. You seem to be making an argument out of thin air — to someone that doesn’t exist. Are you sure that you’re talking to me... LOL...
NOW..., in regards to the *details* contained in this particular passage — since you brought it up, I’ll oblige for some of those details just to show you that exact details are known as to the “parting” of the sea (again, since you brought this issue up, for what reason, I have no idea....).
Here is what it says...
Exodus 14:15-31
15 And the Lord said to Moses, “Why do you cry to Me? Tell the children of Israel to go forward.
16 But lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it. And the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
17 And I indeed will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen.
18 Then the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gained honor for Myself over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen.”
19 And the Angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood behind them.
20 So it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel. Thus it was a cloud and darkness to the one, and it gave light by night to the other, so that the one did not come near the other all that night.
21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided.
22 So the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.
23 And the Egyptians pursued and went after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.
24 Now it came to pass, in the morning watch, that the Lord looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud, and He troubled the army of the Egyptians.
25 And He took off their chariot wheels, so that they drove them with difficulty; and the Egyptians said, “Let us flee from the face of Israel, for the Lord fights for them against the Egyptians.”
26 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the waters may come back upon the Egyptians, on their chariots, and on their horsemen.”
27 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and when the morning appeared, the sea returned to its full depth, while the Egyptians were fleeing into it. So the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
28 Then the waters returned and covered the chariots, the horsemen, and all the army of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them. Not so much as one of them remained.
29 But the children of Israel had walked on dry land in the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.
30 So the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore.
31 Thus Israel saw the great work which the Lord had done in Egypt; so the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and His servant Moses.
There you have it — all the *details* that one needs that God gave to us, to understand exactly what happened, according to His will.
Note — “29 But the children of Israel had walked on dry land in the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.”
That’s a very vivid picture...
—
Now, since there are non-Christians and even Christians who seem to want to play “loose” with what the Bible says, I’ll also include something I just included in another post, concerning what Evangelicals (of this day and age) confirmed about the Inerrancy of the Bible — in the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”...
Part of the statement from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy ...
[from http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html ]
A Short Statement
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
—
Articles of Affirmation and Denial
Article I.
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.
—
Article II.
WE AFFIRM that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.
WE DENY that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
Article III.
WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.
—
Article IV.
WE AFFIRM that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
WE DENY that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.
—
Article V.
WE AFFIRM that God’s revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive.
WE DENY that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.
—
Article VI.
WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
WE DENY that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.
—
Article VII.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.
—
Article VIII.
WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
—
Article IX.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.
—
Article X.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
—
Article XI.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.
—
Article XII.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
—
Article XIII.
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
—
Article XIV.
WE AFFIRM the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
WE DENY that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.
—
Article XV.
WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.
WE DENY that Jesus’ teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.
—
Article XVI.
WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.
WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.
—
Article XVII.
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word.
WE DENY that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.
—
Article XVIII.
WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
—
Article XIX.
WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.
And also, you will find a follow-up section on Hermeneutics, which is also somethig that people will often fail to understand and apply properly. If one understands these, then they will understand and know exactly what the Bible, the Word of God is saying...
That follow-up section is at — http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
—
So, you’ll notice that I gave the references from the Bible, not from a movie. You were using the movie as some kind of example, which I never used for anything of the Bible. So, you appear to be bringing in something just for the sake of making up something to argue against.... LOL...
But, since I did bring in the Biblical references (in regards to the topic that you brought up), I also included what the church throughout the ages has understood and what Evangelicals of this age have found *necessary* to respond to — because of the huge lack of understanding on the issue of Biblical Inerrancy on behalf of many people today. That was the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which forms the understanding of how the Bible refers to itself and how the Word of God is to be understood.
AND..., since this is not the only area of misunderstanding, when it comes to reading the Bible, I’ve also referenced their “Hermeneutics” follow-up, again, which has been found to be necessary, on behalf of those who are Bible-believing Christians and explaining how the Bible is understood.
Otherwise, short of those “understandings” of what the Bible is, as the Word of God, it simply gets twisted by those who refuse to accept it as the Word of God.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Continuing...
I said — “The Constitution is not being adhered to, but it’s not been shredded at this point in time. I don’t think it will be, either.”
You asked — “And what do you base that naive belief on?”
It’s the analogy you picked and used. You said “shred”. When you shred a piece of paper, it’s no longer usable, as it’s in little pieces and is no longer viable as it originally was.
However, if you take a piece of paper and “file it” and put it away but don’t refer to it — it’s still there and, at a future time, someone can refer to it and actually *use it*....
So, in regards to your reference to “shredding the Constitution” — no, it’s still there, and in *some parts* — it may not be used in the manner that it was intended, originally. I think people would agree to that.
BUT, it’s *still* being *referenced* as a founding document and it’s still being revered in our nation as a document to be continually used as that very important document for our nation — even by the “other side”. They have not “shredded it” and they still reference it.
It has not come to a time when it is “shredded” and thus — no longer even being referenced, not used in courts, not used in the Supreme Court, not used (even) in the phrase “un-Constitutional”. You see..., it’s still being used, although some people would say not being “interpreted” correctly. It’s not shredded.
I don’t see *any move* to “shred the Constitution” — but only to interpret it differently than what the foundaing fathers may have intended. BUT, if that is so, for the time being — it’s also possible to interpret it the correct way at a future time, because it has not been “shredded” as that founding document to be used in this country.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Next...
I said — “And yes, prayer is one of the *main* answers to what is going on, and that pertains to Christians, very specifically. And then, what Christians need to do is to tell more about the saving grace of Jesus Christ, so that we can have more Christians in this society, in order to vote in a moral government (and officials) that will adhere to the Word of God and also carry that over to the Constitution.”
You said — “Great idea, I heartily endorse it. Now if you’ll just step this way to the Time Tunnel, we’ll just travel back to about 1960 or so, and see if we can undo all of this godless atheism, secular humanism, and all of the other poisons that have been injected into what was once a Christian-based society. Here is the sad reality that you better wake up and face: our United States is no longer a Christian nation, and while I am a firm believer in the words contained in 2nd Chronicles 7:14, I have seen less and less of God’s people ‘humbling themselves’, let alone ‘seeking God’s Face’, and there has been NO ‘turning from our wicked ways’, all you have to do is pick up a newspaper and you ought to be able to see that. The die is cast, and while Spiritually commendable, what you are suggesting is unfortunately too little, and too late.”
—
That’s what I’ve been talking about all along. I guess you didn’t pick up on that... LOL...
Did you miss that I said that this society needed to repent... :-) I guess so.
Did you miss that I said that Obama is probably the beginning of the judgement of God on this nation... :-) I guess so.
As far as what you said, that prayer and spreading the Gospel and saving more people in Christ’s name — is “too little, and too late” — well, sorry, I don’t agree, because the Bible doesn’t agree that it’s too little and too late. This will go on — all the way through the time until Christ comes again, and that’s exactly what Christians are to be doing. *That* is at a *higher priority* than even anything to do with the government of our country.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And...
I said — “Short of getting more Christians in this society, at this rate the Christians are going to be losing ground, no matter what. And that may very well be the “sign of the times” in that God did say that Satan would prevail over the ones who were saved, as that was what Satan was granted for that period of time when he takes over this world, just before Jesus Christ returns again to set up His Kingdom on this earth, and rule over the nations of the world (the ones that we have in existence right now).”
You said — “We as Christians are the minority and that’s not going to change prior to the Second Coming. Nice to see you acknowledging the reality of the situation, it’s refreshing.”
—
You must not have been reading any or my prior posts, then, or you would have seen the same stuff from me, all along. LOL...
AND..., you’ll notice that I have a “qualifier” in there — in that statement. I said — “at this rate”...
Now..., that’s the big “qualifier” — isn’t it. And you know..., if the remnant of God’s own does act in the righteousness of God to get this nation to repent — then — it won’t be (any longer) — “at this rate”. No..., it will be like Jonah going to Ninevah and the whole city repented and God extended His mercy and put off His judgement.
You missed that part....
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then...
I said — “So, it’s either we get more Christians in this society and we turn back to God, as a result of that — or else — we’re going to continue to lose ground and we’re going to be continually losing these battles — but then again — if that’s the case, then that means it’s close the time that Jesus Christ comes again and that’s what must happen.”
And you said — “As Hank Williams Sr said in his famous song, you “saw the Light”, it’s going to happen and sooner than anyone thinks.”
—
Judgement is coming, as God makes that clear. The question is, how soon is it coming and will this nation repent, so God will give it more time? There’s the big question and that one is unresolved at this present time. That remains to be seen.
And as a corollary to that question, “Will the church *fail* in its duty in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ and offering salvation on His behalf to everyone?” If they do, then judgement will come sooner. If they carry it out faithfully (like Jonah), then God will spare us for a time, before the coming final judgement of the world.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And...
I said — “You’re not going to have the United States “turn around” from its continual abandonment of God in the public sphere and demanding that Christians stay out of public life and politics — unless we (as a country) have that repentance that God has always demanded of nations in order to spare them the coming judgement that God brings when people abandon Him and turn to evil.”
You responded — “Do you see any signs that America is “turning around”?
Nope, I don’t either.”
—
I didn’t say. I did say that if it continued “at this rate” then you could consider Obama to be the judgement of God on this nation.
However, the example of Jonah is that repentance comes in an instant and change happens overnight, as it did with the people of Ninevah. Judgement was postponed and the people received a reprieve.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Continuing...
I said — “No amount of court cases or political maneuvering is going to make up for what is need in the heart — namely someone that is saved by the grace of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Anything else that is tried to “make up” for the country “going to hell” is simply not going to work, unless people (as a society) turn back to God. That’s what it’s going to take, primarily.”
And you followed with — “So using your logic, nobody should do anything except pray, is that right? Berg, Donofrio, et al, they’re all wasting their time. We should just roll over and let the Obamunists do as they will, because it “is simply not going to work”. Hey, at least nobody can call you a quitter, because you’re not even willing to TRY.”
You have missed the biggest thing of all. I’ll restate it for you and perhaps you’ll get it.
You can do all the things you want, absent God in this nation, and it will all fail. You can do just a few things “with God” and it will succeed.
BUT, the qualifier to that, is that there is coming a time, when God’s judgement will be handed down to this nation. The only question is whether it is sooner or later. That’s up to the people of this nation and whether they repent.
It’s *all* in whether you do it “with God” (as a nation) or “without God” — and not in the things that you do...
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And...
I said — “It’s not preaching to the choir when I see many on Free Republic who have told me that Christianity doesn’t belong in politics and that it’s this kind of idea that is causing harm to the Republicans.”
You replied — “Those are just RINOs, trolls and know-nothings. You state your position, preach the Gospel, tell them they need Jesus, and move along. If they reject it, it’s on them, not you.”
—
Yes, I know that they’re there... I don’t know, at first who is who, though, but I do find out pretty quickly.
The key is for people to know that God is an absolute reality, apart from whether anyone believes in Him or not. God is not affirmed or made valid by someone’s belief. Regardless of whether they believe or not — the reality of God — *in Himself* — will make Himself known to each and every person — in the judgement.
In the meantime, God has made himself known through His creation (general revelatoin) and through His Word, the Bible (specific revelation). So (as the Bible says...) they are without excuse.
That’s what a lot of people better know, real quickly, before their time of judgement comes.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then...
I said — “The way things are going and from what I see inside the conservative movement in many of them wanting to abandon the very *basis* for conservatism (which from my perspective is *Christianity*) — things are not going well in this country...”
You replied — “Welllll imagine that? And beyond just praying about it, what are you willing to do about it? Talk is cheap. Don’t ask what I’m doing about it, I won’t talk about it and it has nothing to do with FR posting guidelines, in fact what I had to do, I’ve already done. I’m prepared and continuing to prepare, and *yes* that includes prayer. Read into that whatever you wish.”
—
My position is that you can’t change the “externals” (which would mean the politics and the governing of this nation) unless you change the “internals” (which means one must be saved by personal faith in Jesus Christ). So, by that position, it must all come back to that saving faith, or else, all the other stuff is “spinning your wheels” and getting nowhere (which is what is happening).
So, it’s “first things first” and then the rest will take care of itself.
I reference Romans 10:11-15
11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
We’re all called upon, as Christians to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to others. That’s the only, last and final answer...
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Getting close to the end... (LOL...)
You said earlier — “I’m all for beseeching the Almighty to have mercy on our Nation (not that I can think of many reasons why He ought to at this point), and I pray for my Country every damn day and night, because I witnessed first hand what happened when our illustrious courts evicted God from America’s classrooms, and -what- filled that vacuum and the resulting flood of licentiousness, wickedness, situational ‘ethics’, narcotics-for-all and amorality-as-it-fits.
What you appear to be saying is that Americans should just sit patiently, keep praying, don’t do anything rash, don’t let anyone provoke us to violence, and “everything will be alright”.”
I replied — “WELL..., in answer to that, the Christian should do their duty, as a citizen, in any case. That’s not taking up arms for an armed revolution, though. That’s not called for here. That wouldn’t be a righteous war as it was for the Revolutionary War.”
You then responded — “The arms are already out there, courtesy of the Second Amendment, which is the last bulwark of defense for our Republic. If the new regime shows it’s true colors and begins to oppress We The People of the United States, it will be the new tyranny that will provoke and initiate hostilities. And our individual and collective defense against such oppression will most certainly be justified, and it will be Righteous.
Then me — “That’s not what God is calling us to, right here and now.”
And you — “You don’t know that.”
—
Does anyone “know” anything — or do they use their best judgement for things of the future. We are talking about the *future* — of course.
I say that — because — right now — I *do know* — that it’s not a righteous cause to bring about an *armed revolution*. That’s right now, as it pertains to the election of Obama and his coming inauguration.
Now, as to whether it’s a righteous cause in some “hypothetical future event” that someone is “posing” that will happen — is simply a “fictional exercise of speculation”.
You say it will happen and I say it won’t happen (in the future). I don’t think your “guess” for the future is any better than mine... LOL..
Right now, with the coming Obama Administration — the answer is *no* — it’s not a righteous cause. And furthermore, we’re probably going to regain more political power in the future, which will make “armed revolution” — even *less likely* than the crazy idea it is at the present.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then...
I said — “And also, the Christian should do his duty to God, in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in the hopes that enough of the people in the nation will “turn from their wicked ways” and recognize God, once again, as the founding fathers did, in their work in forming this nation.”
To which you replied — “I say ‘Praise the Lord, and Pass the Ammunition’.”
—
There’s no ammunition to pass (in reference to an armed revolution) — if there is not a righteous cause for that armed revolution. And that’s not the case, because we have all the tools that the founding fathers gave us for governing this nation.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Getting close... :-)
I said — “Short of that happening — we’re all sunk and the time for Jesus Christ to come back is sooner than we thought...”
And you — “Once again, take a look around. I suggest Daniel 5:28, read that over and see what it suggests to you.”
—
This is interesting to respond to, in ways you probably didn’t think of. First of all, we’re talking about a specific historical event, in that God judged that nation. Daniel was there and was in a high position of the government in both cases — before and after (in two different kingdoms).
Now, if we wanted to derive an “application” from this specific “historical event” and apply it to the present time — in our nation, it might not be exactly what you think, at first.
Note that Daniel could be the “application” of those who are “God’s own” during that time. Daniel peacefully submitted to that government (the first kingdom in which he was a captive) and become a trusted high official in that government.
And when God brought *judgement* upon that nation (kingdom), Daniel — also — became an important and high official in that *conquering kingdom* (the second kingdom, which was *different* from the first one).
So, if the U.S. is overcome and conquered by some powers — as a result of God’s judgement upon this nation — then (and “by example” in Daniel and by Daniel’s own actions) those who are God’s own people should participate in that conquering government and be that same kind of trusted and high official in that conquering government (who conquers the United States).
Note that Daniel did not say to fight the incoming conquerers — but rather Daniel *gave the message* that what was coming was the *judgement of God* and that was what was going to happen. And when it did happen, Daniel participated peacefully and agreeably in that conquering government.
Is *this* the application that you had in mind??
—
Having said that, I do not think that the U.S. is going to face being conquered, as in that example in Daniel, because — for one thing, God has judged various nations in various different ways, in the past. So, it might be difficult to make a determination of what that judgement is going to be. You can be assured of judgement and I can be fairly well assured that judgement is happening now (as a process...) — but it’s difficult to tell exactly how it’s going to be applied in the future, because the U.S. is not *specifically* mentioned in the Bible, although there does appear to be some general reference to it, just in passing.
I believe that the U.S. and its people will face severe judgement that will bring the nation close to collapse and close to be taken over by outside forces — but — that it will prevail at the very end (but not before much suffering and destruction takes place). And it will *only prevail* because God’s extends His mercy at that time..., only for that reason...
And then, will come the time of the end, and the coming of Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and He will assumed the rule and control over all the nations of the world, ruling and reigning from Jerusalem, in His full presence on this earth for everyone to see. This rule and reign will, of course, include the United States.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Just about there...
You said earlier — “If that advice had been taken in 1776, Prime Minister 0bama would be preparing his Throne Speech for the Queen to deliver next month. And Sam Adams would be laughing at you.”
Then, I replied — “You first follow your duty as a Christian, and then what is needed by your country. If it’s a righteous war, then follow as God leads. And that’s what the founding fathers did, along with the others who fought with them.”
And then you responded — “So far, so good. You’re getting it.”
—
Notice the “if” — LOL...
It’s the same thing that I’ve said all along. Nothing has changed. The “if” condition is not here and while we have the tools that the founding fathers gave us, an armed revolution is not a righteous cause. And nothing that has been talked about, with everything that Obama says that he is going to do — is anything that can make a “righteous cause” for an armed revolution — even if he passes all the liberal policies he wants. That’s not jusitification for such a revolution. That’s only cause to work politically more diligently to do what the founding fathers wanted us to do — which is work through the system that they gave us.
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
I said — “We’re not in a situation in which God would sanction a righteous war in this instance. We have the mechanisms that were put into place at the founding of our country and from what has followed since then — to follow through with. We have not exhausted all that — and I don’t think we will ever reach that point where we will consider all that exhausted and have to resort to an armed revolution against our own country (i.e., the government). We may have to fight wars with other enemies (of a shooting kind) but not with our own government...”
And then you said — “Again, you have no way of knowing that. You’re assigning your fondest hopes and aspirations the legitimacy of being established as proven fact, and they are not facts, they are nothing but wishes, and as the saying goes “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride”.”
—
The “facts” are that we have nothing that merits an armed revolution even if Obama passes all sorts of liberal policies for the government. All that means is that we get a President in there later, with a Congress that the people vote in there — that will undo what was done before — just like we’ve done all along in this government that we’ve had.
There has been nothing that has ever been stated or that indicates that the government is going to be changed from what the founding fathers put into place. We’ll still have Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, the vote of the people, the Electoral College and all the mechanisms that have been there all along. It’s only the “policies” that are going to be put into place that you don’t like. The “mechanisms” of government will *still* be in place.
Those are the *facts* and nothing has indicated *anything different*... AND..., as such, there is no righteous cause for an armed revolution.
==== ===== ===== ===== =====
And finally ... LOL...
I said — “The fact is, Americans aren’t going to have to resort to an ‘armed revolution’, they’re going to have it forced upon them by a Communistic regime that is now controlling the levers of what used to be a government ‘of the People, by the People, and for the People’.”
And you replied — “You just haven’t seen it yet. Mark my words, you will.”
—
And that is speculation. As I said, all the mechanisms of government that our founding fathers put into place are still there — and — in addition, there is nothing that indicates that our form of government is going to be changed. There are only indications that policies (which are put into place *by* that “form of government”) are going to change. And, as such, that is *not* a righteous cause for armed revolution....
And that’s about it...
:-)
Typical no guts, RINO-thought.
If you're not willing to fight for the very construct that is the bedrock foundation of our free republic, then what will you fight for?
Do you oppose genocide in Darfur? Really--what are you doing about it? What could be more important than preventing genocide?
Do you oppose sex trafficing in Thailand? What are you doing to stop it? Surely this is one of the most heinous things happening in the world today.
Do you oppose land confiscation in Zimbabwe? Are you doing anything about it? Seems like a pretty serious problem, given that it's leading to the starvation of millions, no?
I agree that these things are horrible, but I'm not really in a position to do much about them (and marching around in "awareness" campaigns does not count as accomplishing something) so I'm focusing on other battles. Does that mean that I don't really care about care about genocide or sex trafficing? Does the fact that you aren't doing much about them (correct me if I'm wrong) mean you don't really care about those issues?
There are lots of problems in this world. How do you choose which ones are worth your time? Am I required to choose the same ones or be a "no guts RINO"?
You missed my point. The Constitution is not a technicality, but Obama fails to meet “natural born citizen” status, if he does fail, by a technicality of the statutory law of the 1950s that was in force when he was born.
The Constitution says you have to be a natural born citizen but what defines “natural born citizen” has varied from time to time and was defined by laws subsequent to the Constitution.
If Obama was born in Kenya, then the only reason he is not a natural born citizen is that his mother was 1 year short of the requisite number of years of residence over the age of 18. Since she was short not because she was an immigrant but because she was young, POLITICALLY SPEAKING, to disqualify him on that basis is a technicality.
I respect the Constitution as much as you do. I also understand politics. Obama’s shortcoming is 1 year based on 1950s law. The vast majority of Americans understandably would see that as a technicality. If you can’t begin to understand how the rest of the country thinks and feels, you can’t possible persuade them of anything you care deeply about.
Fer gawdsakes man, do you think I’m going to wade through all that pontificating? My hands are aching just considering how much typing you have invested in something I’m not about to waste any more time on, ok? You thought I was going to read all of that noise? Ain’t gonna happen.
You want to claim victory by overwhelming verbosity? (I would not be surprised if your post #248 has set a new FR record for the largest pile of puffery yet seen)
OK, you win. Go away. We’re done. You’re not worth it.
Buh-Bye.
Well, hey..., I gave a thoughtful response to the exact things you said back to me — so I don’t know why you would be complaining about reading mine. I actually read yours... :-)
Well, you weren't all that definite about your "point", so yeah, I filled in the appropriate blanks. Namely, that you called the disqualifying of Obama, a "technicality", for which there is no defense.
Understand that our Constitution is the bedrock upon which all statutory laws are built. The Constitution is paramount to any statute, which is why this issue is powerful, has teeth, and will continue to dog Obama, no matter what the courts decide.
At least some of the people can't be so easily disarmed or dissuaded with propaganda and arcane legal minutiae. Some of us can actually read and understand the plain and simple language of the Framers, and it is those people, who are determined to disable the usurper, Obama.
The Constitution says you have to be a natural born citizen but what defines “natural born citizen” has varied from time to time and was defined by laws subsequent to the Constitution.
I disagree. What has "varied from time to time", is the interpretation and alteration of the Framers' clear meaning of that phrase. They were intent upon ensuring that no person of divided loyalties ever be allowed to assume the office of President. This was made abundantly clear in their comments on the subject, at the time.
...to disqualify him on that basis is a technicality.
By my count, you used the word "technicality" three times in your post to me. I don't care how you spin it, the basic qualifications to assume the office of President are NOT "technicalities". Ask me if I could give a rat's ass whether or not the Obots understand that, or not.
I respect the Constitution as much as you do.
You obviously do not respect the Constitution as much as I do, or else you wouldn't be trying to talk me (or the rest of us) out of upholding it. If you respected our founding document as much as the rest of us, you'd be applying your mind and efforts toward solutions to compel adherence to it.
I also understand politics.
Screw politics. This is the foundation of the Republic we're dealing with here.
What I disagree with is the contention (by some) that I should NOT choose to uphold and defend our country's Founding Charter, the Constitution. You, and some others (including the entire left-liberal contingent of the US) seem to think that we oughtn't rock the boat, or fight for our founding principles.
Do you oppose genocide in Darfur? Do you oppose sex trafficing in Thailand? Do you oppose land confiscation in Zimbabwe?
I'm not in agreement with any of those things, and no, I'm not actively "opposing" them, if you mean political activism.
What I AM opposed to, and what I feel is something that I CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT, is the clear violation of my own country's Constitution.
How dare you attempt to compare the plight of other countries with the constitutional crisis we're entering into in America? You're attempting nothing short of a moral equivalency, which is a well-worn liberal diversion, intended to put patriots off-balance in an argument.
Yes, these countries have problems, but it is primarily the responsibility of their citizens to fight back against whatever ails them, not ours. I ask you - who fights for America in our time of need? Answer: no one but Americans.
There are lots of problems in this world. How do you choose which ones are worth your time?
My first duty and allegiance is to my own country, and its people, not "the world". I don't have to choose which problems are worth my time, if the bar doesn't include Americans. On the domestic front, NO ISSUE is of more compelling national interest, or urgency, than this one.
Cool. Personally I'm a Christian so my first allegiance is to God, who calls on me to oppose injustice wherever it occurs, not just in my own country. But I certainly won't condemn you for nationalism.
And I also think it makes sense for me to focus my efforts on domestic issues, not because of some huge moral difference but because that's where I'm in a position to actually make a difference. This same pragmatism is what leads me not to get involved in this birth certificate campaign. It's not going to accomplish anything, and the Republican Party certainly shouldn't waste its resources on it.
But if you want to make an attempt, I sincerely wish you the best of luck. I think it's a futile effort, but if joining in that effort lets you sleep at night then go for it. And if by some miraculous turn of events it actually accomplishes something you will have been vindicated and you, not I, will deserve the credit for making it happen.
As you wish. Be obtuse.
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.