Do Unto Others... and that's as far as I read

[ashibaka]

Two years ago, before the presidential elections, George W. Bush and some other candidates were asked who their favorite philosopher was. Bush stole the show by telling his audience that "Jesus Christ" was his favorite philosopher, because "[he] change[d my] life".

However, Dubya's recent actions show that he violently disagrees with Jesus' philosophy:

• Bush gave a State of the Union address on all the nice things he's going to do for the American people and all the charity he's giving to Africa. Jesus' philosophy was that charity should be anonymous and that one shouldn't brag about how charitable he is. (Matthew 6:1-6)
• Jesus' Golden Rule is, of course, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Unless if George Bush likes being attacked and slaughtered, I don't think his plan for Iraq reflects Jesus' philosophy. At least, I didn't read the part of the Gospels that said "Bomb the crud out of thine enemy".

I could go on and on about the death penalty (at least he's got cloning and abortion down) and rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but I think these two very recent events make the point clearly.

So either A) Bush knows nothing about the guy who "change[d his] life", or B) he knows Jesus' philosophy but has pushed it towards the back of his mind in pursuit of oil.

Which one?

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Not again.

This is about a regime change.

Or do you think Saddam is going to tell us he is creating nuclear warhead and wants to destroy the world?

I am for the death penalty too. This is not about hatred. Its about setting a criteria for punishments that fit the crime.


Im sure you don't think God would through people who reject Jesus as Lord, but are good people in your eyes, into hell either.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The real knee-slapper about Bush's response is that the question was who was his favorite (or most influential) political philosopher. Now, Jesus may have been a lot of things, but significant political thinker was not one of them.

Bush was simply pandering. Folks in Iowa like to hear such things.

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by quizzler
I am for the death penalty too. This is not about hatred. Its about setting a criteria for punishments that fit the crime.

Okay, so "turn the other cheek" is no longer relevant in this modern world, we're back to "eye for an eye" again. I will be sure to report this major development in theology to Internet Infidels.

By the way, does this mean I can start setting up markets inside the churches again?

The real knee-slapper about Bush's response is that the question was who was his favorite (or most influential) political philosopher.

I'm guessing he had been coached to give religious answers for such things and fit the question to match his strategy.

 

[TheBear]

Hey shibby,

Who's "Dubya"?

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by TheBear
Hey shibby,

Who's "Dubya"?

You know... as in dubya dubya dubya dot chrishun forums dot carm.

 

[gwyyn]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas
Bush was simply pandering. Folks in Iowa like to hear such things.

 

Is this supposed to show that folks in Iowa are of inferior intelligence on political knowledge than those in other parts of the US????

 

[juiblex]

By the way, does this mean I can start setting up markets inside the churches again?

they already do. What do you call the Vatican gift shop <which charges an arm and a leg mind you! goodness, so much i wanted to have, but so much money!>.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by ashibaka
You know... as in dubya dubya dubya dot chrishun forums dot carm.

I still don't get it.

 

[Evangelion]

It's a clever play on the American accent. I was especially impressed by the "chrishun forums dot carm."

Go hard, ashibaka! You're clearly a free thinker.

 

[Evangelion]

gwyyn -

Is this supposed to show that folks in Iowa are of inferior intelligence on political knowledge than those in other parts of the US????

Let's just say...

• 
  People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
  Søren Kierkegaard

 

[Pastor N.B.]

Bottom Line:
The Churchs, USA and the World, or just plain 'earth' are becoming Christless. All are in the ending stages of history. Christ ask's if He would find FAITH on earth? Most of the worlds professed, would 'profess' 'f'aith most likely. Yet, the real money of FAITH, is seen in their [WORKS]! (try Matt. 23:3)

Christless Churches?? Where do they now need to turn to get their POWER to 'force' their will from? The government of Caesar is their only hope when Christ has been put out. (try Isa. 59:1-7)

So now they follow the GOLDEN RULE of.. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', right? Hardly!

In Eccl. 1:9-10 & Eccl. 3:15 we see that old news is furture news!
So I (at least) suspect that we see a decision by a Judge of Caesar that has ruled on a past case, that in all reality, has been RECORDED IN THE RECORD BOOKS OF HEAVEN. And it was not the Virdict against the 'few' that is the 'c'hristless verdict & is vaulted up here on earth that is fatal, but it was the Royal Verdict recorded in the books of heaven against the 'Trademarked Seventh-day Adventist' denomination!

Here [in part & with added emphasis by me] is an article taken from the Seventh-day Adventist Adventist Review, December 26,1996, pg. 19 (and yes, this is an old article, but this 'Trade Marked thing IS ESCALATING!)

Quoted:
-Church Wins In Vanuatu Decision-

Verdict heads off possible takover.

(remember we are talking of a very few against a worldwide number of 13,000 000 million SDA)

In his judgement, chief justice, Charles d'Imecourt, said: ... No. 2. The defendants [the Pango group] and any of them are hereby restrained from using the plaintiff's name, whether it is Seventh-day Adventist Church, SDA Church, or Seventh-day Church, and or any similar variatin thereof in perpetuity. (No. 2 is all that is being used by me)

That is the [bottom line] of the Religous Freedom that this Denomination boasts of! They send out a monthly magizine call "RELIGOUS LIBERTY".

Now, I ask, who that are in LOVE WITH CHRIST, and that have the Born Again heart, would want to be in 'yoked' membership with a Trade[MARKED] Seventh-day Adventist denomination? And WHO in their right mind would WANT TO be YOKED IN THEIR MEMBERSHIP??? OR... to bring New Born Babes of Christ into this OPEN apostasy?

In closing, let me use a verse from Isaiah 65:15, & pay close attention to what happened to Israel of old? Both class of people, first the 'remnant one' & then the 'denomination' itself! (Try Eze. 9)

"And ye SHALL LEAVE YOUR NAME for a curse unto MY CHOOSEN: for the LORD GOD SHALL SLAY THEE, AND CALL HIS SERVANTS BY ANOTHER NAME".

A 'c'hristless church denomination that needs Caesars power to persecute!
Read John 19:15, for the ones that not only hate 'their few' but another as well.

Pastor N.B.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

gwynn wrote: "Is this supposed to show that folks in Iowa are of inferior intelligence on political knowledge than those in other parts of the US????"

No. If anything, I would suspect that Iowans (thanks to the caucus) are just as -- possibly more -- savvy politically than people in many states.

Remember that the political philosopher question was asked of each of the Republican hopefuls in a debate held in Iowa. This is good fodder for political theater and a fine opportunity of the kind of silly grandstanding that usually takes place in the primaries. Bush, no doubt aware that Iowans are overwhelmingly religious, decided or was advised to stake a strong claim to religiosity by citing Jesus in answer to the question.

Bush, as I said, pandered to his audience, and the state's Republicans, who are largely Protestant, ate it up.

Statistics&nbsp;for Iowa's Democratic and Republican religious affiliation can be found at:

www.uni.edu/conklin/caucus/religion.html

 

[Blindfaith]

As far as the original topic is concerned, I have two quick thoughts on this:

1)&nbsp; President Bush (not dubya, please) spoke of the African aids epidemic to share his goal/vision of what he'd like to see happen, and to gain the support from the citizens of which he represents.&nbsp; I see nothing wrong with this.&nbsp; Don't you like to be informed of what's going on?&nbsp; Instead of branding him as a braggart, why not be pleased that we have a President that cares&nbsp;enough to want to help that country that is suffering so horribly from that disease?&nbsp;

2)&nbsp; Iraq.&nbsp; Please quote me a verse in the Bible where God tells a nation to be tolerant of an evil nation.&nbsp; Does God hate evil?&nbsp; Absolutely.&nbsp; Does He want evil to reign here on Earth?&nbsp; Not from what I've read.&nbsp; Does God want us to "turn the other cheek" while Iraqi citizens are tortured, starved and oppressed by an evil dictator?&nbsp; I really don't believe that.

 

[ashibaka]

The first one, I suppose, is a matter of interpreting the President's speech... the second topic deserves more discussion.

Originally posted by blindfaith
2)&nbsp; Iraq.&nbsp; Please quote me a verse in the Bible where God tells a nation to be tolerant of an evil nation.&nbsp; Does God hate evil?&nbsp; Absolutely.&nbsp; Does He want evil to reign here on Earth?&nbsp; Not from what I've read.&nbsp; Does God want us to "turn the other cheek" while Iraqi citizens are tortured, starved and oppressed by an evil dictator?&nbsp; I really don't believe that.

Hmm. I guess you're right; in the Old Testament, the sixth commandment is often ignored (i.e. Numbers 31, Psalm 137) when pertaining to evil nations and all their evil inhabitants. I didn't think this was the best example of Biblical morality, however, if you're going to use it to justify attacking Iraq, I couldn't stop you with petty stuff like "turn the other cheek".

 

[brewmama]

Originally posted by ashibaka
The first one, I suppose, is a matter of interpreting the President's speech... the second topic deserves more discussion.


Hmm. I guess you're right; in the Old Testament, the sixth commandment is often ignored (i.e. Numbers 31, Psalm 137) when pertaining to evil nations and all their evil inhabitants. I didn't think this was the best example of Biblical morality, however, if you're going to use it to justify attacking Iraq, I couldn't stop you with petty stuff like "turn the other cheek".

You seem to be confusing Christian obligations with those of the state. Pres. Bush's God-given duty is to protect this country, and the state is not held to the requirements of individuals. That is why the death penalty is moral.

&nbsp;

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by ashibaka

However, Dubya's recent actions show that he violently disagrees with Jesus' philosophy:

• Bush gave a State of the Union address on all the nice things he's going to do for the American people and all the charity he's giving to Africa. Jesus' philosophy was that charity should be anonymous and that one shouldn't brag about how charitable he is. (Matthew 6:1-6)

• 
  
  He is not bragging about anything, he asked for this thing to happen. Last I recall, he doesn't brag about whatever private contributions he makes as a citizen.
  
  
  

  [*]Jesus' Golden Rule is, of course, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Unless if George Bush likes being attacked and slaughtered, I don't think his plan for Iraq reflects Jesus' philosophy. At least, I didn't read the part of the Gospels that said "Bomb the crud out of thine enemy".

In other words, don't punish anyone because you wouldn't like it? Eh?

Christ didn't say let aggressors make war and threaten you.
He is doing what he what he'd want done if he was an Iraqi citizen, liberation from tyranny.

Hussein continues to attack our forces and defy man's laws. Punishing him isn't being unchristian.

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by brewmama
You seem to be confusing Christian obligations with those of the state. Pres. Bush's God-given duty is to protect this country, and the state is not held to the requirements of individuals. That is why the death penalty is moral.

Okay, that is the clearest answer I've got on this so far. Thank you.

 

[TheBear]

Are we to hold the Clinton Administration's feet to the same fire, or do we give Clinton, et al, a free pass?



These from a November 14, 1997 PBS NEWSHOUR transcript, in regards to Saddam Hussein and Iraq:


PRESIDENT CLINTON: "This is simply--it’s too dangerous an issue that would set the too powerful precedent about the impotence of the United Nations if we didn't proceed on this--in the face of what I have considered to be one or the three or four most significant security threats that all of our people will face for the next whole generation--this weapons of mass destruction proliferation. We have got to stop it."

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: "I think that this is not the time to engage in speculation about military action. We are working very hard to have intense diplomacy. It is very important for us to make quite clear as the international community that it is essential for us to act together, so that Saddam Hussein gets the message that he must reverse course. And the world is making quite clear that he needs to reverse course. We are--our strategy is to combine intensive diplomacy with a robust military presence in the Gulf, which we think is the best way to convince Saddam Hussein to reverse course."

WILLIAM COHEN, Secretary of Defense: "Our purpose is not to bomb him into behavior modification as such but rather to seek to coerce compliance. We can, in fact, detect considerable things from space and from our U-2 flights in terms of monitoring what activities there are to make sure that they are in compliance, but they can’t see through the rooftops. And so inspectors on the ground are ultimately what we want to get back in place. We’re not looking to bomb anyone back into either a stone age or into any sort of submission, but we’re seeking to emphasize the fact that we expect compliance with the resolutions."


I can dig up plenty more if you like.


So, let's be fair and consistent here. These statements and actions were taken in the 90's.

 

[TheBear]