bush?

[Sketcher]

If you had seen who he was running against, you would see why he won both elections.

He's not perfect. But other than borders and spending, I have no problems with the man.

 

[Psalms34]

I can't be certain it's all true, but I'll look into it.

In response to your full post, not just this first line I added to direct my comments for a reply, I just didn't want to post it all in line by line:

Well, concerning praying away things, what was probably in mind was such a passage as Matthew 7:22. Many can pray but not all use discernment thus praying for some is futile. Generally not for the Christian, however, but we tend to pray and expect a lightning bolt to fly down from heaven to direct our way and though answers are not so prevalent at all times we tend to answer things for ourselves in our own mind and timing thinking that is what we are instructed to do in the matter. But God gave us all thinkers to reason with, and to reason we must digest the subject as best we can and apply discernment as we have learnt from our bible studies which is the ultimate measuring stick for all things at this point. The apostles seemed to have this problem at first as well, when they decided to replace Judas among their ranks they did it by the roll of the dice (a quick answer), yet the one that came up on the dice was not Paul but one (who?) that we never heard of in scriptures after that point. I think if they asked God and waited for an answer, that in time the obvious decision would have been Paul, not Matthias.


As for divisions, yes, there are divisions and in some cases this is a good thing. Even the Apostles encountered divisions to a degree (Acts 15:39). Then there are serious divisions such as is written in Revelation concerning the Churches, should one be united with the Laodicean Church for sake of being united? It seems not being divided from such a Church would be a bad influence for those that would overcome. This isn't a Church that is not a part of the body of Christ, this is one that belongs to Christ as part of the body, as a member of that body seemingly. Many believe that we should all be united as one Church body or as a single member of the body all believing the same things, but what Church creed do we all unite under seeing that Christ has not returned yet to sort it all out, the Laodicean Church? Even the Church that you attended had/has divisions with other Churches that were/are very strong, such as with the WoF or the RCC (over doctrines). But to be united need we all become RCC or WoF? Many in those Churches would say so though under their creeds of course. This is not to say that we say such a thing as anathema to them and turn our backs, but to help correct the problems they are facing with knowledge and Love to help those that may overcome.


As for ass/u/me this is generally jokingly said, when I was quite young I recall it was a Benny Hill skit that was terribly funny (very classic). I don't watch that any longer of course, but the underlining meaning seems to hold true. When we assume we tend to base this on our own understandings, not so much as with facts studied. We not only discredit ourselves but make the whole matter more as a joke when it is really serious business.


I don't have a problem criticizing Bush, I used to like him at first though had concerns in regards to his Fathers directions, but in my book he has turned out to be a turn coat. Many of the things he is doing will most likely contribute to the kingdom of the AC when that arises (which I believe is very very soon though I believe in pre-trib so wont be here to see first hand). The making of the kingdom of the AC is a process, it does not just suddenly appear on the scene, but the spirit and practice of it will already be in effect enough that people will accept the full version created on that day of his proclamation. Bush very well may be a Christian, but I cannot judge his heart and can only discern by his actions. I know that he himself in in fact not the AC, but it is apparent that he is setting up the system that will be used by the AC to rule his kingdom. He is probably not knowingly doing this as if it were his goal, but he is playing into such hands over his apparent lack of discernment.

 

[Cris413]

In response to your full post, not just this first line I added to direct my comments for a reply, I just didn't want to post it all in line by line:

Well, concerning praying away things, what was probably in mind was such a passage as Matthew 7:22. Many can pray but not all use discernment thus praying for some is futile. Generally not for the Christian, however, but we tend to pray and expect a lightning bolt to fly down from heaven to direct our way and though answers are not so prevalent at all times we tend to answer things for ourselves in our own mind and timing thinking that is what we are instructed to do in the matter. But God gave us all thinkers to reason with, and to reason we must digest the subject as best we can and apply discernment as we have learnt from our bible studies which is the ultimate measuring stick for all things at this point. The apostles seemed to have this problem at first as well, when they decided to replace Judas among their ranks they did it by the roll of the dice (a quick answer), yet the one that came up on the dice was not Paul but one (who?) that we never heard of in scriptures after that point. I think if they asked God and waited for an answer, that in time the obvious decision would have been Paul, not Matthias.


As for divisions, yes, there are divisions and in some cases this is a good thing. Even the Apostles encountered divisions to a degree (Acts 15:39). Then there are serious divisions such as is written in Revelation concerning the Churches, should one be united with the Laodicean Church for sake of being united? It seems not being divided from such a Church would be a bad influence for those that would overcome. This isn't a Church that is not a part of the body of Christ, this is one that belongs to Christ as part of the body, as a member of that body seemingly. Many believe that we should all be united as one Church body or as a single member of the body all believing the same things, but what Church creed do we all unite under seeing that Christ has not returned yet to sort it all out, the Laodicean Church? Even the Church that you attended had/has divisions with other Churches that were/are very strong, such as with the WoF or the RCC (over doctrines). But to be united need we all become RCC or WoF? Many in those Churches would say so though under their creeds of course. This is not to say that we say such a thing as anathema to them and turn our backs, but to help correct the problems they are facing with knowledge and Love to help those that may overcome.


As for ass/u/me this is generally jokingly said, when I was quite young I recall it was a Benny Hill skit that was terribly funny (very classic). I don't watch that any longer of course, but the underlining meaning seems to hold true. When we assume we tend to base this on our own understandings, not so much as with facts studied. We not only discredit ourselves but make the whole matter more as a joke when it is really serious business.


I don't have a problem criticizing Bush, I used to like him at first though had concerns in regards to his Fathers directions, but in my book he has turned out to be a turn coat. Many of the things he is doing will most likely contribute to the kingdom of the AC when that arises (which I believe is very very soon though I believe in pre-trib so wont be here to see first hand). The making of the kingdom of the AC is a process, it does not just suddenly appear on the scene, but the spirit and practice of it will already be in effect enough that people will accept the full version created on that day of his proclamation. Bush very well may be a Christian, but I cannot judge his heart and can only discern by his actions. I know that he himself in in fact not the AC, but it is apparent that he is setting up the system that will be used by the AC to rule his kingdom. He is probably not knowingly doing this as if it were his goal, but he is playing into such hands over his apparent lack of discernment.

Thanks for the direction to Matthew 7:22 but I’m just not making the connection on how we can pray things away. I see the verse as a warning against religiosity and that just because you confess the Lord does not guarantee you are of the Lord.

The entire point of my post was Ephesians 4. Not division in the church.

Ephesians 4:1-3 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

I’m not sure how your response applies to my post but agreed, there is division in church. Do we need to run far and fast from bad doctrine…absolutely. God calls us to be united in the Spirit

I think I’m good with the all the info on division in the church.

Thanks again

 

[Psalms34]

Thanks for the direction to Matthew 7:22 but I’m just not making the connection on how we can pray things away. I see the verse as a warning against religiosity and that just because you confess the Lord does not guarantee you are of the Lord.

The entire point of my post was Ephesians 4. Not division in the church.

Ephesians 4:1-3 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

I’m not sure how your response applies to my post but agreed, there is division in church. Do we need to run far and fast from bad doctrine…absolutely. God calls us to be united in the Spirit

I think I’m good with the all the info on division in the church.

Thanks again

Well my response goes full circle back to party lines for the most part. Bush claims that his decisions are based upon his beliefs and convictions, but he does not really apply those convictions to his actions. If he were so opposed to abortion than would he not really lead the charge to end abortion in the US? This leaves me with the impression that his convictions are only sugar coated words to gain popularity.

Christ divides good from evil, the Church is divided on a matter of things like false teachings or misdirection, politicians use religion in their words but divide the nation by their words and actions. It is not just Bush or the Republican party, but the Democrats are just as guilty of it and imo even more so since they take scripture out of context (from cases I have witnessed) to bolster their platform.

Recently Hillary even concluded a statement saying how she could not imagine how any conservative could be Christian. My question would be who the hell is Hillary? The lack of edification does not come by you or I in this matter, it is seeping in by the few that are suppose to be like minsters of the gospel that are elected to lead this nation, if they are in fact Christian. I simply can't be edifying in such a matter, not as some would define it as putting on rosy attitude and pretending all is well, not when warnings need to be sounded so that repentance may take place if acted upon.

2 Chronicles 7:14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Ephesians 4 goes on to say: 17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

 

[Cris413]

Well my response goes full circle back to party lines for the most part. Bush claims that his decisions are based upon his beliefs and convictions, but he does not really apply those convictions to his actions. If he were so opposed to abortion than would he not really lead the charge to end abortion in the US? This leaves me with the impression that his convictions are only sugar coated words to gain popularity.

Christ divides good from evil, the Church is divided on a matter of things like false teachings or misdirection, politicians use religion in their words but divide the nation by their words and actions. It is not just Bush or the Republican party, but the Democrats are just as guilty of it and imo even more so since they take scripture out of context (from cases I have witnessed) to bolster their platform.

Recently Hillary even concluded a statement saying how she could not imagine how any conservative could be Christian. My question would be who the hell is Hillary? The lack of edification does not come by you or I in this matter, it is seeping in by the few that are suppose to be like minsters of the gospel that are elected to lead this nation, if they are in fact Christian. I simply can't be edifying in such a matter, not as some would define it as putting on rosy attitude and pretending all is well, not when warnings need to be sounded so that repentance may take place if acted upon.

2 Chronicles 7:14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Ephesians 4 goes on to say: 17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

Excellent! Thank you. That is exactly what I was looking for. As I said...the entire chapter spoke to my heart. I wanted to note all of it but it would have been quite a lengthy post.

Perhaps my thoughts would have been more appropritate in a new thread, titled Ephesians 4 rather than a reply in "Bush"as my post was not about politics but the responsibility of believers to be effective witnesses to the world and each other. To remember the multiple times Jesus tell us to love one another and to humble ourselves. (Too many verses to list there as well)

Example: there is a woman I know, very well versed in the Word. Tells me time and time again how she feels she must set a rightful expample. Very active in church and outreach ministries. But she is very prideful and very focused on how people do not live up to her expections. She gossips and complaines. Her words can be quite spiteful and hurtful. And I think this is one of the reasons non-believers have a problem with Christians and the witness is not only ineffective but damaging.

My understanding is we are first called to be good witnesses. Not slayers of the wicked. Useful vessels for His Kingdom. We can't change the condition of anyones heart. Only God can do that.

One more point of clarification - My posts are not directed specifically at you with intent of correction. Your post did inspired my thoughts and my desire to share God's word. And as I mentioned, a new thread would probably have been more appropriate rather than in reply to yours. I've only been here a few weeks and I'm still learning. Not to mention...I'm a Christian under construction...and always will be

God bless.

 

[Sketcher]

Well my response goes full circle back to party lines for the most part. Bush claims that his decisions are based upon his beliefs and convictions, but he does not really apply those convictions to his actions. If he were so opposed to abortion than would he not really lead the charge to end abortion in the US? This leaves me with the impression that his convictions are only sugar coated words to gain popularity.

Congress passed a law forbidding partial-birth abortions unless the life of the mother was in danger in 2003. A liberal federal judge shot it down. In 2004, Bush campaigned aggressively to get the majority needed in the house and especially the Senate so he could get his judicial appointments made.

In the last year, another anti-abortion bill died in the Senate.

 

[Psalms34]

Congress passed a law forbidding partial-birth abortions unless the life of the mother was in danger in 2003. A liberal federal judge shot it down. In 2004, Bush campaigned aggressively to get the majority needed in the house and especially the Senate so he could get his judicial appointments made.

In the last year, another anti-abortion bill died in the Senate.

I'm sorry Twist, but that just reminds me of that Mac commercial where the PC says Touche ...don't know why

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=106
Abortion
Mr. Bush professes to be pro-life with the exceptions of rape and incest, claiming that good people can disagree on this issue.
He does not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
During the presidential debates of 2000, Mr. Bush admitted abortion played no part in choosing judicial nominees were he to become president.
As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush did appoint pro-choice judges to the bench.
President Bush decided to allow social service agencies in Africa and the Caribbean to receive funds from the U.S. treasury under his $15 billion emergency AIDS relief plan even if they promote family planning and provide abortions.
Mr. Bush lobbied for and signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, hailed by many as a great stride forward for the pro-life movement. However, the bill redefines the procedure, thus leaving untouched the procedure that is actually being practiced in America. The very language of the ban encourages the killing of the baby before extraction. The end result is that abortion continues unaffected in America while the president points to signing of it as one of the conservative Christian trophies of his administration.
Thanks to Medicaid disbursements and President Bush’s Title X of the Public Health Service Act in 2001, companies such as Planned Parenthood, the largest baby-killing conglomerate in the world, continue to get taxpayer funding. Under Bush, this baby-killing organization has received more tax-funds than under Clinton! Planned Parenthood was responsible for the deaths of 227,375 Americans in 2002.


http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=59
When Christian conservatives attempt to defend G.W. Bush, they usually point to his signing a partial birth abortion bill as some great accomplishment which sets him apart from pro-abortion Democrats. But does it, really? I think not.
In the first place, the ink had not even dried on the paper when a federal judge struck down the partial birth abortion bill as "unconstitutional." Has anyone heard anything about it since? Has President Bush used his bully pulpit to protest the court's decision? Has he petitioned Congress to impeach the judge or to at least exercise their constitutional authority under Article II, Section 2, to limit the court's jurisdiction in this matter? No.
Does anyone believe that President Bush and the Republican members of Congress who supported the partial birth abortion bill really believe that a federal court would not declare it to be "unconstitutional?" They expected it, and they planned to do nothing about it. Therefore, the net result is, not one single baby has been saved because President Bush signed a partial birth abortion bill.
What people need to understand is that the purpose of the partial birth abortion bill was never to save babies' lives, it was only to dupe naďve conservatives into believing that President Bush achieved some great victory for the pro-life cause. And it worked.




Sorry for the copy and paste, but it deserves the attention, Bro.
*needs to update Linux*

 

[BustedFlat]

SoapBox ON
My feeling is that there are many that have learned their civics from the woeful public education system that is vested in them not understanding how our system of government works.


The President has no vote in any law that is made in this land, and he is bound by the rulings of the supreme court. He is the chief executive of our country and such his say in laws is limited to bring awareness to the need and suggesting to congress what he would like to see passed. It is entirely up to the legislative delegations to act or not on that wish list.


Once the bill goes through the congress and senate and then reconciliation of the two versions it is then presented to the president to be signed into law or vetoed. If signed it becomes the law of the land until it is challenged in court. That challenge then can work its way through the judicial system until it is struck down or affirmed by the highest level appeal court hearing the challenge. At that point it is again up to the peoples representatives (congress/senate) to start it over.


The judges are appointed to the bench by the president then they need to be confirmed by the senate. Due to filibuster rules there is 60 votes needed to bring a judge to the senate floor for a vote.


Through out this process Mr. Bush can only be cheer leader for his position. That means in order to know his position you need to hear him speak. You can not rely on the New York Time/CNN are reporting on what it is he said . We have a free press and that allows them to report on what ever they want and on the angle they want. For the most part it is the negative response or the spin of his political adversaries.
SoapBox OFF

in Christ

BustedFlat

 

[Psalms34]

Through out this process Mr. Bush can only be cheer leader for his position. That means in order to know is position you need to hear him speak. You can not rely on the New York Time/CNN are reporting on what it is he said . We have a free press and that allows them to report on what ever they want and on the angle they want. For the most part it is the negative response or the spin of his political adversaries.

So, you are saying that it's NYT/CNN's fault for Bush not trying to get this through.

 

[BustedFlat]

No I am saying they are not telling you he has been trying. That is not their agenda. The biggest difference between Bush and Regan was Ronnie's ability to communicate to the general public despite what was said in the NYT.

 

[Psalms34]

No I am saying they are not telling you he has been trying. That is not their agenda. The biggest difference between Bush and Regan was Ronnie's ability to communicate to the general public despite what was said in the NYT.

Oh, I thought maybe you were saying that unless the matter was in print that Bush had no power to act, such as when one prints a fictitious business name in a newspaper to establish a business ect...


anyway, as I understand it, Bush has more power over the judges than you seem to believe. He does need the support of his party generally to impose a non-jurisdiction or impeachment, but in a case where Republicans had majority rule this seems misleading to say that it was not within his power especially when he didn't even try to act upon his right to do so. He didn't see that coming, that the activist judges would try to stop him? That he had not planned that out and when they acted he threw up his hands and moved on? Baldwin seems to be 100% right on in this matter, there was no real plan and this was doomed before he even acted which was probably the plan.


http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/power_courts.html
This power is more tenuous than those granted to the legislative or executive branches under the U.S. system of separation of powers. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse (the authority to approve all federal appropriations) and grants the executive branch the power of the sword (the authority to enforce laws).
The courts do not have those powers. The federal judiciary depends on Congress for funding and must look to the executive branch for assistance in enforcing its decisions if voluntary compliance is not forthcoming. Beyond the power of contempt of court, courts have little equipment with which to enforce their rulings.
The limits on judicial power led Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, No. 78, to call the federal judiciary “the least dangerous” and “the weakest” of the three branches of the proposed new government. Yet in the two centuries since the Constitution was written, the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary have evolved into an extraordinarily powerful institution of government.
---------- continues on:
To safeguard judicial independence, section 1 provides that federal judges are to hold their posts during good behavior and that their salaries are not to be diminished during their terms in office. Judges may be removed from office only through the impeachment process described in Article II.

 

[BustedFlat]

For reading on how the courts usurped the constitutional power read [FONT=Nimbus Roman No9 L, serif]Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court case from 1803. [/FONT] http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/era/judicial/bkgrnd.htm





As to th[FONT=Nimbus Roman No9 L, serif]e “advice and consent” cl[/FONT]ause of the constitution:


From an Feb. 2005 interview between National Review Online and Landmark Legal Foundations Mark Lavin on his book Men In Black - How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America:


NRO: Obstruction wouldn't seem like a winning issue for Democrats, given the last election.



Levin: It takes only 41 senators to filibuster a judicial nominee — or successfully threaten a filibuster. Most of these senators are in safe or relatively safe seats. There may be a few exceptions. Presumably, the Senate Democrats have made these political calculations. Otherwise, they are driven more by ideology than political survival. In either event, there's no indication they intend to drop the filibuster without a fight. After all, the liberals have had a steady string of losses at the ballot box, and they view the judiciary — and particularly the Supreme Court — as the only way to advance much of their agenda. Perhaps they believe the loss of a senator here or there as a price they're willing to pay to retain an ideological advantage on the Court.


In Christ


BustedFlat

 

[Cris413]

In my limited understanding of the issues, what I can say is that the President has a lot more on his plate than the abortion issue.

Yes, I believe we are called to do God’s work as he calls us, equips us and uses us for His Kingdom business.

The President seems to be criticized no matter what he does or doesn't do. I think it’s unfair to expect the President to be more than he is...a mortal man faced with a HUGE job. I can't assume I know what's in the President's heart. I don't talk with him that often.

My personal feeling on the abortion issue is simply I’m not sure it’s as much a political issue as it is a moral issue. More hearts won to Christ – more lives transformed – fewer unwed pregnancies- fewer people deciding on the abortion option because pregnancy is inconvenient.

It amazes me the women that will not even consider an abortion no matter how high the medical risk to them and other’s that choose abortion because they have a trip planned to Europe.

So where is the real power concerning abortion? I believe it’s in God’s hands…not on the president’s desk.

Government =

 

[Sketcher]

So where is the real power concerning abortion? I believe it’s in God’s hands…not on the president’s desk.

Yep. Being pro-life means more than just voting, it's also about helping to care for single mothers and their babies, helping prevent single motherhood in the first place, bringing revival.

 

[Psalms34]

For reading on how the courts usurped the constitutional power read [FONT=Nimbus Roman No9 L, serif]Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court case from 1803. [/FONT] http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/era/judicial/bkgrnd.htm

Well that is regarding them being allowed to take the seat and the assumption of powers, that is not the contest. The contest is regarding opposition to ruling in the matter (current) which by constitutional right is in the power of the President to effectively lead. Yes there would have been a battle, it could have bounced back and forth for years possibly, but we would never know of such an outcome since the actual battle was never undertaken. That of course just does not sound like something Bush would be willing to undertake in such a matter, since he himself has appointed judges that would oppose him on this matter of abortion. I'm sorry, but actions speak louder than words, the bible talks of a faith without works as being a dead faith, though Bush may have well started an action, it was not carried out to its culmination within his power; it was aborted.

 

[Vampfox]

He is truly a spiritual man who I would lay my life down for. I believe he has brought this country closer to God than it's ever been.

 

[Psalms34]

He is truly a spiritual man who I would lay my life down for. I believe he has brought this country closer to God than it's ever been.

In the sense of the timeline to the second coming of Jesus Christ where the wrath of God will be set loose upon Earth until our Lords kingdom be established upon this Earth for a literal 1000 year reign from the throne of David (I may agree)? Or do you mean spiritually closer as the nation itself being closer to the workings of a heavenly kingdom here on Earth? (I don't see that). Personally, I believe that the balance of our blessings as a nation or land is directly related to our support of the current state of Israel where as God said “Gen 12:3 I will bless those who bless you” in light of the recent prophetic fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 during this generation. Beyond that, many refer to the current nation of the US as being “post-Christian” in nature at least on the whole compared to generations past, and becoming worse.


As for laying ones life down for the president of the United States, not only for Bush would I but even for Clinton during his term though the man himself I find objectionable even to the point of wishing for his impeachment such as I feel for Bush (not on issue as the Dems regard); but only for the office of president would I do so regarding laying down ones life for the President as it stands or for any President of the United States, regardless. I think most people in the US military would also state such a position as well regarding laying ones life down for the President of the United States.