These are very serious verses, since they are either Shakesperian style poetic imagery, ethereal and lofty, or they are communications of a coming literal reality which should trump all other considerations. To read the entire New Testament gives us the only escape from this colossal horror, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ and the imputed grace given to all who truly believe.

Almost no one believed the literal essence contained in the prophetic imagery of the Old Testament concerning the coming Messiah, but Christ came according to the Scriptures just as they had predicted. And although we may disagree about many things, we can never abandon the literal warning contained in verses like those Chris has quoted.

Quite disturbing, quite chilling, and to believers quite humbling. Thank you, Jesus, I deserved that second death and yet I will inherit eternal life because of You. I am thankful beyond all words…

Chris – you can’t see the “Left Behind” scenario when it hits you between the eyes!

I am scratching my head over this one, Chris L.

I am not sure you can suggest that Chris L. had a “guy” in this race. He probably held is nose and voted for McCain, but surely not his “guy”.

My Guy wsn’t running, He already reigns.

I am assuming that the entirety of your argument and assignment of Obama to “anti-christ” behavior is wrapped up in his allowance of women to choose, correct? Or is there some other reason he is anti-christ?

I know I haven’t been in this game, but I the whole pro-life thing didn’t really play that much for my voting against Obama. I’m really more concerned with his economic policy of assuming that the government know how best to spend the citizens’ money. And it’s not that I’m just all about greed. I sincerely believe that government programs intended to help the poor actually end up hurting them. So it might sound nice to say we want the government to care for the least of these, but the dirty little secret is that it really sucks at doing that job.

I know Brian McLaren claimed that Obama is no longer working under the “warrior narrative”, but rather a narrative that seeks understanding and concensus. There may be some truth in that, but when it comes down to it, it’s still ruling by dominating. In Obama’s case, he just think those who don’t produce should have dominion over those who do for some odd reason.

Oh well, I’m just amazed that the same people who screamed the loudest about Christians selling out to the Republican party seem to have little problem with them selling out to the other side.

Neither political party has a lock on these, and the GOP didn’t do much about these when it had the chance,

Precisely.

Perhaps posting what you have here simply because from your very limited perspective (as we all have) the wrong guy got elected was unfair.

Having differences of opinion is one thing – having the power to act upon them is another.

Interesting. you would make a good politician

Are you really suggesting that the divividing line between what makes one an anti-christ or not is the ability to act on one’s beliefs and opinions?

So I can think anything I want about the issues you feel makes Obama anti-christ but since I can’t carry them out I am good in your book.

Chad – I believe Rush Limbaugh is closer to being the AntiChrist than is Obama. Remember, he will be a deceiver and emulate Christ. Rush’s following mirrors that of Obama and he uses God’s name in vain as well as is saturated with self righteousness and self adulation.

Oh well, I’m just amazed that the same people who screamed the loudest about Christians selling out to the Republican party seem to have little problem with them selling out to the other side.

This is so true. I was thinking about this last night. Many of the people who I know who screamed the absolute loudest when Bush was elected about how God didn’t take political sides and seeking a political solution was wrong and that James Dobson was worth slightly more than cow droppings because he threw his public support behind a republican are doing the same doggone thing today. It just amazes me! We’ve had years to watch Christians sell out to republicans and it didn’t work. Now, we may have years to watch the same Christians who got all fired up sell out to democrats.
Utterly amazing.

yes

Hmmmmm
apparently only that passage from Revelation doesn’t apply to Nero’s day alone.

As for Obama…where does one begin?
His “soaring rhetoric” from the staged party in Grant Park made me think of this:

Acts 12:
21On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. 22And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” 23Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.
24But the word of God increased and multiplied.

Received this in my email this morning. it is the future of this nation on a nutshell.

Eritrean Christian Dies in Military Prison

Open Doors has received word of another evangelical Christian who has died while in military confinement. Teklesenbet, a member of the Full Gospel Church, was arrested during a prayer meeting in Assab about a year ago. According to sources, he suffered very harsh military punishment during his incarceration. He allegedly died after the commanders refused to give him medical attention for his critical case of malaria.
In 2002 all independent Protestant churches were outlawed in Eritrea. Only Islam and the Eritrean Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran Christian denominations were given official recognition. Buildings of all other churches were closed and private gatherings in homes were banned. Worshippers caught disobeying these restrictions have faced arrest and torture in prison camps that are notorious for their horrific conditions.
Compass Direct News estimates that more than 2,000 Christians, including pastors and priests from both Protestant and Orthodox churches, are now under arrest in police stations, military camps and jails all across Eritrea because of their religious beliefs. Although many have been incarcerated for months or even years, none have been charged officially or given access to judicial due process.

Phil there was a viable 3rd Party candidate as well as a more palatable GOP candidate who were not successful because of a collection of the following reasons:

1. People accepted the force fed agenda of the media elite who spout the change mantra yet are feeding you the same rancid menu

2. When a man of consistent conviction and Constitutional adherence jumps into the mix Christians and Christian leaders failed to do their homework and encourage their friends and acquaintances there is a legitimate quality candidate when there was enough time to effect a true change, say back in the Spring, maybe?

3. More voted in this election but to be honest the only certainty you can take from that is that more uninformed voters cast ballots than in past elections. Pessimistic, sure. Jaded, maybe. Accurate? Consider http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html I know it is anecdotal, but should encourage discussion with others to find that they really know what they are voting for or against is actually true.

Many might say a vote for a 3rd Party candidate this years was a wasted vote, if that is your opinion then I guess mine was wasted because I chose to support a candidate who stands with me in allegiance to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but when it comes to how to rule this nation will first cunsult the Constitution of these United States. Needless to say he came from the Constitution Party, not the GOP or the Democratic faces of the same party committed to destroying our nation bit by bit.

Those are my opinions and as such cannot nor should not be considered anything other than that. Simple food for thought.

Could one explain why many liberals who think that people who believe in Jesus are weird, crazy, weak . . . are enamored with the Obama who calls himself a Christian?

Well, just to be fair, there are a fair number of Christians I know who I would describe as weird and crazy…

It’s like how everyone has that crazy uncle in their family.

Phil,
My comment originated from hearing about a group of folks from a certain PC correct city (who work with someone I know) who generally view Christians as weird, etc, because . . . because well, I guess basically the root cause is that Jesus is a stumblingblock to them and they have found their “god” in following political correctness.

Chris L: “My guy” didn’t make it through the primaries either.

Thought it was interesting that between the two parties, there were fewer votes cast this year than in 2004. What happened to all of the NEW voters and massive crowds we were told to expect?

“What happened to all of the NEW voters and massive crowds we were told to expect?”

They were at my house enjoying a productive pool party!

Liberals, in general, do not see people who believe in Jesus as just weird and crazy.

They see people who pray before rallies about people who pray to their god “hindu” as weird and crazy.

And they’re right.

I say that about liberals because I live and work among a ton of them right now.

Stop drinking from the toilet of Christian radio orthodoxy, seriously.

That, of course, is fine, because 35 cents is civic duty but 40 cents is socialist.

It’s not necessarily the particular tax rate that’s socialist (although even a rate of 35% is ridiculous), but as soon as you introduce a progressive rate structure, that’s pretty much some form of socialism. So apart from something major happening where the US would get a flat tax, the tax code will pretty much be socialistic.

I’m not against paying taxes, but I’m against using the tax code to punish certain people and reward others. Really about the fairest tax we pay is the sales tax, because it applies evenly across the board on a percentage basis.

Compared to the leadership in the rest of the world president Barak Obama is more Christ-like than most. Our probable next president(Jacob Zuma) is doing everything he can to stay out of court because of corruption charges. The previous one turned a blind eye to the AIDS pandemic as well as the situation in Zimbabwe. Whether Barak Obama will legislate anti-christian policies or not will be seen in time but that does not stop God from bringing good out of anything for those who love Him as promised in Romans 8:28.

That said, I don’t think it was God’s original plan to have people with that much power in their hands as the world leaders currently have.

I’m not sure what’s not to like about natural consequences of your ideology…

Chris, if the waitress you deprived of what may be the only money she gets to use to pay her rent and feed her kids was making 250K + a year than you might have a leg to stand on. What you did was just mean, plain and simple.

If you wanted to do the right thing and truly support her “ideology” (good grief) than why don’t you find out if she and/or her kids have health care and if not buy them some? Why not find out if she has a son or daughter in Iraq that she desperately wants home sooner than later? Why not find out if the reason she is waitressing right now isnt because she and her husband were laid off from good jobs due to the terrible economic crisis we are in and have been in for the last year (just like my sister was)?

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. I guess you think it perfectly acceptable to be the judge and jury towards everyone you meet that votes differently than you. Hey, how about this: Because everyone agrees that Obama intends to have our troops home sooner than McCain, lets only bring the ones home who voted for Obama – those who voted McCain can stay over there a while longer. We can put you in charge of making sure everyone receives the due consequences of their “ideology.” Vengence is mine, sayeth Chris L.

Chris L. – I heard that story from others, did you just put yourself in it to see a reaction? Christ would never become involved with such pettiness, whoever actuall did that.

We have been mandated to “particpate” in an anti-christ sytem. It is called “preaching the gospel to every creature”.

What sort of gospel does depriving a waitress of tips proclaim?

to answer my own question, I guess one could argue that it proclaims the gospel of a politician. We aren’t called to proclaim that or any other gospel, though.

Rick-
Another favorite passage from that new Bible you quoted:

“For you are saved by grace, through faith and the correct political vote.”

and….

“Do unto others as the elected officials they voted for would do unto all” *

*some manuscripts read: Do unto others only insofar as it will win you votes.

“I was thirsty and you gave me a drink. I was hungry and you gave me food. I was naked and you clothed me. I was a waitress and you tipped me.”

“I just keep reminding myself that God used Pilate and Judas to accomplish His plan as much as He did Moses and Abraham.”

An incongruous straw man that speaks of Calvinism. If that be true as presented, why vote, God will use everyone to accomplish His plan. Chad makes a valid point, though, and it goes with my contention:

Politics in America compromises our Christianty almost pervasively.

Politics in America compromises our Christianty almost pervasively.

I agree, Rick. The problem for most Westerners is we are blind to how much we have turned politics into an idol. We allow it to form our identity. As Christians our identity was given to us in our baptism. Our baptism has no political affiliation except for where it seeks to bring to death a politic of domination, economy and power-games. All of that died on the cross.

Spreading the wealth around:

Deut. 24:19.When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
20.When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow.
21.When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow.
22.Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

The reason I feel so strongly about this can be learned just from this past political season. Why can’t we all see that there was nothing Christlike about what has happened, regardless of who you supported, and that these elections strip millions of believers of their spiritual walk even when they THINK it enhances it?

The fight for morality and economics is counterproductive to spreading the gospel and living like Jesus. I contend, that if you are a believer who thinks you should vote, you should follow these guidelines:

* Never speak against anyone
* Listen 100 times more than you speak
* Severely limit your political conversations
* Be humble and attempt not to seem opinionated and right
* Vote quietly and without emotion
* Communicate to everyone the real answer is the gospel
* Leave the entire thing to God

That may be how a Christian should be “involved” in the political system

Rick – I tend to agree.

Chris – how true – and sad.

Chris L and Keith – just so you know, if you were an Obama supporter and McCain won the election and you posted what you did in the OP and treated people in a way that reflects their political leaning rather than the Imago Dei within them I would be just as vocal and be making the exact same arguments.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. It’s not a progressive
tax rate.

At least tie the way a government spends its tax revenue to whether it is socialist. A progressive tax regime of 2, 5, and 10 percent, with all revenue going to military expenditures, is hardly socialist.

The abuse that word has gone through is breathtaking.

I think your definition of socialism is too limited, actually. Government owner ship of production may be one part of a socialistic system, but an attempt at egalitarianism, i.e, redistribution of wealth, is part and parcel as well. Actually government ownership of production is more in line with communist governments like you see in China and Venezuela.

Actually, the US government is already well down the road of socialism, anyway, so this is sort of becoming a moot point. The federal government is already the largest employer in the country, and when you add in all the work done by private contractors for the government, you have quite a lot of people depending on the government in one way or another.

So perhaps it was a bit dishonest for McCain to accuse Obama of being a socialist, when really the only thing he could say is that he’s more of one than McCain. Although, I do believe McCain is probably a bit more fiscally conservative than many Pubbies in Washington right now.

pocketball = pocketbook

Another thing I would add regarding the whole “ownership” aspect in regard to the whole socialism thing is this. In many ways, the idea of private ownership in the US is kind of a farce. Try not paying property taxes on your home for a while and see what happens. After a while it won’t be yours.

Also it’s not like a business can just go build any building they want anywhere they want. Even to purchase land in most cases requires the approval of two or three government agencies, and then the government basically dictates what materials may be used in that building to a large degree and now through energy codes, it dictates how many light fixtures can be installed and what type HVAC equipment may be used.

I’m not saying I’m against things like building codes, or even against local communities having a say in things like zoning. I’m just saying that the government’s influence already impacts us more than we realize.

agreed. we live in the already-not yet.

Rick,
Have you read that book?
I think you’d enjoy it.

You also assume the waitress Chris L encountered was in need. Frankly, if she is in need, then she should be looking at working a longer shift or taking a second job before she goes off “partying the night before…” I’ve done it. It won’t kill her.

Well, we humans are in the best place to judge that, huh? Good for you and Chris L.

You do make a valid point that we, as Christians, should be taking care of those around us, but it AIN”T the gov’ment’s job to take care of the Peggy Joseph’s of the world! Moochers = “…”If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

Yep. And this applies to a waitress, someone who IS working, how, exactly?

AND whether you make $250k/year or not, BO’s plan to raise the Capital Gains Tax on home sales will hit you regardless of your income level.

lol. First, you have to have EARNINGS to get hit with a capital GAINS tax. Second, if I am not mistaken, he said that low income families will not be hit with a higher capital gains tax and third, even if they are, that is a tax on EARNINGS made through investments and it is relatively small at any rate.

I fail to see how you are consistent on this at any rate. You complain that the rich will pay a slightly higher tax and then complain that EVERYONE will get a capital gains tax. You aren’t making much sense.

I waiting for the day Jeremiah Wright becomes the White House Chaplain!

Well, you no doubt love the sensationalism provided by Limbaugh and Fox Newsless but that won’t happen. So don’t worry, you wont have to put up with any more black people in the WHITE House than are necessary. Frankly, I dont think it would necessarily be a bad thing if Rev. Wright were the chaplain.

“…you have to have EARNINGS to get hit with a capital GAINS tax.” Yep, you’re right. Thank God many of those BO supporters don’t work, so looks like a win-win!

“…I dont think it would necessarily be a bad thing if Rev. Wright were the chaplain.” Having read your blog and your comments here, I’m not at all suprized.

Thanks for reading mine and Chris L’s hearts and setting us straight. I gotta run. Peggy needs here mortgage paid and a tank of gas for her car. I sure wouldn’t want to disappoint her by not doing my JOB and paying those taxes.

There’s a lot more than “wealth” that’s going to be spread around in the coming days/montsh…and yes, Rick–all ordained by God. We get what we deserve.

Keith,

Most, yes most, people (non-partisan) who have read the proposed tax plan agree that it is less intrusive than the current policies and does more for the middle class than McCain’s.

Did you actually read the tax plan? Do you understand how it works? Have you evaluated how much you currently pay in taxes? Do you think stimulus checks, government bailouts, and interest rates have helped the current economy?

I’m not asking you to agree but at the very least be informed and debate the issue.

Chad,
There’s some factual problems with your friends post.

The tax money isn’t only the 30,000 over the 250. In fact, no one knows exactly what the bottom number for “wealth” is going to be. Originally, OB said 250K, then he said 200K, then Biden said 150K.

If OB’s plan goes off as your friend suggests it will, then he may be right, it may be good for the country in the long run but there has been many changes in the proposal to date and proposals don’t really mean anything until they are put into practice. We will see.

Of course, this brings up the question of do the ends justify the means, and I am not going there but I often see people argue this way; they don’t argue over whether or not the course of the action is right or wrong, they only argue over the ends being right or wrong. This is different from how I typically look at things.

Either way, your friends passion is wonderful, but his facts are a little inaccurate. Perhaps, he wrote the piece before there was multiple renditions of the plan, IDK.

It was written weeks ago, so yeah, maybe before the (suppossed) changes. In any event, the number still add up – it is a tax on just what is made over the bottom number and in the end it is not all that much, relatively speaking.

If OB’s plan goes off as your friend suggests it will, then he may be right, it may be good for the country in the long run but there has been many changes in the proposal to date and proposals don’t really mean anything until they are put into practice. We will see.

Agreed. And this is true of any politician. My beef with this thread and the sensationalism being thrown at anyone who voted for Obama is that none of it is justified. Why not just keep silent about it? Why all these stupid antics like depriving a waitress of her tip to prove your point? If in a few years our country is in the pits and everyone is running around killing babies for fun and we are all forced to pray facing east than I will gladly recant and say you all were right. I wonder, though, how many of you here, if you end up riding the boom and the high that we all rode in the Clinton years will admit how wrong it was to judge so quickly and harshly?

My beef with this thread and the sensationalism being thrown at anyone who voted for Obama is that none of it is justified.

Here’s my thing: A lot of people who are getting pissed at the criticism being leveled at BO supporters are the same people leveled copious amounts of criticism at W supporters in ‘04. So for me that doesn’t wash too much. A lot of people who for the last 8 years have told me that the politics aren’t the answer seem to have really meant that “Republican politics aren’t the answer but now my guy’s won, so politics could be the answer again.”
This isn’t the first time, that the Democratic party was the party of the religious and I’m sure it won’t be the last for the Repub’s either.

everyone is running around killing babies for fun

We’re already killing them for convenience sake; 4,000 yesterday, 4,000 today, 4,000 tomorrow so I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.

Oh and Chad be careful using the word “you” with me, I tend to take it very personally when I am called on something I neither said nor publicly supported.

I voted against Obama also, with vote for McCain. I hated the fact that I had to do that. Once the primaries were over, as was the case with Chris L, I didn’t have a dog in the hunt.

I find it interesting when a liberal democrat runs for office they make every attempt to not appear liberal. That was also the case with Obama. He made a definite move to the center in not almost to the center/right.

I believe, as it was the case with Clinton, one of the first things that is going to come off the table of Obama’s promises will be his tax cuts. As Clinton said, “sorry folks, things are a lot worse than I thought, I have to drop the tax cuts I promised“( paraphrased by me). We watched the initial 250k threshold get lower as the campaign progressed.

Both candidates were making promises that didn’t add up. The math isn’t that hard to figure out. There isn’t the money available without putting us deeper in debt. The debt that both candidates said they were going to address.

Obama’s stances on the war are going to change also, once he is briefed on the facts. He started to back peddle during his campaign as he became more involved in the briefings as this is what happens in all campaigns. They become more privy to what is happening, the things that WE are not privy to.

Obama said he’s going to cut the programs that aren’t working……we’ll see. It will all hinge on who’s program it is, if he does anything at all.

I hope everybody is maintaining a list of the promises as I am……as Chris L said the jury is still out….

Oh and Chad be careful using the word “you” with me, I tend to take it very personally when I am called on something I neither said nor publicly supported.

yeah, could have worded that better. Just don’t go off on me for stuff I didn’t say is all I’m trying to say.

Heres how taxes have been collected (personal vs. business) and distribution since 1934.

The fact is that those things, for the most part, represent a very small portion of the federal budget.

While they represent a small portion of the federal budget I’m still taxed locally to support infrastructure. Which would raise that number significantly.

A lot of people who are getting pissed at the criticism being leveled at BO supporters are the same people leveled copious amounts of criticism at W supporters in ‘04.

Joe,
I supported W in ‘00 and ‘04. I am not one of thos “a lot of people” you reference.

Also, my “you” in the above post was a general “you.” I was not meaning you personally but the sentiments of many on this thread. Sorry for not being more clear.

What more could I expect from a Dukie. You know really and truly I believe there are two good things about the end of this election, (ok, 3):

1. We elected an African American. This gives me great hope that we have come farther than I thought.

2. College basketball is right around the corner, which means that pitchers and catchers report in 3.5 months. Woo Hoo.

3. The Yankees have never won a World Series with a sitting republican so let the new dynasty begin, baby.

Chad, I still hope that some day we can sit down together on somebody’s front porch, drinking an iced cold beverage from Pa. and have a fun discussion.

Chad, I still hope that some day we can sit down together on somebody’s front porch, drinking an iced cold beverage from Pa. and have a fun discussion.

No doubt. Perhaps this summer I will make a pilgrimage up to Mars Hill. I’ll bring the Black & Tan.

I listen to those talk shows as well. The fact of the matter is that Keith is just spouting off the talking points of many of those far-right radicals who are talking complete nonsense.

So in other words, Keith is not allowed to have an opinion and is talking nonsesnse because you deem it so based on the fact that he may listen to talk shows and may accept some of what is said?When most of what those shows talk about are conservative issues?

Pesonally I see what you said as a conversation stopper. Don’t pigeon hole me either, I have little use for most of the talk show folks. Most are entertainers first and formost. Nor are they news people.

I think he showed a valid concern with the Rahm Emanuel appointment.

I’m sorry, but I found this quote from the article Chris linked to just too funny:

“I want my money today! It’s my money. I want it right now!”

Here we hear the rallying cry of the average Democrat voter!

I kid, I kid…

Well, considering that 70% of the military voted against BO, that will hopefully be enough to finish the job they’re there to do, rather than raising the white flag, cutting and running away like pansies…

Yes, because Christ would never have us raise the white flag. No doubt Jesus is on the front lines mocking those who would not put COUNTRY first and screaming to all his comrades to blow the Iraqi bastards to hell.

A friend of mine on Facebook has for his profile pic a sign in the same font as McCain’s campaign sign that reads JESUS FIRST.

There you go – thank you! This wouldn’t be complete without false accusations of racism.

Sure. And your projections of the economic future, fear mongering, implications of who or what is an antichrist, declarations of who is morally acceptable and who is not, and judgments rendered upon waitresses are not false accusations but prophetic pronouncements. As I said before – I guess we will just wait and see whether this makes you a false prophet or not.

My money is on the fact that racism is driving much of this. The comments about Rev. Wright showcase that pretty well, I think.

Maybe, maybe not, Phil.

“…Keith is just spouting off the talking points of many of those far-right radicals who are talking complete nonsense.”

Actually Chad, I’m spouting off what I think because I’m sick and tired of dead-beat freeloaders that are too good to get off their butts and flip burgers if that’s what it takes to make ends meet!

I lost everything I had…EVERYTHING !!!!! a little over 30 years ago. I didn’t sign up for welfare; I didn’t get food stamps; I didn’t sit around and whine about my situation. I took the $5 I had in my pocket, put a couple of dollars of gas in my truck, and drove an hour to my parent’s house where I asked to sleep on their couch until I got a job and got back on my feet. I was employed a week later. One year later I had money in a savings account and was buying my first home with my fiance (now my wife of 28 years).

According to the U.S. Dept’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current unemployment rate in America is 6.1 percent. That means that the EMPLOYMENT RATE is 93.9 percent!!! Tell these people to get a job(s)!!!

Well, yes, but the president and Congress have no control over those tax levels, so that’s really germane to this conversation.

My point was that if federal taxes get lowered my overall tax obligation would be reduced.

That and the fact that your statement that federal taxes for infrastructure are not that much is essentially a red herrring. Most of infrastructure his handled by local municipalities taxes so obviously it wouldn’t fall to the fed.

What is it that drives this critique?

Well, after listening to Wright speak, my guess would be insanity…

Seriously, though, the whole “God damn America” thing was the least of it. His whole endorsement of Louis Farrakhan was much more troubling to me. Basically, there’s a particular group of black leaders who make their living off of ensuring that black people always see themselves as victims. As far as concerned a lot of these people do far more harm to black people than racism does today.

It was 25% in 1933. Some models suggest the US will hit 10% sometime in the next 10 months…

Good…now can you tell me what was Roosevelt’s tax model that greatly attributed to the reversal of that trend?

I’ll give you a hint…Joe the Plumber!

They’re there to do a specific job (which is around peacekeeping, not “blowing Iraqi bastards to hell”), in service to country. So… cutting and running at this point is akin to showing up to stop a back alley mugging, but leaving the guy on the sidewalk once you’ve bandaged the wounds…

Well, then you should be happy that no one is talking about “cutting and running” like “pansies.”
In your initial comment of “running away like pansies” suggests you are more worried about America saving face. Country first, right?

So perhaps, when PYT leaves college gets a real job and starts a family, the lesson of “allow people to keep that they earn” might resonate just a little bit.

Chris, no matter how you want to spin this your actions were petty and un-Christ like. At the risk of sounding like PB or Chris P, you are becoming what you hate. You wince at the thought of the government deciding what is best to do with people’s money and then to make your point you do the same thing to a waitress whom you pass your unrighteous judgment upon. You repay evil for evil and then have the audacity to think you are teaching someone a lesson just as you do with your kids.

I have long held the utmost respect for you and still think you have a keen mind and some pretty sound wisdom in matters of faith. I have to say though that I am deeply disappointed in your holier-than-thou attitude in all this.

Basically, there’s a particular group of black Religious Right leaders who make their living off of ensuring that black Religious Right people always see themselves as victims **ADD** and abortion as the only issue that matters in the world.

Actually Chad, I’m spouting off what I think because I’m sick and tired of dead-beat freeloaders that are too good to get off their butts and flip burgers if that’s what it takes to make ends meet!

Hey Rick, I found another verse for your Politico Bible Version!

I don’t understand why Christians think selling out to the Dems is any better than selling out to the Pubbies.

I don’t see this as a matter of selling out to the Dems. My contention is with those who are demonizing the other side and/or can’t even get their facts straight and continue to use hyperbole, guilt by association or just plain lies to make themselves feel better about their politics. That is what is so distressing in this.

a) Are you suggesting redistribution is evil?;

Nope. But you obviously think it is evil or at the very least hate the idea. Thus, you have become what you hate by repaying evil in your eyes with evil.

b) Apparently, PYT does not believe redistribution is evil (since she voted for it), so how could she be repaid evil for that which she does not believe is evil?;

I said this before – if she was making over 250K (or even 100K) you might have a leg to stand on. But no, you were just being mean.
If you really cared about sending a message and being consistent with your own party line you would have taken her $2, spit on the “scumbag” bum (Keith’s words) on your way out the door and given the money to Exxon or some other CEO on Wall Street.

Chad: For the record, I just did a search on this thread and NOWHERE did the word “scumbag” show up with MY name (or anyone else’s for that matter) attached to it. Do I at least get an apology?

Which goes without saying – but forced giving isn’t charitable or graceful (by definition)

Yeah, they call it tithing

Yeah, they call it tithing

Well, last time I checked, there weren’t any Levites serving in Congress, so I’m pretty sure we’re not supposed to tithe to the government…

Keith and Chris- what did you guys do with your stimulus checks? Did you return them?

Chad: Thanks for the apology for ascribing words to me I did not use.

“…the mood of [my] comments towards the unfortunate, the marginalized, and the downtrodden…” Are we reading the same thread?! I will help (and DO) ANYONE that fits the description of “unfortunate, the marginalized, and the downtrodden” and have stated such. The scenario–as it was presented–included no one that fit that description. You are reaching on this one…and not a very good mindreader.

Chad: I just deposited my stimulus check two weeks ago. Found it stuck in a file.

I wrote a check, designated for “Missions” to our church, around the time the stimulus check arrived in the amount of $4000. (FYI–more than Joe Biden gave the entire past 10 years) Thanks for asking.

Chad: You are a piece of work…

“So neither of you saw no problem in taking a govt handout and putting it to use.”

How could I have been so evil as to have given money to those sorry missionaries!!! Or for shame!

I paid approx $25,000 in taxes (state/federal) last year. Consider my stimulus check the refund I didn’t get. If you got a refund…YOU’RE WELCOME!!!!!

b) Folks who pay ZERO income tax will also be receiving “tax cuts”, which is basically just a redistribution scheme…

Chris-
Are you suggesting that they will be handed money? Are you saying that under Obama the person who is not working or does not care to work will, under this plan, be mailed a check paid for by people making a lot of money?

I don’t think you have really studied the tax plan Obama is putting forward. You can read the whole thing here:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

Its not the evil you seem to think it is and you were unjust to level out punishment on a waitress.

Obama simply wants to give the breaks to the middle and lower classes rather than to the rich. It is beyond me how Christians are so upset over this.

Because whether people believe it or not, when the rich pay higher taxes, everyone pays higher taxes in some way or another. “Targeted” cuts are generally a myth.

Anyway, the top 1% of taxpayers already pay something like 33% of all taxes. What percentage should they pay?

Because whether people believe it or not, when the rich pay higher taxes, everyone pays higher taxes in some way or another. “Targeted” cuts are generally a myth.

I was in the Navy and overseas for most of the time, but I don’t remember hearing a bunch of complaints during Clinton’s term about higher taxes and everyone being burdened by them.
Even Warren Buffet thinks Obamas plan is the smarter of the two.

I was in the Navy and overseas for most of the time, but I don’t remember hearing a bunch of complaints during Clinton’s term about higher taxes and everyone being burdened by them.

Then you weren’t paying attention, I guess. Actually, the middle-class tax cuts that Clinton promised while running for office never materialized.

Actually, many economists believe that Roosevelt’s actions probably extended and deepened the effects of the Depression. It was really our involvement in WWII that got the economy moving again.

Unemployment became almost not existent during the war but the rate of unemployment was declining (with a brief spike in 1938) prior to our entry into the war in 1939. Both factors probably played a part.

It still amazes me folks think the government is a good steward of our money.

It’s been a while since I saw the stats but there was a time when I heard that just a small fraction of the monies given to the welfare system actually makes it down where it is needed..

I seem to remember figures of, almost 75 percent of the monies going to the system in overhead. I haven’t the time right at this moment to look it up, maybe somebody here already has it at their fingertips. Even if the figure is as low as 50 percent it’s still obscene!

Well, DUH!!! He was bucking for BO as far back as May this year.

Yeah why would we consider the words of one of the richest men in the world when it comes to investments and the economic plans of the president. Maybe we should consult someone who’s broke and get their take on what is smart economics.

Quick fact check: The luxury tax was a part of the 1990 omnibus tax increase that doomed George H.W. Bush’s reelection efforts. It was later repealed by Clinton, who realized, along with everyone else, that 10 percent is way too high.

I’m not opposed to luxury taxes, per se, but if excessive, like any tax, they will fail.

“…why would we consider the words of one of the richest men in the world…” I can’t find the quote, but Buffet made a statement recently that he (paraphrased) “thought the banks would have acted more responsibly than they had.” Right, and people are basically honest.

chris: If I misquoted/misinterpreted, feel free to point it out and I’ll be glad to retract…but I ain’t backing off my “I’m tire of paying taxes to support deadbeats” position. Thought I should clear that up. (As if you thought I’d change my mind)
8^)>

Well, then, we could always point to Donald Trump’s endorsement of the McCain plan, but that would be open to the same criticism of political favoritism…

I personally don’t think either plan is a viable long term solution. As I said earlier it’s a shell game. My proposal, if I we’re president, would be a combination flat tax and a lowered (in terms of at what level you need to pay) capital gains tax. I’m up in the air on whether to charge a tax on groceries or not.

but I ain’t backing off my “I’m tire of paying taxes to support deadbeats” position.

No need to back off of it…it’s just not very charitable nor does it encapsulate the whole of the issue.

My proposal, if I were president, would be a combination flat tax and a lowered (in terms of at what level you need to pay) capital gains tax. I’m up in the air on whether to charge a tax on groceries or not.

Where in the heck were you TUESDAY!!! I would have had someone to vote FOR if you had been running!!!

I am placing this thread in a picture frame as evidence of how emotionally tied to politics, and MONEY, Christians seem to be. Let us remember, Jesus has saved BY GRACE every one of our unworthy and rebellious souls, and with that, we can join hands and hearts.

I love my politically active brothers and sisters, and I consider part of my calling as deliverance!

Everything that I’ve read about the Fair Tax seems to indicate that it may not generate enough revenue to maintain basic services. But I openly admit I haven’t looked deep enough into it to really know.

To my knowledge, though, none of McCain’s supporters (let alone masses of them) swooned in his presence, called him a ‘messiah’, or fawned on him in a Children of the Corn fashion, so an biblical comparison, if warranted, would have come later than today…

Ha ha ha ha, I nailed it in comment #1.

Hilarious.

Here we wasted all day trying to figure this thing out! If only we had waited for Evan…she sure told us!!!

For the record, I’m a GREAT tipper.

(Evan’s just angry over Prop 8 I guess. Funny–the same voters that gave Calif to BO –ALSO voted for Prop 8. How do you say that, Evan? “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha”)

It’s even going to happen in Oklahoma, Keith.

Quick, find something to allay your fears!

“Quick, find something to allay your fears!”
Done and done.

The United States could completely tank, go totally bankrupt, and our military would still last for 10 years and keep us as the only super power in the world for that time period as well.

Trust me.

No. One. Comes. Close

I’m quite aware of that, but calling America the “only remaining superpower” shows a startling ignorance to the changing world.

Except for Israeli pilots, they’re better at flying. But overall….

And all their undeclared illegal nukes.

“So no, I’m not mad.” Now you’re just trying to keep up the front.

No, seriously, for two reasons:

1. We elected Barack Obama.

2. People opposed to gay marriage die every day, while supporters turn 18 every day. The “culture war” is over. Now it’s just playing out, which it will do in fits and starts, and ultimately the Supreme Court will strike down all the marriage bans.

“People opposed to gay marriage die every day…” That’s a happy thought for you? Wow. I may not agree with you, but I don’t wish you were dead.

Keith is my favorite Calvinsit!

I have been thinking that as a Christian it is possible that I should not be conversing with Evan. My understanding is that he

1)claims to be some kind of Christ-follower.
2)uses the name of Christ when it suits his purposes.
3)twists the Bible to justify whatever he believes.

I think there is great room to talk about all kinds of things with people who are unbelievers. But according to Scripture Christians are to have nothing to do with people who make some present or past claim of following Christ but blatantly turn against His teachings.

Read Jude for example. Inherent in Jude and other passages like it is the assumption that at some point a person does have to make some sort of judgement about where another person is spiritually – not a judgement that determines ultimately whether a person is lost or saved – because only God can do that; rather a judgement that determines whether the person is to be treated as a lost person who needs Christ or one who has “tasted” but turned their back on Christ.

Keith I would especially like to hear your thoughts on what I’m saying.

Amy-
I think it is a mistake to make a judgment call like you are making when all you know of Evan is what is written on a blog.

But I am sure no one would mind if you weren’t involved in a conversation

Amy-
I think it is a mistake to make a judgment call like you are making when all you know of Evan is what is written on a blog.

But I am sure no one would mind if you weren’t involved in a conversation

Chad,
My brother, please be careful you don’t make same judgements of Amy.

Joe-
Point taken. Have I judged her or anyone else? I would never say of her or anyone else I have disagreements with on a chat forum the things she said of Evan.

No, you didn’t. It was more a precaution. We’ve all had conversations with Amy that have driven our frustration levels (and I imagine hers) up to the point where we ran a dangerous line. Your last comment to her seemed to be close to that line.

I think it is a mistake to make a judgment call like you are making when all you know of Evan is what is written on a blog.

However, unless a mental disorder is involved, the things we write do tend to leave a reflection of who we are.

A lot of us base our beliefs and ways of living on the images drawn from things written in a collection of books from thousands of years ago. And encourage others to do the same!

But I am sure no one would mind if you weren’t involved in a conversation

Smiley aside, it’s lines like the above that leads me to believe the opposite of love isn’t hate, but indifference.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but, smiley aside, it seems like you want to give Amy a cyber left foot of fellowship because she rubs you the wrong way.

A lot of us base our beliefs and ways of living on the images drawn from things written in a collection of books from thousands of years ago. And encourage others to do the same!

And with that we have over 2000 years of history on our side and the collective voice of the Church giving what has been written an authoritative voice.
Surely you wouldn’t wish to equate pithy comments (interspersed with occassional profundity) on a blog with the same authority as scripture, would you?
The mandate from what we do hold as authoritative is to not judge – period. And if we are going to pass judgment (which we shouldn’t do) then at the very least do it from a place of RELATIONSHIP and where one can witness the fruit of one’s lived life. I would argue that that is virtually impossible in this virtual space. There are moments when I log on and post something immediately following a very stressful day at work or with the kids or with my wife and I may write something or respond to someone’s comments to me in a way that I would not do if I were face to face with them enjoying a Black and Tan. It’s just that simple – and complex.
Bottom line- we shouldn’t judge.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but, smiley aside, it seems like you want to give Amy a cyber left foot of fellowship because she rubs you the wrong way.

She does rub me the wrong way. In other conversations I have ignored her outright and in large part because of the sort of self-righteous judgment calls she made above. But her rubbing me the wrong way does not give me the right to question her salvation just because we disagree on any of the topics discussed here.

Is that for real? Where does that info come from? And what is the dividing line between liberal and conservative that this stat is probing?

Well, it’s a pretty widely accepted phenomenon, really. Here’s a page with a bunch of articles (yes, I realize the page is from the SBC, but most of the articles seem to be from fair sources). You can already see the effect of the declining birthrate in Europe. The only difference with that is that there population growth comes from Muslim immigration.

Combative, perhaps. Passionate, no doubt.

I can get very passionate and perhaps combative when people use God and their religion to gain a place of power politically or economically and attempt to baptize their politics with Christianese while demonizing those that disagree.

Bottom line-be nice to me and I’ll be nice to you and vice-versa.

Isn’t there something about be nice to those who are not nice to you somewhere in some ancient writing?

I think there is great room to talk about all kinds of things with people who are unbelievers. But according to Scripture Christians are to have nothing to do with people who make some present or past claim of following Christ but blatantly turn against His teachings.

Care to reply to the last sentence here, Chad? I don’t think the answer to it should have anything to do with whether or not I rub anyone the wrong way.

It’s a question about scripture, ultimately. Just at what point does “Have nothing to do” with such and such a person apply? Or are such Scriptures simply to be ignored in the name of dialogue and tolerance?

In other conversations I have ignored her outright and in large part because of the sort of self-righteous judgment calls she made above.

The statement I made above is based on a lot of thought and pondering of Evan and Scripture. I really began to think about the issue seriously when Evan would not answer my question about who Jesus is.

Why are my opinions and thoughts and questions seen as judgement calls whereas yours are not? Why are mine “self-righteous” and yours are not?

Feel free to pull whatever proof text you like out of scripture that justifies any of us to judge another.

Who is judging, Chad? Perhaps you are:

Evan is a beloved child of God whether he knows it or not

That is unless “beloved child of God” can possibly mean something other than one who has received God’s salvation.

I repeat what I said earlier:

Inherent in Jude and other passages like it is the assumption that at some point a person does have to make some sort of judgement about where another person is spiritually – not a judgement that determines ultimately whether a person is lost or saved – because only God can do that; rather a judgement that determines whether the person is to be treated as a lost person who needs Christ or one who has “tasted” but turned their back on Christ.

Notice, I said:

not a judgement that determines ultimately whether a person is lost or saved.

_____
I asked a question about scripture because I am wondering if I am doing what is scriptural, yet you are apparently already categorizing who I would fit with, based on that question:

As such, they spend the bulk of their time parsing things people say and do and from there try to fit them into a category based on their own subjective understanding of scripture.

So then anyone who thinks that it might be biblical to separate himself from someone who claims to be a Christian but denies Christ by his words or actions is part of this “they” CATEGORY you’ve described above,

part of the “they” who “spend the bulk of their time . . . ” ;

part of the “they” who “see themselves as God’s viceroys and judges” (how about, see themselves as someone trying to consider what it means to be obedient to Scripture) ;

part of the “they” who have subjective views of scripture (which is to say that those having an opposing viewpoint have a correct view of scripture.)

I will not abandon a human being created in the image of God,

Yet in the church the Corinthians were instructed to do that very thing with Christians who claimed to belong to God but walked in disobedience. Abandoned so that they WOULD return to Christ.

I’m not so sure about this, really. I really think liberals, at least on the social side of the movement, are the ones who are more at risk of dying out. If you look at birth rates in the US, conservative families tend to have more children than liberal ones, and the immigrant population, though they overwhelmingly for Democrats, tend to be pretty conservative socially.

That’s true, but once those kids of conservative families start thinking for themselves/their parents get transferred to coastal locations, the kids end up more liberal, especially on social issues. It’s already that way among young evangelicals — they’re grossed out by the “culture war” their parents have been fighting. I know lots of people who vote differently from their parents. Without exception, it’s because their parents are Republicans.

So if a ban passes there, I would imagine it could pass almost anywhere if it passed there.

No. Conservatives demonize California as the “most left-leaning,” but the truth of the matter is that it’s a hodge podge. New England is truly liberal.

Personally, I’d be surprised to see Congress, even under the Dems, do anything to support gay marriage. It just seems like there’s too much public opposition for politicians to take the risk right now.

The point is that public support is still moving toward equality. Even though they squeaked by their ban in California, thanks to the influx of Mormon money, they still lost over 10 percentage points of support for the amendment between 2000 and 2008. That’s significant.

The statement I made above is based on a lot of thought and pondering of Evan and Scripture. I really began to think about the issue seriously when Evan would not answer my question about who Jesus is.

Because you were, typically, changing the subject, Amy.

That is unless “beloved child of God” can possibly mean something other than one who has received God’s salvation.

Oh, so God doesn’t love the “unsaved”?

Wow. What a monster.

I thought the Dems were for the will of the people?

50 years ago the will of the people was to keep black people on the back of the bus.

And on that, I agree

The dems are for the will of the people, but not the tyranny of the majority, and there’s a difference.

Well, yes, you’re correct of course. Which is why things like the electoral college still make sense. Ironically, there was some talk of trying to amend the Constitution a while back to get rid of it. The main point I was making was that it seems both parties will abandon their supposed “core principles” rather quickly for the sake of political expediency.

We will probably never see eye to eye on this issue or other issues, barring a minor miracle. Honestly, though, Evan, I have to say to you I don’t consider you my enemy. Even in a political sense, I do not campaign for anyone, and apart from here I rarely even get into political discussions. Even here, I try to view it more as a discussion of ideas. So I do apologize if I’ve ever come off as attacking you personally. I have this sense that you always respond to me like I’m some right wing polemist, which is just so ironic to me.

There are different degrees along the political spectrum, it’s just that we are pretty much forced to make a binary choice. It’s unfortunate, because I think it causes a lot more division than necessary.

Just expressing an opinion here.

Everyone, amy, I repeat, everyone, is a beloved child of God

I agree that ALL are created in God’s image, but I disagree “that everyone, amy, I repeat, everyone, is a beloved child of God” (emphasis mine). “Child of God” implies relationship and everyone doesn’t have that saving relationship with God. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t care about or love them in a general sense.

Or are we just haggling over semantics?

If you look at when the polls shifted on Prop 8 (originally we were ahead), it was when the Mormons started funneling money into the Evangelical coffers that used lies, manipulation, and shameless images of children to scare people into voting for the proposition.

Keith – in defense of Evan, I was in San Francisco all week on business (just back home yesterday morning)…

You should have seen the Mormons – they were absolutely everywhere, crawling on every corner, nook and cranny. I was completely freaked out that I spent most of the time in my hotel room.**

(** all sarcasm, except I was in Cali all wk)

Evan, what’s your favorite term again? Wingnut? Where do you get this stuff, seriously?

Evan, what’s your favorite term again? Wingnut? Where do you get this stuff, seriously?

Oh god it’s you.

Where do I get it? From all the news reports and the Mormon church’s own statements on their contributions to the fight.

Don’t talk to me anymore. Seriously, don’t bother.

I don’t think we should cast the “Dems” as some monolith on gay marriage.

Most Dems I know–even national leader types–are not for “gay marriage”.

Chad: Actually, Christ died thereby reconciling ALL things to God. There is relationship. Some just dont realize it….yet.

John: But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

To say we’re all saved – whether we accept Christ or not – flies in the face of the gospel message. We are reconciled to the Lord (as John clearly shows) when we receive His offering for our sin (Christ – the Lamb of God) as our Savior.

Sorry, was in a hurry when I posted the above…

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Paul declares that Christ died, reconciling ALL things to God. He goes on then to say that you ARE reconciled, therefore, BE reconciled. I hear that in the passage you cite from John.

Another way of saying it is like this: I have two adopted children. They ARE my son and daughter. This is a fact about them whether they accept it or not and whether they even acknowledge me as their father. In adopting them I have also given them the right to become my children. They can now, because I have already adopted them, live in the present in relationship to me as father and they as my children.

Everyone is a child of God because of what Jesus did on the cross. Everyone has been adopted by God. Gentiles (every living being that is not a Jew) have been grafted in. Some of us just dont know it yet and are not living into are God-given identity. But even if my son and daughter do not live into their new identity as my children they are nevertheless my children.

So I guess the answer was “semantics.”

Keith, there is a world of difference between my saying that every person is a child of God and you saying that only some people are children of God (you would probably say only those predestined to be as such). That isn’t semantics.

Hahahaha, you quoted John Derbyshire, but not really, you quoted some wingnut moron who left a comment somewhere, being quoted BY John Derbyshire.

Really scraping the bottom by using the Cornhole as a source, Chris, really scraping the bottom…

I love how it pisses conservatives off to think that THEY might be called upon to do something for their countries.

Let the poor fight the wars, while the 101st Chairborne sits around reading Derbyshire and commenting on Free Republic.

And heaven forfend the president call upon the American people to sacrifice in any way to make the nation better.

It’s more fun to just use the catchy slogans and bawl while listening to Lee Greenwood songs, right?

“Cuntry’ First!”

“Dreel baby Dreel!”

Actually, it is.

National service programs exist in lots of Western countries. As a result, their citizens tend to be more informed, more invested in the success of the country, smarter…it’s a good thing.

But the thing is — Obama’s really not talking about a compulsory thing. He’s talking about giving people incentives to national service. The rest is pretty much part of the Cornhole’s ongoing fantasy about Barack Obama, led by the Oedipally unqualified Jonah “Lucianne’s best boy” Goldberg and longtime Wonder Virgin Kathryn Jean Lopez, or as we like to call her, simply, K-Lo.

It’s not charity or service if it is compulsory…

My undergrad school had mandatory community service that every person had to do in order to graduate. Many bawked (like Chris L is doing) at first but by the end of it every person I ever spoke to about it, including myself, thought it was wonderful.

Were soldiers who were drafted considered to have “served” their country? Of course they were.

It has zippo to do with color, Evan, but I can understand the left’s need to hide behind empty accusations, since it’s been their game for the past century or so…

Um, yeah, pot, meet kettle, since every wingnut accusation thrown at Obama has been pretty much pulled out their hind ends.

In case anybody’s not aware of why taking Lee Atwater’s advice makes Chris L a bad person, here’s a famous Lee Atwater quote, about the challenges of keeping racism alive while trying to elect Ronald Reagan (peace be upon him):

‘You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

”And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger.”’

And via Digby, a little “trajectory hermeneutic” for interpreting the Republican party’s strategy for the last five decades:

As I’ve written before, it’s always something:

1955 – They are an inferior race

1965 – They aren’t good workers

1975 – They make old white customers uncomfortable

1985 – Affirmative action means their diplomas are bogus

1995 – They are a litigation risk for discrimination

2006 – They don’t know how to behave in public.

During Katrina we saw a different face of coded racism: the “fear of the black mob,” the history of which goes all the way back to the early years of American history and the slave revolts. This is the racism that led Peggy Noonan, Jonah Goldberg and others on the right to lead the shrill cries to shoot first and ask questions later, based on the unconfirmed stories of marauding gangs of African American criminals. The hysteria to which they and the mainstream media succumbed was a significant factor in the sluggish relief and evacuation effort. It wasn’t that Bush didn’t “care about black people.” (although I doubt he cares much.) It’s that whites were afraid of black people. That’s just another side of the same bigoted coin.

This particular coded racist code has bee quite useful. It flies surreptitiously under the rightwing battle flag of “law ‘n order” (George Wallace’s latter day code for “nigger, nigger, nigger”) that was adopted wholesale by the GOP after 1968. It served the Republicans very, very well for more than 30 years and has probably only been temporarily shelved for their current obsession with “islamofascism.” It is being half-heartedly revived for the immigration debate today although they haven’t been able to integrate it very smoothly with their economic and national security arguments quite yet.

[snip]

The Mighty Rightwing Wurlitzer and its little volume pedal, the bigotsphere, are continuing the long tradition of American intolerance. The good news is that they are largely forced to find ways other than overt racist language to convey their hatred and intolerance. The bad news is that they manage to do it so very well. In case anyone has missed their latest brilliant rhetorical twist, here it is: if you call them on their racism, you are a racist. It’s one of the more successful applications of the GOP epistemic relativism of the “I know you are but what am I” variety. It’s quite frustrating, just as the Orwellian “losing means winning” rhetoric is. But don’t mistake it for anything but what it is. It’s not just a lame riposte. It’s not a defense. It’s code to others who think as they do. Racists.

That’s right. Racism is gone.

My god.

But, as usual, you fail to refute any of the specific points I made, choosing to “whatever” like a pubescent pre-teen testing boundaries with Mommy. Are you taking your toys and going home, too? Were you, perchance, a whiny child?

I’m glad to know that you’ve also revealed this week just how little respect or indeed love you have for America and for American democracy, by participating in the primary of a party of which you obviously aren’t a member, and you seem to be proud of it.

Catch-22 logic. My case in point

That’s not a Catch-22.

The point is that only a stupid racist would actually say something quite so stupid as “racism is pretty much gone.” To believe such a stupid thing is to be either blind, willfully stupid, or both.

Got it?

That’s totally different from a Catch-22 situation.

Since you didn’t actually make any points, choosing instead to cite kool-aid drinkers with an institutional need for the continuation of belief in widespread racism.

No. Digby is one of the most respected political writers in the country. You, on the other hand, don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

I participated in a primary 22 years ago when I had no party affiliation yet, because I was 18…

But you were already a wingnut taking cues from Lee Atwater.

I can see what the next four years will be like though…

Person A: The Obamessiah’s policy on X is wrong-headed lunacy

Person B: Petty racist!

Person A: WTH?!? I critiqued his policy, not his skin color. That’s not racist.

Person B: See – that proves you’re a racist!

Person A: Whatever…

Person B: Make that a childish, flaming racist…

In this scene, both Person A and Person B will be played by Chris Lyons and the sock-puppet he made of Jonah Goldberg, apparently.

“Racism is pretty much gone”

That represents a particularly cloistered perspective which is far from reality. I will attribute it to a general frustration in your back and forth with Evan. I have heard conversations that openly call Obama a darky, muse about his assassination, relegate the entire black population as freeloaders, and many other racist statements made in public places. And I don’t get out much.

The nation has made much progress, but racism is alive and well within a significant segment of the populace. Even without realizing it, Obama’s race is processed differently among the races, some with an unearned positive perspective and some with an unearned negativity. But politics seems to squeeze out the worst in people, including believers. Political discussions mostly serve to reinforce our image as moral police, and it obscures the redemptive essence which should be our garment. The “Limbaughesque” element is particularly offensive and not in keeping with Christ, and when believers are emotionally contending/complaining for less taxes so they can keep more of that money, it again serves to cloud the issue and is completely outside the New Testament framework. Could there be any less fair a tax than was collected by Rome, and yet Christ commanded them to give it and no where set the example for murmuring.

Read many of the ODM sites and see what happens when an entire body of work becomes little else than well written murmuring, spiritually and politically. We of all people should stand out in stark relief against the hateful political climate, and yet we blend in with all the other malcontents who claim to have the answers to all the nation’s problems. I must admit I enjoy watching the frivolity of a presidential election, but many times I am grieved to see what happens to believers during this season because it reminds me of me 8 years ago. Christians who usually show patience and love to people seem to regress personally as they get stuck to this “tar baby” called politics. They morph into Americans at the expense of emulating Christ who commanded us to walk in humility.

We must pray for the president, regardless of who he may be, but we cannot get caught up and entangled with the affairs of this world in such a way we lose our witness. I have watched very spiritual people, praying and humble people, undergo a demonstrable change when they engage in political discussions, and many times they do not even realize it. Jesus Christ died for Obama, and Pelosi, and Reid, and all the other cast of characters, and that fact alone should not only temper, but should dictate our attitudes and words as followers of Christ. The continuing deception is that somehow we are doing God’s work by our self righteous attitudes about issues and our careless attitudes about people. There are no liberals and conservatives, just sinners.

The Sermon on the Mount never finds a voice in the political theatre.

I abhor the use of “messiah” as a term of derision when it is should only refer to Him Who IS our Messiah.

Around here people think racism is “pretty much gone” just because they no longer burn crosses in people’s yards or lynch people. But in fact, it exists in many other forms, as the member of my church illustrates. If you asked him if he is a racist he would say “no way.”

The institutional vestiges of white-to-black racism have been removed from American society, and the post-baby-boom generational attitudes abhor it, often bending over backwards to avoid it.

Agreed. Also, I live in the south as I did when I was a child. I have numerous stories of racism from my junior high and high school days, and I think for the most part kids most kids don’t have those kinds of attitudes today (burning crosses, shunning, etc). Most adults I know certainly don’t want to treat people of other races as inferior.

I remember even in elementary school going to a doctor’s office in my area and being told that I didn’t want to go in “that” waiting room. That was in the 70’s.

We need to remember though that amidst the racism of the past there were white people who went out of their way to be the opposite – to visit and befriend and even help financially. Those kind of people aren’t talked about. I’m really proud of my grandfather who was such a man.

another thing re: GWB

I was deeply critical of GWB because of the way christians got on his train after moralistically demonizing Clinton.

He wasn’t a good President. Even my conservative (NOT neo-con) friends hated his guts.

But you know what? The guy DID do some good on other policy areas and for that I’m grateful.

In my tradition we pray for the President by name every Sunday–at least–and then often times in our daily “office”.

It was important for my health so that I could rigorously critique him, but not slip over into derisive names, etc.

Another issue:

Do I like the high-flown quasi-religious fawning over B?

No…

But…
Obama is not responsible for other people’s rhetoric and calling him a “messiah”.

Second, Farrahkhan is a joke even within the Dem’s.
Third, I only heard that kind of “messiah” rhetoric in some limited quarters that did strike me as representative of the party of the party as a whole.

Therefore, I just chalked it up to be the simple fact that there are crazies on both sides.

Question:

If you’re offended by the “messiah” talk (presumably on religious/theological grounds), then were you offended by the Reagan language of “city on a hill” which clearly appropriated language about the Church to this nation? I thought that was blasphemous and only helped perpetuate the sin of nationalism in christians.

I’m wondering, because for me, until the Dem’s actually start talking about him like that I’ll just write it off as fringe dumbness.

Sometimes the best method is to illustrate the absurd by being absurd.

Well, you certainly got the latter part of that down pat

Chris, apart from Obama being pro-choice, which of his policies do you label as being “evil”?

Agreed. Also, I live in the south as I did when I was a child. I have numerous stories of racism from my junior high and high school days, and I think for the most part kids most kids don’t have those kinds of attitudes today (burning crosses, shunning, etc). Most adults I know certainly don’t want to treat people of other races as inferior.

Just because it has gone underground doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I had a member of my church call me the day after the election and say “Doesn’t matter the KKK will get him anyway”. Racism is alive and well in the U.S. of A. My hometown newspaper the day after the election.

as far as “endorsements” from some bad guys, hmmmm…

I don’t know if that really means anything unless you drink deeply from the toilet that is Fox News and talk radio.

Look at how many people around the world are happy to see an Obama presidency…does that mean that they are all somehow “down with terrorists” and the like?

Could it be that, despite the immoral tactics of such groups, that their support for an Obama presidency could only indicate the truth about the history of that region? (i.e. a space that has suffered under colonial abuse for years, then set on their own, messed with by the great powers for years after and then manipulated further for geo-political games. Maybe it really is about people needing to know that their legit. grievances may be heard and addressed? Maybe they see potential for this in the person of Obama as opposed to a guy who sang “bomb bomb iran”?)

Or could it be that for all their dubious activities, Hamas et. al actually may be right about something or it indicates a shift in their thinking? (think the IRA and Sinn Fein in Ireland)

Furthermore:

Honestly, criticism of his economic policies is fair. But calling it “socialism” when it’s not is ridiculous.

Criticism of his abortion position is fair. But some people saying he wants to kill babies is inflammatory and not going to help people work on solutions together.

Criticism of stupid fringe rhetoric on behalf of anyone is fair. But to attribute responsibility for it and then denigrate Obama doesn’t make sense.

He’s just a man. a man with flaws. some bad ideas and some good ideas.

Something to think about.

Arguing over moral issues is in and of itself self righteous. We are to preach the gospel with love and strength, but all these side issues are not only a distraction, it is actually at odds with the ministry of Jesus Christ.

How God must hate seeing emotional arguing over the behavior and issues of the lost when in fact our ministry must be reconciliation, not divisive. Does God really care about Obama’s “success” as president, or is He concerned about his soul?

Politics stinks like dead fish and still believers are content to roll around in its fragrance.

And then I’ll admit I was wrong to criticize The One…

I don’t think I’d worry about having to do that, Chris. If BO’s selection of Emanuel (former Freddie Mac board member) as Chief of Staff, not to mention his surrounding himself with many of Clinton’s cronies (where in the heck is THAT CHANGE?!) is any indication of what we’re in for…God help us.

Evan,

You’re rhetoric isn’t all that helpful either at times.

We just don’t need this kind of disdain in politics. It poisons the environment.

Can’t we all just get along?

“In the end, does it really doesn’t matter who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”

The fountain of wisdom.

Correction #341: “…it really doesn’t matter…”

Chad – forbearance, brother. Many people feel very strongly about certain issues and that is their right. I can understand passion about the abortion issue, the rest, not so much.

BTW – Purdue is on the skids as well, so take that into consideration. They even lost to Notre Dame which is no easy task!

I have to admit, that for the most part I’m pretty tired of politics, and I had hoped that these discussions would die down after the election, but I will say this. It seems to me that there’s a bit of a double standard here. Through the years I’ve seen some very mean-spirited parodies of President Bush, and I saw very little in the way of condemnation from those on the left. In fact, it was almost the opposite.

So I guess the challenge is this – if you are morally outraged by a satire of Obama, you should have the same sort of moral outrage by a satire of Bush.

Personally, the way I see it is this. I feel that so much hope is being out into Obama’s leadership, that a big letdown is inevitable. It will be the same sort of thing that happened with the Christian right and Bush. Just because Obama is on the other side of the ideological spectrum doesn’t mean he’ll end up having much more success than Bush.

I just get the feeling that Bush may have been God’s attempt to teach the religious right a lesson, and Obama might be His attempt to teach the left a lesson.

Chad,
Well, you’re pretty much illustrating my point. All satires are based in reality somewhat, or else no one would find them funny. People have used messianic type speech to describe Obama all throughout the campaign – that’s not just a smear, it’s the truth. Did you see this article that was written by a college student? Sadly, it isn’t a parody.

You also have the phenomenon of teachers leading little kids in songs about Obama, which is very weird. When he was here at PSU, people were literally in tears trying to see him. Frankly, it is a type of idolatry.

So like I said before, none of these attacks come close to the attacks that Bush has seen. Do you remember the book from a few years ago that depicted Bush’s assassination? If that were written about Obama, all hell would break loose.

So, of course, two wrongs don’t make a right, but neither side has moral authority any longer precisely because they’re not consistent in their outrage. It would probably be best if Christians just kept their mouths shut for a little.

I remember when David Kuo’s book came out, and he called for a fast from politics, that I thought that was just ridiculous. But now I’m seeing the wisdom in that. It seems that it just blinds people.

All satires are based in reality somewhat, or else no one would find them funny.

And Phil, you are illustrating my point. Who is laughing when people laud Obama as the anointed one or the Messiah or the One? Just because a few fringe groups or wackos might think a president is the answer to all their hopes and dreams doesn’t mean we should jump on the wacko bandwagon and use religious imagery to make fun of anyone, president or not.

Lets be honest – Bush gave us plenty of material to turn into humor (it almost wrote itself). But it was stuff Bush actually said and did. Obama is not going around claiming to be anything other than a man who wants to serve his country as president.

Let me ask you this: Do you agree that there are Christians who think Rick Warren is the best thing since sliced bread? Of course their are. Now, if or when Ken Silva or Ingrid or Chris R. start calling RW the Messiah over and over and over again are you going to call it satire? Would you just sit back and say “well, people make fun of Paul Washer also.” I doubt you would. I think you would speak out against such absurdity.

but it’s [COMING] to the point where the ODMs the religious right (and Chris L’s harping) have become parodies of themselves because of their obsession with Warren. Obama.

Exactly. That is all I am trying to say.

You also have to think that Obama brings some of this on himself with all his “hope and change” rhetoric. Some of it’s to be expected and can be written off as typical political stumping, but the weird thing in this past election cycle was that a lot people actually seemed to sincerely believe it.

Come on, Phil. God forbid the next leader of a country would talk about hope and change. God forbid that single mothers who cant get employment or health insurance for their children might actually be “hoping” for some relief. God forbid that parents with kids in Iraq might actually start to “hope” that their kids will come home – sooner than later.
Seriously, I didn’t hear any of you complaining when McCain proclaimed that he is promising “Change we can BELIEVE in.” I would hope that someone would call me retarded and knock me down a peg if I started calling McCain a Messiah or started mocking him because he had the nerve to promise a new course of action or direction for the country.

Phil,
I don’t disagree with you. My point in all of this has been to point out the inconsistencies in the arguments put forth by some here who would soundly put people in their place who use fear as their main tactic and especially those who throw the name “Messiah” around little regard.

As a person who has a great deal of respect for all the contributors on this site I would have hoped (sorry to use that word here) for more from many of you. I would have hoped that rather than rolling over and playing along with the “Messiah” band-wagon you all would take the high road and declare how no political candidate should be called such. I would have hoped that Chris L would have argued against anyone, regardless of political affiliation, who blurs the line between President and Savior and definately would not have expected him to jump on that bandwagon and perpetuate such a “joke.” I also would have expected the contributors of this site, whom I respect, to have spoken out against all of that rather than justify it by saying people did the same thing to Bush.

Chad,
I will also grant you that Obama seems to generate a lot of irrational hatred as well. It’s just like Bush and Clinton seemed to do so as well. It’s sort of sad how we tend to let our emotions get so tied into politics.

Chad,
I will also grant you that Obama seems to generate a lot of irrational hatred as well. It’s just like Bush and Clinton seemed to do so as well. It’s sort of sad how we tend to let our emotions get so tied into politics.

Amen to that.

This is a great blog for all those who believe that no one believes that Obama is the Messiah...

Scary stuff.

“Obama is ready to rule on day one”

If in fact true, could it be that not as many blacks attended Republican rallies for fear of being labelled by racist blacks as “unce toms” or traitors because of the expectation that they should vote for Obama?

Eric,
How many blacks were filling the rallies in past Republican rallies? DMac or Spike Lee isn’t wrong to point that out. It was glaringly obvious in this election as well as in past elections where there was no black candidate.

# 367

I rest my case. Chad, The neo liberal cult of DDS (Duke Divinity School) has clearly clogged your understanding. You are in darkness, my friend, if you believe that all roads lead to heaven, that there is salvation in any other name, that some profession of faith devoid of right belief and understanding placed there by the Holy Spirit is salvic in nature.

Universalism: Belief that all roads lead to God, and that all Gods are the same.
Pluralism: Belief that all roads can get to God, but my belief is the superior belief.
Christianity: Only in Christ can one be saved. God is the only one true God, the God of the Bible. There is no other.

It is no wonder that you can say Amen to your hero Rob Bell, for you believe the same way he does!!

How many blacks were filling the rallies in past Republican rallies? DMac or Spike Lee isn’t wrong to point that out. It was glaringly obvious in this election as well as in past elections where there was no black candidate.

On this note, I was VERY SAD that the most qualified candidate in my view was not nominated…Condi Rice. I hope sincerely she makes a run in 2012.

Of course, she doesn’t count. According to the left, she does not count as a woman candidate or as African American, because she is conservative. It is the left who is VERY racist, because Bush’s cabinet was by far the most diverse, and qualified, but it didn’t count because they dodn’t like the politics.

The neo liberal cult of DDS

LOL! Hey PB- which DDS professor have you read? You amuse me, PB, seriously.

Who said anything about me believing all roads lead to heaven? I really think you have a problem reading, PB.

And your definitions of universalism shows that you know nothing about Rob Bells theology or mine.

Yeah, PB – it’s called “birth control”, not “abortion” or “murder”. In America, every woman needs a right to a dead baby,

Chris, I am convinced that you have some deep-seated, personal anger about this issue which is causing you to see red when you discuss politics. It’s a shame you cannot be as rational and insightful on this topic as you are with so many others. Not that you need to disagree with a pro-choice president but at the very least not be ignorant and incindiary in the same way PB is with respect to Rob Bell’s teaching on universalism (or any topic, for that matter).

I know of several here in Indiana

Cool. Three or four black people in Indiana attended a Republican rally.

The point Dmac was making, I think, is that the republican rally looks like the “white” party. Forget this election – even elections in the past have been predominately white.

Chris-
serious question: Do you unleash this much venom on the women who actually have an abortion?

Chad,

Why do you choose to comment on my question without answering it? You have no idea what I have or haven’t had to deal with in my life. Are you suggesting that Obama has had someone’s foot on the back of his neck?

Why don’t you take a stab at actually answering the question if you think I’m so wrong? Racism is racism, no matter how you (or others) try to justify it.

I never have said that past Republican rallies have been filled with blacks. I merely suggested one reason why in this election and others there may not be as many blacks at Republican rallies.

Dmac also did not point out an observation of his own, but rather an observation made by a race baiting celebrity with an obvious financial stake in the continuation of racial tension (read: he makes a lot of money and gains status from his numerous movies laced with racist themes).

So please Chad, explain why it is morally acceptable for a black to vote for a black (and against a white) because of his color and the reverse is not true, since your comment seems to suggest that it is.

Are you suggesting that Obama has had someone’s foot on the back of his neck?

Not Obama himself, but the entire black race.

So please Chad, explain why it is morally acceptable for a black to vote for a black (and against a white) because of his color and the reverse is not true, since your comment seems to suggest that it is.

It’s simple: I, as a white male, have never been told I cant sit there. I have never been told I can’t use that bathroom. I have never been told I can’t eat here. I have never been told that I can’t vote. I have never been told that I am part of the “American Problem.” I have never been told that I am less human because I am white. I have never had a family member lynched solely because I am white. I have never been treated as someones property.

I could go all day with such a list. So when you ask how a black person can be morally justified to vote for a black candidate just because they are black I submit to you 400 years of hell that they have endured – hell that was administered by the hands of white men. This is why I said your comments sounds like something from a person who has never had a boot on their neck. As white people, we can’t even begin to imagine what it must be like to finally be able to vote (a recent miracle!) for a black person to the highest office of our land. I do not begrudge them that vote for vindication. In fact, I rejoice with them in it.

In many ways I think that blacks have been to the Democrat party as Evangelicals have been to the Republicans – a voting block that they can take for granted. It’s always amazed me that blacks have consistently supported Democrats over the years, but they really haven’t gotten anything to show for it.

I think that’s really the danger of identity politics. Once you vote for someone because of what he represents to you instead of what his principles are, you are really projecting onto that person. I have a hard time believing that a white candidate with the same qualifications and background of Obama would ever have survived the primaries. It’s just that Obama became a symbol to so many people, and that’s a very powerful thing.

Sorry, maybe I just need to get more comfortable rationalizing away murder. It would probably help me sleep better, blissfully careless of the blobs of tissue tossed out for convenience sake.

See, this is where you lose me, Chris, and you start to sound just like the ODM’s you consistently speak out against.

No one is rationalizing murder. Certainly not me. There comes a time, however, when we need to wake up and smell the coffee (or napalm). Legislating abortion rights IS NOT GOING TO STOP ABORTION. Cal Thomas, in an article worth reading, said this:

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Source: http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2419

I agree with this. If stopping or decreasing the number of abortions that occur is our stated goal (and I assume that is the goal we all share) than we need to be smarter about how we go about that. It isn’t going to happen because of legislation. There are plenty of countries that have made abortion illegal and they still have tons of them each year (read http://www.thirdway.org ). We need to do exactly as most pro-choice people say we should do and encourage women and familes to seek out the counsel of their church and clergy (like Obama suggested). It is only when we begin changing people’s hearts and getting to the root of the fears that women have in carrying a baby they did not expect to be carrying are we ever going to be able to put a dent in the number of abortions that occur.

PB,
On this issue with Rob Bell you seem to be using the same tactic as politicians – repeat a lie enough times and it become the truth…

Simply put, universal atonement is not the same as universalism. So either you’re just ignorant or deliberately slandering Bell. Either way, it’s getting old…

PB-
See my posts 261 and 284 and some of the comments in between.

Simply put: You are not understanding what you speak against.

Both those posts fall short of truth, Chad.

But believe what you will, I will not convince you, but from those two, I believe you also are a Universalist.

Both those posts fall short of truth, Chad.

But believe what you will, I will not convince you, but from those two, I believe you also are a Universalist.

Well, you are just a fool then, PB. And quite frankly I don’t care what your opinion is of me.

So the answer is to get your brand of Messiah in the white house?

I think not. But we shall soon see. 1 abortion is one too many. 4000 is a stench in the nostrils of God. God Bless America? He has. but I will not be surprised at all when it stops.

The fact is that what bell says and what Chad says fall short in this way, according to Jesus’ own words, found in John 3:16-18:

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

We are not already reconciled, we are already condemned unless we pisteuo-believe (trust in, place faith in, entrust our salvation to), Jesus. This means that if you do not do this, you are not reconciled, or in an unrecognized state of reconciliation, you are in a state of condemnation.

Would a law against abortion be nice? Sure. But it most likely would not be permanent and wouldn’t do what we hope. The answer is not in getting your own brand of Messiah in the White House to effect the change you so desire.

Can I take this is chunks?

Would a law against abortion be nice? Sure. But it most likely would not be permanent and wouldn’t do what we hope

.

To me, this argument is irrelevant. If Obama passes legislation that makes abortion easier to get (and he has said that he will) and I voted for him then I believe I have committed a grave error. Yes, I realize what I am saying about my friends and brothers and sisters whom I love. I realize that some if not many will be offended by what they will take as my condemning tone but I feel this is an issue that has a line and I must decide where I am standing in relation to that line.

The answer is not in getting your own brand of Messiah in the White House to effect the change you so desire.

This is a true statement. What concerns me is there are many people who seem to be embracing Obama as the answer to questions that only Jesus is the answer for. I am not saying this is you at Chad.
I think there are many people who got way upset over religious leaders lending their public support to Bush and other republicans and now they are doing the same thing to Obama.

The truth is there comes a point in all of this where I think Christians lose sight of the fact that there hope is not in the economic plan of the Political party but in the spilled blood of Jesus Christ. Our hope is not in a American of African descent who promises to bring change, but in a God/man of Davidic descent who promised to change us.

Not only are you a fool but you are obviously illiterate.

well, what does Jesus say?

Mt 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Joe,

#402, beautifully said.

Now if we can just get you off the Yankees, you will be complete!

PB-
That has been addressed already and the answer I gave in post 284 answers that. It seems pointless to explain again to you very simple theological concepts. You just don’t get it.

Ha! Never happen.

Are you saying that alone would be reason enough to vote for a candidate…even without considering or knowing the candidate’s platform?

Keith-
I am saying that I do not begrudge them a vote for vindication.

My hunch is that many, many Americans cast votes without a clue about platforms.

Chad,

You said: “I do not begrudge them that vote for vindication. In fact, I rejoice with them in it.” That reflects a very Christ-like attitude.

It appears as though the crux of your argument is that since one has been somehow disenfranchised, disadvantaged, or abused in some way, then the indivudual is justified to turn around and inflict the same on another. I’ll just say that you’ll not be winning any ethics debates with that line of thinking.

What you seem not to want to recognize is that evil is evil, no matter how you couch it. You seem to want to couch evils such as racism and murder (abortion) in sympathetic terms and thus justify them.

If you had a child that came home and told you that he got in trouble for kicking and punching a person in class, but that he didn’t think he should get in trouble because he has been kicked and punched before, how would you respond? To be consistent with your previous line of reasoning you’d have to give the kid a free pass, and maybe even pat him on the back.

Your use of the term “hell” to describe what you feel an entire race has experienced for the last 400 years is unfortunate. The Bible describes hell as far more heinous than anything an individual or class of people can experience here on earth. In fact, the Bible teaches that we will all endure suffering here on earth, but that the pathway to glory is through suffering. Christ gave us the ultimate example of enduring suffering.

Racism against others is not justified by claiming victim status. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” comes to mind.

#411

I guess you do not fear God, Chad.

I am a fool, for Christ. And to be called a fool? Okay by me. Examine yourself, Chad. I am not insulting anybody. It is the one with a weak argument that must go on a personal attack.

Eric –

Casting a vote for a black candidate is not the same as “kicking and punching” a kid in revenge.

Look at all three verses: It does not say Israel, it says Kosmos.

God’s plan? To save the world. (kosmos)
God’s solution: Send Christ
Man’s response? Believe (trust in) or be condemned.

It does not say for God so loved Israel, it says God so loved the world (kosmos) which includes but is not limited to Israel.

Chris,

“I’m sure I missed something”

I’m sure you did as well.

Chad,

The same? No, never said it was. Analagous? Yes.

The bottom line is that you are attempting to defend racist attitudes and actions. That is a rather untenable position.

My hunch is that many, many Americans cast votes without a clue about platforms.

Boy, you slobbered a bib full there!! (Okie translation= “You said a mouthful” = “True”

All the more reason for a Voter IQ Test to be eligible to vote. A voter should be able to at least name the candidates and CORRECT running mates, as well as, generally stating at least one of the candidate’s platforms. I would also be in favor of requiring some type of voter ID for all states. (I’d like to also require some type of literacy test, e.g. being able to read the Gettysburg Address within 3 minutes–278 words by my count, shouldn’t be too tough, although a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of 10th grade may be a stretch for some. I’d be willing to give this one up for voter ID)

Just some thoughts; not looking for agreement or argument.

All the more reason for a Voter IQ Test to be eligible to vote. A voter should be able to at least

name the candidates and CORRECT running mates, as well as, generally stating at least one of the candidate’s platforms. I would also be in favor of requiring some type of voter ID for all states. (I’d like to also require some type of literacy test, e.g. being able to read the Gettysburg Address within 3 minutes–278 words by my count, shouldn’t be too tough, although a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of 10th grade may be a stretch for some. I’d be willing to give this one up for voter ID)

Translation: All those who don’t agree with me must be stupid therefore we need to have a litmus test.

I don’t know sounds a bit Jim Crow to me.

All the more reason for a Voter IQ Test to be eligible to vote. A voter should be able to at least name the candidates and CORRECT running mates, as well as, generally stating at least one of the candidate’s platforms. I would also be in favor of requiring some type of voter ID for all states. (I’d like to also require some type of literacy test, e.g. being able to read the Gettysburg Address within 3 minutes–278 words by my count, shouldn’t be too tough, although a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of 10th grade may be a stretch for some. I’d be willing to give this one up for voter ID)

I would settle for someone who is alive and has a verifiable residence in the state.

Chris: Your “Jim Crow” comment tries to imply I’m aiming my comments only at blacks. UNTRUE. There are PLENTY of other races that I would include, but then this election wasn’t about race…

PB,

I’m curious. Is Martin Luther in heaven despite his unrepentant anti-semitism? Or did he show himself to be unredeemed like Obama?

I have come to believe that Rob Bell is a sincere Christian, a family man, engaged in missions and humanitarian efforts, and in no way reflects some of the sinister portrals with which some have painted him. I disagree with his direction and some of his teachings concerning the essence of eternity for both the lost and the saved, but I have grown weary of hearing a constant flow of incendiary and provocative verbiage that is careless, graceless, and is counter productive to any legitimate discourse as borthers.

The beating a dead horse image seems to be what amuses and consumes many in the ODM world at the expense of devotion to Christ and humility about our own standing in grace. John – you have your opinion about Rob Bell, but it is unchristian to throw him under the bus on a blog where he is the pastor of some of the commentors. I consider that bad form and satifying to your flesh, but not the Spirit.

Sometimes you have good and wholesome points of discussion, other times you seem like you graduated from the Chris P. college of blog disruption.

PB,

Unless I repent of what?

MG,

sin.

Man can refuse the offer, and stands condemned, not reconciled.

This is almost to the point of being a matter of semantics, and it’s really ridiculous that you’re trying to use it prove something about Bell being a univeralist.

If Jesus paid the entire debt of sin on the cross, then the work is done, no other payment is necessary. What you’re describing is very close to saying that salvation is dependent on what we do.

The more ironic thing is that a good Reformed Evangelical would say that Jesus was slain “since the foundation of the world”, thus making the Atonement a timeless event. So saying that the act of salvation takes place when we repent has other problems then.