Posted on 08/13/2009 12:07:59 PM PDT by P.O.E.
You said — I’ll believe this as soon as Bush confirms it.
—
I don’t think Bush does “kiss and tell”... LOL...
But, we already know that several people were already trying to reach Bush on these very same things and had given him books about those Biblical prophecies and the circumstances about the U.S.’s part over there and in regards to what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob says about the surrounding nations, too.
So, given that people were already trying to “reach him” — it appears that some actually did..., which is (and was, since it’s past tense now) — good news...
I would hope that Bush knows that “Gog” is the name of the fallen angel ‘Prince’ that rules that area, and human efforts to fight him all are doomed to failure.
And you are unaware of who the descendants of the Huns are?
Reagan was not dispensational. He was a sincere, conservative Presbyterian Calvinist. Many in his kitchen cabinet in California were Calvinists. Postmillenial Calvinists, at that.
See Post 78
And God is no more than an inconvenient thorn to most leftie journalists.
This reminds me strongly of the leftist smear against James Watt:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001333.html
Lots of people did. Someone who was around back then told me that a line in the song "Roll out the Barrel", was changed from: "We've got the blues on the run" to "We've got the hun on the run".
As for Eisenhower, two things I have heard about his behind-the-scenes behavior is that he made jokes about black people and did not like cats. I forgive him for the latter.
Brother quix, it is my observation that dispensationalists really have trouble hearing the language used by post-millenialists.
From Wikipedia:
Term used in World War I, often collectively ("the Boche" meaning "the Germans"). From French slang alboche, from Allemand ("German") and caboche ("head" or "cabbage"). Also spelled "Bosch" or "Bosche".
I would say its close cousin is "Kraut". The Frogs also used to call the Limeys "Rosbifs", starting with the Napoleonic campaigns. The one thing they have in common is references to one type of food or another (if you consider amphibians food).
You said — God’s plans are not alterable.
—
Ummmm..., I also know that God’s plans include having a one-world government, with an evil ruler over all nations, including the United States, and that God will judge this one-world government, during the time of the Tribulation.
Although I know that this is *absolutely inevitable* from what God says about it, and I can see it being put into place right now, that doesn’t mean that I stop fighting that movement of our government and our leaders in putting this “plan” into action (which they will *absolutely* and *without fail*)...
So, what you say doesn’t necessarily mean that someone won’t oppose what they know God says will happen — absolutely and without fail...
a psychotic duo - fanatical muslim extremists and fanatical white liberals.
Although, I don't know how those burqas (sp) are going to go over with the fanatical white liberal women.
My bad. I was actually confusing the name "Hun" with "Jun." As in the "Jun Horde" that the Beastmaster had to contend with. Nobody wants to tangle with those guys. I've seen what they can do! So has Zed (Beastmaster Zed, not Pulp Fiction Zed).
He sure didn’t sound that way about Israel.
You were referring to this article (a little section of it below)...
I never said it. Never believed it. Never even thought it. I know no Christian who believes or preaches such error. The Bible commands conservation — that we as Christians be careful stewards of the land and resources entrusted to us by the Creator. Moyers then attacked the congressional leadership, some by name, saying that “we’re not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election — 231 legislators in total and more since the election — are backed by the religious right.”
Moyers is not without reinforcements. A liberal theologian and active participant in the National Council of Churches, Barbara R. Rossing of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, published a book titled “The Rapture Exposed.” In it she attacks a large segment of the Christian community after attributing to me erroneous motives and beliefs on the basis of a fragment of a sentence taken out of context. Rossing contends that Christians who believe in the Rapture presume that there is no need for stewardship of natural resources because of the expected return of the Lord. She writes: “Watt told U.S. senators that we are living at the brink of the end-times and implied that this justifies clear-cutting the nation’s forest and other unsustainable environmental policies. When he was asked about preserving the environment for future generations, Watt told his Senate confirmation hearing, ‘I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.’ Watt’s ‘use it or lose it’ view of the world’s resources is a perspective shared by the Rapture proponents.”
Rossing fictionalizes this whole scenario and neglects to finish the sentence, which was as follows: “I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations.”
Well, I think what Christians can *know* about the environment, from what the Bible says — is that it’s a *whole lot more rugged* than these environmentalists say.
Considering a world-wide flood, which destroyed absolutely everything on the face of the earth, and it all came back again, and looks just fine now, says a lot, right there.
And also, considering the *absolute destruction* from God, Himself, during the judgments of Revelation and the numbers of people killed in the world (about 4 Billion or more) and the poisoning of the oceans and the rivers and the killing of large amounts of vegetation, all over the globe, with some parts of the land *permanently* uninhabitable — that says to me, that the environment is a lot more resilient and a lot more *rugged* than we are told.
So, although one should not “wantonly destroy” the environment, I think it’s clear that the environment is not this delicate and easily destroyed eco-system. Far from it — it’s very resilient and rugged and can withstand things like the world-wide flood, wiping out everything over the whole globe and the judgments of Revelation, being extremely destructive, more so than mankind could do himself.
I wouldn’t be as concerned for the environment as these “enviro-whackos” are... that’s for sure.... :-)
I can somehow understand, Bro,
that
that would be your perception and perspective.
Maybe he’s a ‘fan’ of the scriptures.
They do not understand that God says what He means and means what He says... :-)
You said — Maybe he’s a ‘fan’ of the scriptures.
—
Exactly so... :-)
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.