Jim Wallace

Originally posted by whodey
What I believe is of little consequence. He does, however, espouse to believe.

What you believe is of major consequence to you.

Jesus said you will know them by their fruit. I can see their fruit. And mine as well. But I walk circumspectly.

Someone will be held accountable. I see the fruit of the liberal agenda of the democrat party these past forty years, and it stinks.

Originally posted by josephw
What you believe is of major consequence to you.

Jesus said you will know them by their fruit. I can see their fruit. And mine as well. But I walk circumspectly.

Someone will be held accountable. I see the fruit of the liberal agenda of the democrat party these past forty years, and it stinks.

My only point here is that for us it only matters what fruit he bears in terms of policy and as you suggest, it stinks pretty bad. Having said that, perhaps he does think he is doing the will of God much like Chavez in Venezuala. Didn't he declare himself the Pope or something?

Originally posted by whodey
Its pretty simple really. I am in favor of limited government, just as they had in Israel before the people demanded a king. They had no king nor government body, only judges to sort out the disputes among the people. Freedom is inate and when it is violated in any way we instinctively recoil just as one of our former patriots once uttered, "Give me libert direct violation of the Constitution which our so called represetatives are called to uphold.

I am in favor of limited government, just as they had in Israel before the people demanded a king. They had no king nor government body, only judges to sort out the disputes among the people.

When did the rule of judges become an American ideal? Not only is the rule of Judges not part of our country's history, if we were to 'return' to that form of government it would definitely be a retrograde evolution. The installation of a king in Israel back in the time of Samuel happened because the people of Israel perceived that it was a military advantage; the Gentile nations, with whom they were in constant conflict, were all ruled by powerful kings who were able to more effectively rally people and resources in times of war than the judges who ruled Israel. Samuel warned them what having a king would entail, but the people insisted and God assented to their request, as it was obviously part of His plan: "Now I promise that you [David] and your descendants will be kings" (2 Sam 7:11).

Clearly, it isn't God's will, at the very least, that Israel itself return to the rule of judges, let alone America. The rule of judges was always meant to be temporary.

If God does not impose himself on us then who are we to impose ourselves on others?

However, if God ruled America as He did Israel in the time of Moses, He would definitely be said to be 'imposing himself on us'. Go back and read His many commandments to refresh your memory. Every body of people needs rules and a governmental agency of some sort. In our case, we have an earthly government instead of God. Are we any less responsible to the State as we would be to the rule of God? Individual freedom, to a certain extent, is always on the chopping block when the greater good is at stake, even in a constitutional democracy like ours with its limited government.

Soon people will be fined for not even having health insurance if they choose to do so for whatever reason. It will be challenged Constitutionally and probably disregarded, but know it is in violation of the ideas of a limited government invisioned by our Founding Fathers and a direct violation of the Constitution which our so called represetatives are called to uphold

It is not a fact that the new health care bill violates the constitution, that is an opinion. Even if mandated healthcare impinges one's personal freedom, that doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional. Consider the draft, for instance.

Originally posted by whodey
My only point here is that for us it only matters what fruit he bears in terms of policy and as you suggest, it stinks pretty bad. Having said that, perhaps he does think he is doing the will of God much like Chavez in Venezuala. Didn't he declare himself the Pope or something?

It wouldn't surprise me if Chavez declared himself to be God.

You see, while the battle field is said to be with principalities and powers and such and not with flesh and blood, it really boils down to our minds. Satan tries to control our minds. We can plainly see the fruit of the minds who promote what is clearly Satan's agenda.

To me the distinctions are sharp and clear. The more I learn and understand the will of God as it is revealed in His Word, the more distinct the contrasts between good and evil appear.

What fellowship does light have with darkness. Darkness cannot comprehend the light. The confusion is in the mind. The founding fathers understood the scriptures in a way that is lost on us today. It was the influence of God's Word that prompted them to draft a constitution based on the truth of God's Word. Limited Government. Separation of powers.

This nation was founded on Biblical principles, and for Obama to say that we are not a Christian nation only serves to reveal the shallowness of his thinking, and the darkness that clouds his mind. It shows in the kinds of people he surrounds himself with.

What we see occurring here in this world is a reflection of the battle that rages in the spiritual realm that is all around us. Of course I'll be laughed at for saying that, but I really don't care. We're headed in one direction. World dominance by the Antichrist. The stage is being set. We may even see it in our life times.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I am in favor of limited government, just as they had in Israel before the people demanded a king. They had no king nor government body, only judges to sort out the disputes among the people.

When did the rule of judges become an American ideal? Not only is the rule of Judges not part of our country's history, if we were to 'return' to that fo that doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional. Consider the draft, for instance.[/b]

can you elucidate upon the cultural/spiritual aspects which define, in essence, the republican mentality? Are they Puritans?

Originally posted by josephw
It wouldn't surprise me if Chavez declared himself to be God.

You see, while the battle field is said to be with principalities and powers and such and not with flesh and blood, it really boils down to our minds. Satan tries to control our minds. We can plainly see the fruit of the minds who promote what is clearly Satan's agenda.

To me the distinction ...[text shortened]... ominance by the Antichrist. The stage is being set. We may even see it in our life times.

What a paranoid world you must live in.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What a paranoid world you must live in.

Is it paranoid to recognize human nature as being one in which people seek power, secure power, and seek to enhance their power? Clearly, the Founding Fathers recognized the danger of this and desired a limited government with checks and balances. In fact, the "rights" they gave us, such as a right to property, entailed restrictions on government, not the populace. Today progressives would interpret the right to property as being an entitlement so that the government should buy up all the land and devide it equally among the populace. This interpretation empowers government, not restrict it.

So where are the checks and balances now I wonder? In fact, the executive branch has a myriad of weapons at its disposal to evade the other branches wich such new provisions as the slaughter rule in which the House need not even vote to pass. Also, Congress need not even vote on cap and trade. All that needs to happen is for the EPA to begin the process if it so chooses. Things are out of control.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
can you elucidate upon the cultural/spiritual aspects which define, in essence, the republican mentality? Are they Puritans?

The real problem with republicans is that the leaders of the party use religion as a tool to rally a very small part of the conservative base. They whip their followers into a frenzy with smoke and mirror techniques and flat out rhetorical lies. They motivate large blocks of faith based voters to get to the polls to support them, when in truth they couldn't care less about the core values of Christianity.

The sad part is that millions of Christians don't even realize they are being had...😞

Originally posted by duecer
The real problem with republicans is that the leaders of the party use religion as a tool to rally a very small part of the conservative base. They whip their followers into a frenzy with smoke and mirror techniques and flat out rhetorical lies. They motivate large blocks of faith based voters to get to the polls to support them, when in truth they couldn't c ...[text shortened]... ity.

The sad part is that millions of Christians don't even realize they are being had...😞

Exactly...

Originally posted by duecer
The real problem with republicans is that the leaders of the party use religion as a tool to rally a very small part of the conservative base. They whip their followers into a frenzy with smoke and mirror techniques and flat out rhetorical lies. They motivate large blocks of faith based voters to get to the polls to support them, when in truth they couldn't c ...[text shortened]... ity.

The sad part is that millions of Christians don't even realize they are being had...😞

ok i understand Duecer, my question however is what forms their values. It struck me that they may perhaps be like the Puritans, emphasis on hard work for individuals benefit, if given to self-righteousness.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok i understand Duecer, my question however is what forms their values. It struck me that they may perhaps be like the Puritans, emphasis on hard work for individuals benefit, if given to self-righteousness.

that is actually on the mark. they believe that righteousness and personal wealth are intertwined. If you work hard and make money and are successful then God must be favoring you, and anything that stands in the way of ammasing a fortune must be from satan. They forget that the rain falls on the just and unjust alike.

I see, how vewy vewy intwesting. It seems to me that such a stance lacks real spirituality and indeed may be akin to the worst type of materialism, measuring a person by how much money one has amassed or otherwise during ones life time. Of course the converse may also be true in that we may exhibit a kind of inverted snobbery, thinking that persons who are wealthy may indeed be less spiritually inclined than others, thus in a way we are judging them by where they live, or what kind of car they drive, how much they earn. There is no scriptural basis i think for stating that God blesses only those who help themselves and who are prosperous, while those who are in poverty have been cursed. Is there?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[ The installation of a king in Israel back in the time of Samuel happened because the people of Israel perceived that it was a military advantage; the Gentile nations, with whom they were in constant conflict, were all ruled by powerful kings who were able to more effectively rally people and resources in times of war than the judges who ruled Israel. Sam ...[text shortened]... art of His plan: "Now I promise that you [David] and your descendants will be kings" (2 Sam 7:11).

1 Samuel 8:1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his two sons to as judges over Israel. The name of the first born son was Joel, that of the youner Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. But his sons did not follow his ways, they wanted money, taking bribes and perverting justice, (perhaps a cornhusker kickback or two), Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. "Look", they said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways. So give us a king to rule over us, like the other nations." It displeased Samuel that they should say, "Let us have a king to rule over us," so he prayed to Yahweh. But Yahweh said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for it is not you they have rejected; they have rejected me from ruling over them. All they have done to me from the day I brought them out of Egypt until now- they deserted me and served other gods- they are doing now to you. Well then, obey their voice; only, you must warn them solemnly and instruct them in the rights of the king who isto reign over them."

God then warns them by discribing all the ways that their king will use them to serve himself, such as taking the best of their daughters and their crops etc for their very own and basically forcing the populace to serve them much like our current leaders do. In fact, if they had health care and social security back then, no doubt they would have exclusive health care and retirement packages that would be better than the average Joe like we see in government today. Perhaps the most disturbing part is the last part which says, "When that day comes, you will cry outon account of the king you have chosen for yourselves, but on that day God will not answer you."

So as we can see, they rejected God by selecting a human to rule over them much like Adam and Eve rejected God by partaking of the fruit in the garden. Although it was never God's will for Adam and Eve to fall nor for the people of Israel to reject him, he was able to work through them despite their short comings later on by raising up kings that he could at least work through. It says that the children of Israel wanted to be like the other nations as a reason for selecting a king. Whether this was simply due to them seeking a military advantage is speculative, but no doubt was probably part of their thinking. What is known, however, is that the primary motivaton seems to be the wickedness of the judges who judged over them. They were sick of the corruption and opted to have a king as if their king would be devoid of these possible shortcomings himself.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Clearly, it isn't God's will, at the very least, that Israel itself return to the rule of judges, let alone America. The rule of judges was always meant to be temporary.

Why is this clear? Did God not say that the people rejected him by choosing a king? You make it sound as if they were doing the will of God by selecting a king when this cleary is not the case. What is clear, however, is that God allows the people their own free will by selecting their king, only, don't expect him to come runing to help them fix their mess that he warned them it would create.

By posting this, I never intended to say that America or any of the other nations should now convert to this structure. My only point here is that the government God set up was extremely libertarian. People were free to do as they thought best so long as they did not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, I favor any type of limited government within my grasp.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
However, if God ruled America as He did Israel in the time of Moses, He would definitely be said to be 'imposing himself on us'. Go back and read His many commandments to refresh your memory. Every body of people needs rules and a governmental agency of some sort. In our case, we have an earthly government instead of God. Are we any less responsible to eedom, that doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional. Consider the draft, for instance.[/b]

There should be no less dedication to God today as there was in the days of Moses. As Deuteronomy 30:15 declares, I set before you blessing and cursing, life and death, so choose life and blessing. Moses utterred the words to the children of Israel before they entered the promised land, and it is no less applicable to us today. In fact, if the state somehow tries to sway you from doing God's will, you are not to obey their voice much like the children of Israel were often commanded to worship foreign gods but refused to under the rule of other countries. In fact, if I lived in China and the state madated me to abort my child because I had surpassed my quota, I would be obligated to violate their mandate. I must hearken you back to your "Atheism as idolatry" thread. Statism is one of those idolatrous gods mentioned.