FOX Lies!! Barack Obama Pastor Wright

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

You have quoted trinitarian authors as authoritative but yet you make distinctions where you cannot. You seem to assume positions as authoritative without any evidence. Everyone has their presuppositions through which they 'color' everything they see. Intellectual neutrality is a myth. A trinitarian scholar has a certain 'view' no matter what Biblical subject he is speaking/writing about.

Any one can write on ancient customs without their "doctrine" being an issue. He never spoke about as to how those principles are to be implemented. That would get into doctrinal orthopraxy.

Are you proposing that just because the man was a Trinitarian that the Bible didn't have anything to say about gleaning, or the ruler's role in providing social justice? Hmmmm.....maybe you can take a marker out and black out those verses. LOL

Sounds like a contest to you?

Between truth and falsehood...yes. In fact I'd go as far as to say that truth and falsehood aren't in a contest...Apostolic truth and falsehood are at war.

[ReformedDave]

A

ny one can write on ancient customs without their "doctrine" being an issue. He never spoke about as to how those principles are to be implemented. That would get into doctrinal orthopraxy.

It does involve doctrine if eschatology affects his outlook.....which it does.

Are you proposing that just because the man was a Trinitarian that the Bible didn't have anything to say about gleaning, or the ruler's role in providing social justice? Hmmmm.....maybe you can take a marker out and black out those verses. LOL

Never even crossed my mind. One of your amazing assumptions.....or is it gut feelings?

Apostolic truth and falsehood are at war.

In your case they aren't at war. They are synonymous.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

McCain has 45% viewing him favorably not now......of course he's not up against anyone. I predict that once the Democratic nominee is in place and McCain actually gets some head to head competition his ratings will begin dropping. I assure you, McCain doesn't want the issue to be national security...McCain has promised another 100 years in Iraq. When the American people begin hearing him...they will drop him hard and fast. Also...his temper and a few "gook" gaffs...he'll not make it. Tie in his connections with big corporate lobbyists...dude. I don't see it. The battle hasn't started and he's only at 45% and America isn't pleased with Republicans. Just wait until the competition really begins.

CH,
I agree that the polls will change when we finally get a Dem nominee. I will also agree that I'm a little wary of him making some smart aleck remarks down the road, but, thus far, he is presenting himself in a good, solid and stately manner. He has experience in war and policy. Those are both a plus. I still believe these two things are very important to the American people.

I see that you are carrying the same "100 years" dialogue that the media and both the Dem camps what to focus on. Those two little words that resonate. It's a great political ploy.

My only concern would be the people that overlook the logic of what McCain is actually saying, which I will quote again.

"Make it 100. We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that's fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."

I am concerned, as it bleeds over into the church, that we have lost our fortitude, perseverance, and our endurance.

Who in the world, in their right mind, thought this deal in Iraq was going to be easy? Who didn't understand their culture was steeped and hard to get into their minds? At least logical people know that "trust" bridges any communication and religious ideology gaps.

At least McCain on a military level understands these things. If I had to pick of the three running, I would pick McCain, with all his warts. At least the old codger will say what he wants to say and people will allow it, mainly because we still respect age and wisdom of age.

As far as I'm concerned, he is the best choice. If I change my mind, I'll let you know.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

A It does involve doctrine if eschatology affects his outlook.....which it does.

Please not WHERE in the article given the man's eschatology affects is perspective? Please quote him.

The writer did specify how social Justice is described in the Bible, but primarily in the context of biblical times according to various biblical texts. The writer didn't explain how we are to implement anything. The article can be viewed differently by Dispensationalists or Covenantalists. A Dispensationalist may view the article as largely explaining social justice in the context of the biblical times and places mentioned. Someone leaning more toward covenantal theology might see how social justice was protected under the Law and feel that the principles embodied justify having measures to ensure social justice in modern society. The author didn't tell us anything or reveal his eschatological beliefs. He just reported what the Bible had to say...we, the readers take it and find what relevance that has in our theological framework.

Never even crossed my mind. One of your amazing assumptions.....or is it gut feelings?

No, you clearly implied that if the man didn't hold to my theology his work shouldn't be regarded as valuable. However, I see him as just reporting the details on the subject in biblical context. Now...YOU would like to argue that his points are invalid and that they hold no weight, nor do you believe that we are obliged to consider how to implement these principles in modern day society. So, I expect you to tear every verse he mentioned from your Bible. You don't believe in them. You don't think they are relevant. What good are they in your theological framework?

In your case they aren't at war. They are synonymous.

I'm honestly beginning to think that this subject is far too complex for you.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

CH,
I agree that the polls will change when we finally get a Dem nominee. I will also agree that I'm a little wary of him making some smart aleck remarks down the road, but, thus far, he is presenting himself in a good, solid and stately manner. He has experience in war and policy. Those are both a plus. I still believe these two things are very important to the American people.

I think it's important too. I'd like to see any records of him being treated for post traumatic stress disorder disclosed. If we're going to commit to maintaining our level of involvement in Iraq I think McCain will be able to do so. But if we as a country are going to begin staged withdraws and hand more authority over to the provisional government of Iraq McCain is going to cause a considerable amount of stress on the Iraqi government.
I see that you are carrying the same "100 years" dialogue that the media and both the Dem camps what to focus on. Those two little words that resonate. It's a great political ploy.

My only concern would be the people that overlook the logic of what McCain is actually saying, which I will quote again.

I was listening to NPR and they were interviewing members of the Iraqi police force and the provisional government. The sentiment among those interviewed as that there is growing dislike for the American forces maintaining current troop levels and authority in their country. More and more they are trying to deal with growing discontent at what looks like an American occupation. The ministers interviewed from the Iraqi provisional government indicated that American authorities are actually making it more difficult for the Iraqis to take charge of their own country. This is causing uneasiness among the Iraqi police forces and helping the insurgency to recruit.

The Iraqis what us to reduce troop levels and allow them to get into the saddle in their own country. The longer an American President proposes we're going to be there the more likely we're going to see a continued and growing resistance. We need staged withdraws and to hand authority over to the Iraqi provisional government.

Also consider how much this is costing. We can't afford this for another 100 years. We also don't have troop levels to maintain this.

I am concerned, as it bleeds over into the church, that we have lost our fortitude, perseverance, and our endurance.

I think it's just that some have different visions of what we should do. Some believe that we need to maintain troop levels and run the show for decades. Others feel that it would be better to stage withdraws and empower the Iraqi forces to manage their own country with the US and the UN providing support as necessary.

Who in the world, in their right mind, thought this deal in Iraq was going to be easy? Who didn't understand their culture was steeped and hard to get into their minds? At least logical people know that "trust" bridges any communication and religious ideology gaps.

We were under the impression that it would be a "slam dunk" operation and that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators. When we got their we dismantled the entire national infrastructure. Also reports abound at how it fell far faster than we imaged and that we didn't have a complete plan for managing the country when it all collapsed. We were also under the impression that we were there because of WMDs etc. Many feel the real war is in Afghanistan but Iraq has become a massive distraction and drain on resources.

At least McCain on a military level understands these things. If I had to pick of the three running, I would pick McCain, with all his warts. At least the old codger will say what he wants to say and people will allow it, mainly because we still respect age and wisdom of age.

I think McCain doesn't understand that Iraq isn't post war Germany. The longer we are in Iraq the more we will breed Anti-American hatred and the more we will see other Muslim authorities sending forces to help liberate Iraq from perceived American occupiers.

As far as I'm concerned, he is the best choice. If I change my mind, I'll let you know. [/QUOTE]

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Yo!!!!!!! PELLLLLLLA!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

Echo this!!! Where ya been?

This place has been crazy with "liberals" lately so I've been hanging out at justfourpreachers.com. However, when it became apparent that I was the 5th I got the perm-ban and am looking for a new home.

[ReformedDave]

I'm honestly beginning to think that this subject is far too complex for you.

Read Bahnsen and report back(I know you don't have time)..........(Theonomy in Christian Ethics)

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

I work for the city and we took her to meet with a case worker with Social Services. From there they hooked her up with temporary assistance through a Catholic organization for about two days. After that they had her in emergency housing and began processing her case to get assistance. She was absolutely destitute and without anywhere to turn.

Now, if you want to look into private organizations to refer someone to my wife and I got with the local chapter of the United Way and purchased a book listing nearly every local social service organization you could imagine addressing issues from abortion to organizations that help those who are poor with professional, office casual, and even more formal attire. Be advised...not all these groups are Christian....and not all are pro-morality. I don't turn people toward those organizations. It's a great resource.

The way human services and social services are run is largely a local/state issue. Some places have lousy social service systems. Some states have excellent systems.

It's VERY important to note that most of the largest charities in America receive government assistance in the way of grants. Few large scale charities operate strictly from private donations. Local food banks in the Dayton area had their grants significantly cut in Bush's first term. The area food bank network reported that after their grant was cut they lost the ability to facilitate assistance for over 1,000 poor families and elderly that they would otherwise be able to support.

Why was this grant cut? To help facilitate tax cuts that primarily help corporations and the top 2% of America's wealthiest citizens.

I am far from the "top 2%" and the tax cuts help me. Also any help to "corporations" will help to ensure that I have a job.

Remember, when taxes are cut, it's not a "hand out." Tax cuts are simply a way of letting people keep a little more of their own money. Or in the case of a "corporation" it's a way for their shareholders (often retirees) to keep some of their own money and for workers to keep their jobs.

From what I've seen and read, "the top 2%" don't even qualify for the tax cuts, so I'm puzzled why you bring them up. I forget, but I think the cut off was 100K a year or somewhere there abouts. I think something closer to the top 20% won't see any breaks at all.

... bunch of rich folks, don't deserve that money anyhoo! (That is... "they don't deserve their own money, anyhoo!")

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I am far from the "top 2%" and the tax cuts help me. Also any help to "corporations" will help to ensure that I have a job.

Remember, when taxes are cut, it's not a "hand out." Tax cuts are simply a way of letting people keep a little more of their own money. Or in the case of a "corporation" it's a way for their shareholders (often retirees) to keep some of their own money and for workers to keep their jobs.

Most money saved by corporations in the way of tax cuts and rebates is invested in foreign stocks and markets. Only smaller corporations who rarely venture out side of the US when it comes to investing have a chance to pass that savings down to the employee. A good example would be Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart received massive amounts of money when taxes were cut. Employee salaries and benefits weren't raised, the number of positions didn't increase outside of store growth projections. But they invested far more in foreign markets benefiting foreign economies more than the United States economy.

From what I've seen and read, "the top 2%" don't even qualify for the tax cuts, so I'm puzzled why you bring them up. I forget, but I think the cut off was 100K a year or somewhere there abouts. I think something closer to the top 20% won't see any breaks at all.

The top 2% received very healthy tax cuts. That's a fact.

... bunch of rich folks, don't deserve that money anyhoo! (That is... "they don't deserve their own money, anyhoo!")

Most wealthy individuals have more options for tax shelters than the average middle class American. That means, if the wealthy intelligently saves their money they can evade a significant measure of taxation. Those who are not familiar with this process don't know about these shelters.

[ChristopherHall]

Also please note that while taxes for the wealthy and corporate powers were cut...government spending wasn't. That means more of the burden of funding the government was shifted down to us.

Reagan taught us that tax cuts have to go hand in hand with a reduction in government spending. The Bush administration has offered tax cuts for the top earning Americans and companies...with massively increased government spending. That means those of us at the bottom will essentially be forced to pay more in taxes to sustain government in the long run.