Prophesies/Evil Doers/Religions influence on GW BUSH

[U2Bama]

Oh come on....we all know that the term "carpetbagger" originated from Northern Republicans in the South during Reconstruction. Or have we forgotten our U.S. history?

Melon:

That is EXACTLY what it refers to; but remember that "Northern Republicans" during Reconstruction were far more "liberal" than the Southern establishment (solidly Democratic). That, along with her NY connections, is why I called her a carpetbagger.

~U2Alabama

 

[meegannie]

"The Bible Code" author Michael Drosnin has met with the Pentagon's "top intelligence officer" and the CIA's #3 "on his theory" that Osama bin Laden's hideaway "is revealed in the Old Testament's ancient Hebrew" (Wall Street Journal).

 

[melon]

Melon:

That is EXACTLY what it refers to; but remember that "Northern Republicans" during Reconstruction were far more "liberal" than the Southern establishment (solidly Democratic). That, along with her NY connections, is why I called her a carpetbagger.

~U2Alabama

I was being facetious. The Republican Party from 1854 to 1870 was, for all intensive purposes, the "liberal" party--which is why I get a good giggle when modern Republicans like to trumpet Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) and Teddy Roosevelt (who seceded and created a Progressive ["liberal"] third-party) as one of their own.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Ok, it's been a while since I posted anything new about this topic. Today I found a Newsweek article coming in this weeks print issue. It is a well written article about the topic of faith and Bush. It is a little less biased than some of the other articles I posted. Those who have enjoyed this thread will enjoy this article.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/878520.asp?#BODY


Delivering the 'Good News'
While past presidents have invoked the name of God in public remarks, President Bush has done so, arguably, more than others-and has increasingly moved beyond broad statements on faith to include overt Christian references.


An overview:

Inaugural Address, Jan. 21, 2001
"An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."

Context: The whirlwind symbolizes a medium for the voice of God in the Books of Job and Ezekiel.


Speech to Congress, Sept. 20, 2001
"Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."

West Point Commencement, June 1, 20029-11
"We are in a conflict between good and evil , and America will call evil by its name."

Context: Bush's references to "good" and "evil," on the upswing since 9-11, imply the Biblical clash between Christ and Satan.


Remembrance,Sept. 11, 2002
"And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it."

Context: A reference from the Book of John (appropriated from the Hebrew Scriptures) to the coming of Christ.


State of The Union, Jan. 29, 2003
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."

Context: This statement is not found in Scripture, but harks back to the writings of French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville. It raised a red flag for supporters of separation of church and state.


Hours After Shuttle Tragedy, Feb. 1
"The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home."

Context: The words "safely home" are commonly used in homilies delivered at Christian funerals to mean that those who've died are now with Jesus.

2003State of The Union, Jan. 29, 2003
"There's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people."

Context: "Power, wonder-working power" is a direct quote from one of the oldest evangelical gospel songs.

 

[pub crawler]

A reminder of who the people are that are running this war...

"The Bible Code" author Michael Drosnin has met with the Pentagon's "top intelligence officer" and the CIA's #3 "on his theory" that Osama bin Laden's hideaway "is revealed in the Old Testament's ancient Hebrew" (Wall Street Journal).

"Leaders have always invoked God's blessing on their wars, and, in this respect, the Bush administration is simply carrying on a familiar tradition. But when our born-again president describes the nation's foreign-policy objective in theological terms as a global struggle against "evildoers," and when, in his recent State of the Union address, he casts Saddam Hussein as a demonic, quasi-supernatural figure who could unleash "a day of horror like none we have ever known," he is not only playing upon our still-raw memories of 9/11. He is also invoking a powerful and ancient apocalyptic vocabulary that for millions of prophecy believers conveys a specific and thrilling message of an approaching end ? not just of Saddam, but of human history as we know it."

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15221

 

[nbcrusader]

Both sides (for and against the military action) in the US have claimed "God is on our side".

Saddam and his Ministry of Information are claiming Allah is on his side.



I would offer that none of us truly know the nature and character of GWB's faith.

 

[pub crawler]

Both sides (for and against the military action) in the US have claimed "God is on our side".

Saddam and his Ministry of Information are claiming Allah is on his side.

Could this war not then be classified a "Holy War?"

I would offer that none of us truly know the nature and character of GWB's faith.

True, but the Wall Street Journal quote alone (in my previous post) is rather alarming, in my view.

 

[Dreadsox]

It is a nice addition to this thread...:O)

 

[80sU2isBest]

I guess I am the only one here who agrees with Bush that it is the will of the Almighty to overthrow the evil tyrant Saddam Hussein. Oh well.

 

[nbcrusader]

Romans 13:1 - for there is no authority except that which God has established

 

[melon]

If these happened to be the "end times," it is my view that the "religious right" will be the ones to bring it on. Considering prophesies of vast deception (my favorite being that 2/3 of the world will be duped by the Antichrist) and how fundamentally conservative our world is, I can see no other way for "the end times" to reach fruition without going through conservative channels.

Something for you all to keep an eye on...

Melon

 

[melon]

I guess I am the only one here who agrees with Bush that it is the will of the Almighty to overthrow the evil tyrant Saddam Hussein. Oh well.

Evil only begets more evil. There is no such thing as a "Holy War." Not even a "Holy Preemptive Strike." If there is anything you can learn from Jesus, it is this. Bush is not carrying out God's Will. Bush is carrying out man's will.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Romans 13:1 - for there is no authority except that which God has established

But that verse doesn't mean God set all governments up.

from http://www.covenanter.org/CivilGovt/melvilleonrom13.htm

"This precept concerning obedience to magistrates, in which, in consequence of the mutual relation of subjects towards magistrates, and magistrates towards subjects, every civil duty is contained, is a universal precept, (verse 1), no man of any class being excepted. Subjection is enjoined to the supereminent authorities: in which the word is tacitly presumed an argument for subjection; that is, in the antithesis between the prepositions : if rulers are placed in the higher grade, subjection is due to them from inferiors. A second argument is, that a legitimate magistracy is from God, whose authority Paul calls lawful, not without law, or an unrestrained license. As Melancthon said, ?The authority is to be distinguished from the person; for Paul loved civil organization and authority, but Nero and Caligula he execrated as monsters of nature, instruments of the devil, and pests of the human race.? A third argument is derived from the fact that it is an order divinely constituted, under God, for the glory of God. For so I interpret as meaning, not so much ?by God,? which had already been said, as ?powers ordained? under God [Melville here adduces a number of instances from classical writers confirming his interpretation]: which he calls, with the article, as if he would say powers that are really such, and deserve the name. Hence an impious and unjust tyranny, which is neither from God, as such, nor at all according to the divine ordination, he excludes as illegitimate from this legitimate obedience, unless at any time it may seem good to God to impose even upon his own people a tyrannical government as a paternal rod for their chastisement,?for then, indeed, they should obey it, provided it enjoing nothing impious towards God, or unjust towards others?for in such cases its authority is to be disregarded."[1]

 

[speedracer]

Okay, so I'm late joining this thread, but...

What precisely is the difference between someone thinking that this war is "the right thing to do" and someone thinking that this war is "the will of God"?

Just curious.

 

[melon]

Romans 13:1 builds upon Wisdom 6:1-3...upon which the "Divine Right of Kings" was created to force obedience. Lest we forget, the Old Testament is a book written by those in power. To say that God has made them ruler by "divine right" is to scare people into not revolting.

As we can see through history, the "Divine Right of Kings" a load of bullshit--that would mean that democracy is against the will of God.

Melon

 

[melon]

Okay, so I'm late joining this thread, but...

What precisely is the difference between someone thinking that this war is "the right thing to do" and someone thinking that this war is "the will of God"?

Just curious.

The former is secular and the latter is theist.

Melon

 

[speedracer]

The former is secular and the latter is theist.

Melon

Sorry Melon, you don't get off that easily.

Some decisions are framed in terms of morality, and some people think that morality derives from God. In such a case, what distinguishes a theistic conviction from a secular conviction?

People can change their minds about what they think God's will is, and people can also be quite stubborn about issues in which they do not invoke the Almighty. Is a deep theistic conviction about a controversial issue necessarily more worrisome or dangerous than a deep secular conviction about the same issue?

 

[melon]

Sorry Melon, you don't get off that easily.

But why is that question complicated? Ask an atheist; one can certainly believe that the war is "the right thing to do," but certainly won't think that the war is the "will of God."

I will actually write more to your last response tomorrow sometime. It is late and I have a class to wake up to. Until then...

Melon

 

[pub crawler]

"This precept concerning obedience to magistrates, in which, in consequence of the mutual relation of subjects towards magistrates, and magistrates towards subjects, every civil duty is contained, is a universal precept, (verse 1), no man of any class being excepted. Subjection is enjoined to the supereminent authorities: in which the word is tacitly presumed an argument for subjection; that is, in the antithesis between the prepositions : if rulers are placed in the higher grade, subjection is due to them from inferiors. A second argument is, that a legitimate magistracy is from God, whose authority Paul calls lawful, not without law, or an unrestrained license. As Melancthon said, ?The authority is to be distinguished from the person; for Paul loved civil organization and authority, but Nero and Caligula he execrated as monsters of nature, instruments of the devil, and pests of the human race.? A third argument is derived from the fact that it is an order divinely constituted, under God, for the glory of God. For so I interpret as meaning, not so much ?by God,? which had already been said, as ?powers ordained? under God [Melville here adduces a number of instances from classical writers confirming his interpretation]: which he calls, with the article, as if he would say powers that are really such, and deserve the name. Hence an impious and unjust tyranny, which is neither from God, as such, nor at all according to the divine ordination, he excludes as illegitimate from this legitimate obedience, unless at any time it may seem good to God to impose even upon his own people a tyrannical government as a paternal rod for their chastisement,?for then, indeed, they should obey it, provided it enjoing nothing impious towards God, or unjust towards others?for in such cases its authority is to be disregarded."[1]

Difficult passage, 80s. But I get the gist of it. I think.

 

[80sU2isBest]

If there is anything you can learn from Jesus, it is this. Bush is not carrying out God's Will. Bush is carrying out man's will.
Melon

But where is Biblical evidence for that? Jesus doesn't speak of war at all. His admonition to "turn the other cheek" was framed in personal context, not corporate or world-view context. Same is true for "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword" - this speaks of individuals who live violently and that is their attitude. In fact, once when he met a Roman soldier, he praised the man's faith. If he was against war at all times, would he have anything good to say about a soldier, especially a ROMAN soldier?

 

[melon]

If Jesus was for war, then why didn't he incite the Jews into rebellion against the "oppressors" of the Roman Empire? Because that's precisely what the Pharisees expected; a warrior Messiah to vanquish their enemies and make them the greatest kingdom on Earth. His passive and peaceful nature is precisely what convinced the Pharisees that Jesus was not the Messiah. Would we do the same as the Pharisees if Jesus returned to Earth in an equally peaceful manner?

Power is a human concept, and that is what this is: a power struggle. I'm not going to play God and try and assume what He thinks of this war. God will judge the Bush Administration accordingly, upon their death, and will likely be judged by their intentions behind this war. Was it really inspired by a desire to "liberate" Iraq or vengeance for humiliating Bush, Sr. in the last war? Only God will know the answer to that, but, overall, there is no such thing as a "Holy War." Man has created war, and man will discover the consequences.

Melon