SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Laura Bush Calls Criticism Of Husband 'Disgusting'

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Personally, I resent that word "traitor" being used at all.


Do you even know what on earth a "traitor" is ?


Now I've seen it all. And without a shread of evidence or RESEARCH, these posts keep coming about "judging the man's heart", etc..


[b]RESEARCH[/b]. Total unbiased Research into who on earth you are supporting or voting for.


I'm just leaving one article here, though there's a truckload ready to fly if needed, if we are to get so UnBiblical, to call fellow Christians "traitors", then that right there tells exactly what I felt in my very first post on here today.


I better just post this and shush for now, because I guess I really did say it all in my first post.
Who's a Traitor with Bloody Hands ?

Then after ya read Link, if you can ... then click on "theology" above, and see what Links they give. They're a bunch of "traitors".


Calling fellow Christians "Traitors" is 1938 all over again to me. Ask Bonhoffer or Wurmbrand.



Edited myself, Annie.

 2005/9/11 2:20









 Re:

Might as well say it. Abortion IS "disgusting" to Christians ... Amen !

Quote:


"Laura Bush hardly has been expansive on the issue of abortion rights. Asked on the eve of the first inauguration whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, she said, "No." Asked during the 2004 presidential race whether that was still her position, she said, "Yeah." Her terseness notwithstanding, she is a part of an unbroken tradition of Republican first ladies who supported a woman's right to choose, back to Pat Nixon, who said, "I believe abortion is a personal choice."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901164.html


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/103/52.0.html


Laura Bush: Don't Nix Roe v. Wade

By the Associated Press

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 (AP)--Laura Bush said Friday that while she thinks more can be done to limit the number of abortions, she does not believe the landmark Roe v. Wade pro-abortion ruling should be undone.

``No, I don't think it should be overturned,'' she said in response to a question in an interview broadcast on NBC's ``Today.''



 2005/9/11 2:46
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4529


 Re:

Hi GrannieAnnie...!

Thank you so much for the link. There are some great articles found from the [i]theology[/i] page found within the link that you sent.

While I don't necessarily agree with the article about President Bush, I am grateful that the author seems to allow readers to make up their own minds rather than try to influence the reader to blindly agree with him. As with everything, I will be studying and praying about what is posted here by everyone, and I will ask the Lord to lead us and guide us into all truth.

I don't think that anyone who questions anyone or anything (including the President) is a traitor. In fact, I believe that believers [u]should[/u] question everything. And I totally agree with your support for unbiased research. It is unfortunate that in the past, some posters have been unable to distinguish between unbiased research and media propaganda (or "reports" disguised as articles) concerning spiritual or political issues. This being said, I am grateful to find people of faith that have seriously considered facts rather than blindly accepting the words of other men.

I am so glad that we can still be united in the matters of faith and love, even with such disagreements on matters of politics. I typically do not post anything on political matters, because there have been some heated debates between various believers in the forums. Besides, most of the posters seem rather convinced one way or the other. Replying to such posts often leads to discord, with two sides arguing over which side is correct.

I will be praying that God allows a truly pro-life person to occupy the White House in 2008 (as well as the Supreme Court this next term). I love to hear from you, and I take your words very seriously. I have been so challenged and blessed by your posts!

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2005/9/11 3:15Profile









 Re: Heal our Land...

Sorry Chris, I missed your post. Just got sorta caught up with that "t" word for a while. :-(


Anyhow, I sorta had to laugh, not at you, but at something you said. What did you think you would find 'about' Jimmy Carter, at his 'own' Library ?


We are to judge by the fruit, not their words. What more can I say ?
The evidence is out there and people decide what they can handle.


About II Chronicles 7:14, I mean no harm, believe me (and I think you know that), but that verse was to Israel.


There are certain O.T. promises, that only apply to the nation and land of Israel. All promises found there, are not blanket promises to wherever. If that were so, I think China would be healed before we would. Or other persecuted countries, where Saints love not their lives unto the death.


There reaches a point with God, as you know, where He takes His Hand off, because of all the blood shed and immorality, etc..
And we can't say "we may be Babylon, But... ".
There's only one word for her future in Rev., if we are indeed.


I said in a link on here that we are to pray for Leaders.


And we are not a "two-party" nation, as someone said earlier.
We had 5 parties running this last time, and one of them was a real strong Christian, anti-abortion, etc., guy, who ran under the Constitutional Party.

But we still believe there's only two parties, so we've kept it that way.

Why ? , because we believe the main line media sources and don't RESEARCH.

My first post gave a bunch of junk you could type into google and decide for yourself.
God help us.


All the Best to you Chris, in all things IN Him.

Annie

 2005/9/11 3:40
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4529


 Re:

Hi GrannieAnnie...!

Thanks for writing back. I went to bed, but my "wisdom teeth" are coming in, and it is just a little painful (enough to wake me up). So, I took a Tylenol and decided to get online until I can go back to sleep (for at least an hour or two before getting ready for Church). Please pray for my jaw. :-P

Quote:
"Anyhow, I sorta had to laugh, not at you, but at something you said. What did you think you would find 'about' Jimmy Carter, at his 'own' Library ?"

I'm not certain if you have had the chance to visit any Presidential libraries yet, but they contain a vast amount of documents, files and tapes from each President's administration. In fact, they contain nearly every document -- both good and bad. As for the documents that are deemed "vital" to national security or history, the library usually has a photocopy of every document related to the Administration that is found in the National Archives. Many of these documents have seldom (if ever) been seen by anyone. They are not "owned" by the particular President, but by the Government. Thus, by law, they cannot be altered. They offer a firsthand source for information, whereas books are a secondhand source.
Quote:
"About II Chronicles 7:14, I mean no harm, believe me (and I think you know that), but that verse was to Israel."

This is true (that the verse is addressed to the nation of Israel). But remember, those believers that are not jewish by race have been adopted and "grafted into the vine." Such believers [u]are[/u] the spiritual nation of Israel. And God is "no respector of persons." He shows no favoritism. And we shouldn't forget that a nation is not restricted by territorial boundaries. The nation of Israel once consisted as a diaspora. That promise was just as true during that period as under Solomon.
Quote:
"And we are not a "two-party" nation, as someone said earlier.
We had 5 parties running this last time, and one of them was a real strong Christian, anti-abortion, etc., guy, who ran under the Constitutional Party."

I understand that there are many political parties. But for all practical purposes, this nation has historically been a two-party system. Initially, the election system was not this way. The largest recipient of votes became the President, and the second largest recipient became the Vice President (even if they were from a different party). During the first elections, the two parties were the "Federalists" and the "Democratic-Republicans." Currently, the two major parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Some political theorist believe that the other parties serve primarily as an alternative outlet with little (if any) chance of ever winning an election. Sometimes, these parties "split the vote" and allow one party to prevail [u]without[/u] a majority of votes. Because he was a liberal, Democrats accused Ralph Nader to have caused this in 2000. However, there were many other small conservative groups running as well, and their accumulated support outnumbered Ralph Nader.

The last time a serious third party candidate directly effected the outcome of a national election was in 1992. H. Ross Perot garnered about 19% of the vote (mostly from registered Republicans). Consequently, President Bush, who was leading substantially in the polls before Perot entered the race, only managed to receive 37.5% of the vote, and Clinton won with a mere 43% of the vote. Some political scientist theorize that this is damaging to the nation's electoral system, because it has become "normal" for a person to win a national election without winning a majority of votes. In 1996, Clinton won with 49% of the vote. In 2000, Bush Jr. won with only about 48% of the vote. Some are beginning to warm to the idea of having a runoff election in order to allow a candidate to receive at least half of the popular vote in order to win the Presidency. But the electoral college would also have to be modified (or disintegrated) in order to accomplish this.

Some accuse third party candidates as a vote "thrown away" that creates unfair outcomes for candidates of the major parties. Still, a third party vote can be seen as a serious option for those who believe that both major parties do not represent their feelings.
Quote:
"My first post gave a bunch of junk you could type into google and decide for yourself.
God help us."

I know that you are quite aware of this, but much of the "information" that is found on the internet must be viewed skeptically. While it is a forum for a free exchange of ideas (alot like Athens in Acts chapter 17), much of it should [u]not[/u] be viewed as "source material." Many political or Christian websites might seem unbiased in nature, but the underlying intent is often less than honorable. This is true of blogs, reports, journals, and especially true of commercial information and newspapers (like certain liberal newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post -- or even the Discovery Channel). That is why most schools ban the use of internet sources on research papers unless it can be substantiated that such information is both accurate and unbaised.

As was pointed out by several people in this thread, there is always another side to most issues. I heard a professor lecture about the importance of real research. He gave a lecture entitled "[i]Why Did Di Die[/i]?," concerning the death of Princess Diana. This professor pointed out that if you ask various sources, they will state several various factors that played a part in the death of others. For instance, medical staff will say that Diana died from internal hemmoraging. Engineers will state that faulty automobile or guardrail design killed Diana. Conspiracy theorists will accuse the paparazzi of killing her (by chasing her at high speeds). MADD would say that alcohol killed Diana (since the driver had too much to drink). The paparazzi would accuse the consumer of killing Diana (because the consumer buys magazines with photos of Diana, thus creating the paparrazi frenzy surrounding celebrities). A sociologist would accuse Diana of killing herself, because she was unhappy with Charles, and she was having a secret relationship with Dodi Fayed as a result. A psychiatrist might blame Charles, for causing such feelings in Diana as a result of his ongoing affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles. This list could go on and on. The point is, there are [u]many[/u] factors that led to her death, not just one. Some people enjoy simplistic answers to the cause/effect relationship, but it must be remembered that there is sometimes a false causality that is more popular and easy to accept. Like you said, real reseach is the key. A similar understanding can be applied to Christianity today.

Well, like you, I have debated posting. I don't like to see such threads erupt into conflict, which sometimes seems to be the case. I just pray that we will all look deeper into truth, and realize that we should question everything that we have been taught in order to actually take a stand on any issue.
Quote:
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I Thessalonians 5:21

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2005/9/11 7:18Profile









 Re:

Chris, I'm sorry to hear about your wisdom teeth.
I hope you're doing alright and could get some sleep. Many times those guys have to be pulled out.


Well, your universities have taught you well.

I was waiting for the "no absolute truths" part to come out next.

You should work for the propaganda ministry, I mean the News Factory. You'd be great for spinning stories, whether you see that talent in yourself or not.

The odor of secular education has left it's mark.

Oh well. Now we are to believe, that there are no excellent Investigative Journalists out there and that most ugly things from Administrations aren't either shredded or put under lock and key for 50 or more years and that Everything is all out in the open.

That one cannot "discern" truth, from non-truth, by researching a subject on "the internet".

Do you see what you are saying here ?

By time one finishes your posts, they are left to believe that they can never "find the truth out in a matter", no matter where they go, so why even bother.

That may not have been your conscious purpose for what you've written, but that is the 'effect'.

If I type in Executive Orders for Martial Law, into google or whatever, are you saying, that there is no way, that we as intelligent adults, who also happen to have John 16:13, The Spirit of Truth in us, can ever find the "truth" ?

Really Chris ? Your confidence is rather unsettling. Confidence in what secular professors have "taught you" ? Confident enough to adopt that line of thought or belief for your norm and pass it on to younger or more naive Christians ?

"We can't know" ? Then what chance do we have of be discerning voters ? Or know when we are being lied to by our leaders, on issues that will affect our children's future, etc. ?
Or know when we are seeing the Antichrist ?

Let's just sit back and pop another cold one.
That's all I've gotten out of this and it's grieving my spirit really badly right now, to think that you probably believe all that you've said.

Daniel says, that God's people will be given "Understanding" ... but after reading what you've written twice now, most young people would never believe they can know "anything for sure".

Jesus IS The Truth, and He does not "withhold" truth from any who ask Him. Wisdom is given out freely, to those who know their God.
He would never let His people grope around in the dark and not even know how to vote or how to care for their families, because they can't see the predictable future by the Truths they've Researched, with The Spirit of Truth, over their shoulder. And even by Dreams, if need be.

Now that is very Biblical, but along side your posts here, it looks far too mystical, and void of the "intelligence" of your thesis here.

You and I are going to have to just agree to strongly disagree on all that you've posted, and with just John 16:13, I'll ignorantly plow about, searching for truth, by trust alone, that I'll be led to hard-cold-documentable-facts, with Jesus' Spirit's help and even through the use of the Internet, while it is still available.
Because I know for a fact, that the Lord Never intends for the "Elect to be Deceived". Praise God ! Wise as serpants, though harmless as Doves.



Love from Him.
Annie

 2005/9/11 9:29









 Re: And Jesus Commanded ...

Be Wise as serpents, but harmless as doves.

As Jesus cleared the temple with a whip He had made, was He as harmless as a Dove ?

When He spoke harshly to the Pharisees, was He ?

When Paul rebuked some Churches harshly, was he ?

I think He & Paul were.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All we can do is possibly recognize, that because we have not "come out from among them", that the world, through their means, may have affected how we possibly think, in general and have not made us any the wiser.
At least not with a Godly wisdom.

We may not see the "Power" of words, and may feel that 'words' alone are just words, and have no affect or power on our minds/souls or spirits.

How can Christians be wise as serpents, if in reality, they have been lulled to sleep or have been leaning on the wisdom of this world and believe somehow, that verbosity denotes knowledge, which should be listened to or credited, because of it's 'wordiness' alone.

Can we spot error within paragraphs of truth ? Do you have any idea of the power of "double speak" ?

Could you recognise "double speak" when you hear or read it ?

Do we even know if we ourselves are using a method called Hegelian Dialectic, in our attempts at being "diplomatic".

Was Jesus or Paul, etc, "diplomatic" ?

When do we compromise on our beliefs for the sake of peace or unity ?

I think these are vital and possibly soul saving questions to investigate and if we can get ourselves back into the thinking and reasoning mode, then maybe we can not only save ourselves, but our families, from the subtle deceptions of our times.


On Line Book. Words Games or Hegelian Dialectic/Diaprax ... Would be wise to read.
First 'spoken' in The Garden.
http://www.professionalserve.com/doublespeak/diapraxC.htm


Two Sites that may encourage that we "Come out from among them and be ye separate" but first we'd have to know what the "them" are.

http://christianunplugged.com/unplugged_files.htm

http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles.html

 2005/9/11 13:23
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re:

I don't know if this will throw the thread in another direction, but I have a question.

Who do we believe, who do we trust?

The reason that I ask such questions is that depending on where you look you can find all manner of 'news'. On the one hand you have the mainstream paradigm time/warner/aol Reuters etc. On the other side you have the guys from propoganda matrix and what really happened, alex jones(prison planet)etc.

So to phrase the question differently what is the yard stick for measuring the validity of mainstream news, on both sides of the fence?

In my country, depending on what language you speak (we have 11 official languages) you get a different news. Sometimes I wonder whats been told them that I am not been told and vice versa? Decisions on where to invest you money, sending your children to school and a whole lot more issues are influenced by what we see and read.

So taking this thought a bit further, what do we do in such cases? The bible speaks nothing of insurance policies, endowments what schools to send your kids to and the like, so where do we go for this extra biblical truth? That sounds like a contradiction, but I hope youre getting my point.


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2005/9/11 13:55Profile









 Re:

Zeke,

All I can do is get "mystical" again.

I only say that, because 'some' accuse others of that, if you say that "the Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth and even show you things TO COME." John 16:13


They back off a little, and look at you as if you grew another nose or a third eye or something.

Either that, or they get mad at you and accuse you of being arrogant and one who thinks they "Know It All".

You think, "But it's Bible" ... but you feel their anger, because they themselves don't believe that verse and haven't really been taught to live that way ... minute by minute, depending on the Lord to 'direct', in every or any situation.

Another good verse is Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

I also lean on what the Lord said about "walking in the Spirit" and not in the flesh (or our own understanding.)

I believe prayer is not always an "on your knees" thing.

To me prayer is 'constant' conversation and total dependence on Him, to answer each step of the way.

Some folks who have been through some big traumatic event, can tell you how they felt the Lord guide their every step, during the event ... and we're all awed (as we should be), But, that should be the Normal Christian's life, everyday, if we just pause in Trust, for a second, to 'ASK First' .... 'Lord, what website should I go to today, or right now' or what Radio Station ?'

People can mock me all they want, but I've done this since I got saved, and HE's the One Who is Faithful. There's nothing more "spiritual" about me [b]and that's obvious.[/b] :-?


We're individually responsible to "listen" and allow Him to guide us, so I won't tell someone what to listen to. (though I'd like to sometimes :) ... but I KNOW that GOD is Faithful, in that, if we "don't lean on our own understanding, but in all our 'ways' acknowledge' HIM, then He 'Will' Direct our Paths".


It's like tuning in a hard to reach radio station sometimes ... but He's There ... we just have to trust Him and tune in, so to speak.
That's all. Dependent to the hilt, like a little child. Knowing, we don't know NUTTIN'.



All His Best to you and your family.

Annie

 2005/9/11 19:40
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
Either that, or they get mad at you and accuse you of being arrogant and one who thinks they "Know It All".



Actually that is not necessary. Being arrogant is often harder to detect from the side of where the arrogance is coming from. It is also called pride.

If you disagree, disagree, but save the cutting remarks. Chris stated some reasonable explanations and his point of view with a modicum of decency never once making any personal assumptions nor character slights.

Look at the examples you used:

Quote:
Well, your universities have taught you well.

Quote:
You should work for the propaganda ministry, I mean the News Factory. You'd be great for spinning stories, whether you see that talent in yourself or not.

Quote:
Oh well. Now we are to believe,...



Stopped that one short purposefully. This is very much the same continuing problem of "reading into" things that has the trail of bitterness and snideness to it. It does come up here from a few others as well. A challenge to a thought preconceived and then expressed as something never intimated becomes a fact in the mind? No one is telling anyone to believe anything. This is cooked up in your own thoughts. Unwarranted and unnecessary.

Quote:
By time one finishes your posts, they are left to believe that they can never "find the truth out in a matter", no matter where they go, so why even bother.


Another assumption and cutting as well.
Quote:
Really Chris ? Your confidence is rather unsettling. Confidence in what secular professors have "taught you" ? Confident enough to adopt that line of thought or belief for your norm and pass it on to younger or more naive Christians ?


Where as we are to take your words as something to have more confidence in, just because you say so? What is unsettling is that there is a penchant to do injury at the expense of others even after having gone out of the way to make mention that this is precisely what he would avoid it turning into. But you must go ahead anyway...
Quote:
Let's just sit back and pop another cold one.


Childish.
Quote:
That's all I've gotten out of this and it's grieving my spirit really badly right now, to think that you probably believe all that you've said.


Has it occurred to you that the opposite might be true?

This is a rebuke. If you think that this is more of the same that you would come to expect just because there is a disagreement and therefore proves the legitimacy of your argument you are looking at it from the wrong angle. This is becoming more and more of a poor reasoning from the Lords people. This idea that if I am experiencing opposition than therefore I am 'right'. The very problem with it is inherent in being consumed with attempting to prove oneself by lowering the bar to attack someone personally. Not only the pride in it but you lose all credibility as far as I am concerned.

Is this making a presumption as well? Always possible, but when the remarks are right out there for all to see and the frequency of this in others stooping to this level...

Notice how none of this even begins to address the issues under consideration?

The only recollection I can come up with from the Lord where He even came close to something of this nature was in:

Luk 13:31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
Luk 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and [b]tell that fox[/b], Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Problem is, He knew [i]all[/i] men and we do not.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/9/11 21:35Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy