When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.  He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 at 11:06 pm and is filed under quote. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

557 Comments(+Add)

1   Break the Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 3:57 am

Are you being passive-aggressive?

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 6:23 am

These are very serious verses, since they are either Shakesperian style poetic imagery, ethereal and lofty, or they are communications of a coming literal reality which should trump all other considerations. To read the entire New Testament gives us the only escape from this colossal horror, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ and the imputed grace given to all who truly believe.

Almost no one believed the literal essence contained in the prophetic imagery of the Old Testament concerning the coming Messiah, but Christ came according to the Scriptures just as they had predicted. And although we may disagree about many things, we can never abandon the literal warning contained in verses like those Chris has quoted.

Quite disturbing, quite chilling, and to believers quite humbling. Thank you, Jesus, I deserved that second death and yet I will inherit eternal life because of You. I am thankful beyond all words…

3   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 8:15 am

These verses – dealing with the “post-millennial” world – are part of the crux between futurist pre-mill and a-mill views.

As an amillennialist, I would see that these could be true today, and that the hope lies in the end, even while the nations are being deceived during Satan’s final ‘fling’…

4   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 8:58 am

Chris – you can’t see the “Left Behind” scenario when it hits you between the eyes! :lol:

5   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:04 am

Chris – you can’t see the “Left Behind” scenario when it hits you between the eyes!

Sure I can – I just change the article from “the” to “an”, and figure the end could come today, tomorrow, next January or 100 years from now.

6   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 9:25 am

I am scratching my head over this one, Chris L.

7   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:27 am

The rapture will come in the middle of President Obama’s inaugural address.

Or not…

8   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:30 am

I am scratching my head over this one, Chris L.

Rick and I play a good deal of back-and-forth of pre-mill vs. a-mill.

One of the sticking points is whether there is a person who is the Antichrist (who signals the beginning of the end) or if there will just be a number of antichrists throughout history (thus an antichrist, instead of the Antichrist) who will deceive the nations…

9   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 9:34 am

So are you implying, without saying it, that Obama is one of any of those?

10   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:38 am

So are you implying, without saying it, that Obama is one of any of those?

I would say that the jury is still out on that one.

Do we believe the recent rhetoric or the arc of his personal history? The next several months will tell.

Personally, though, I’m not optimistic (which is quite odd for me, since I tend to be an optimist about most things)

11   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 9:39 am

Chris L-
Would you have posted the same verses and suggest this:

I would say that the jury is still out on that one.

If your guy had won?

12   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:43 am

I am not sure you can suggest that Chris L. had a “guy” in this race. He probably held is nose and voted for McCain, but surely not his “guy”.

13   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am

I am not sure you can suggest that Chris L. had a “guy” in this race. He probably held is nose and voted for McCain, but surely not his “guy”.

Fair enough. The question still stands, however. Would Chris L have posted this and said the jury is still out about whether this is the or an antichrist if McCain won?

14   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am

If your guy had won?

My guy didn’t make it through the primaries…

Every leader has the potential to go either direction, and their history and stated positions add to, or subtract from, that. McCain had a number of areas in which I disagreed with him, though not many in areas of moral import. My vote was not for McCain, but against Obama. While I disagree politically with many of McCain’s stances, I disagree morally with more of Obama’s, and I would say that he holds positions which are anti-Christ.

I would say that GWB had a lot of potential, which he squandered along the line. Inept? Yes. Malevolent? No.

15   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 9:48 am

So Chris, am I to take from the above that you would not have posted this if McCain had one? From your POV, the jury would not “still be out” if McCain were the president elect?

16   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:51 am

Would Chris L have posted this and said the jury is still out about whether this is the or an antichrist if McCain won?

I don’t believe there is a the antichrist, and I believe there have been, and will continue to be, many antichrists to come before the end of time.

If asked about McCain (had he won), I would still probably say “the jury is out”, though with a different balance in the current jury straw-vote, because you never know if action will match rhetoric until they’re actually in office.

To my knowledge, though, none of McCain’s supporters (let alone masses of them) swooned in his presence, called him a ‘messiah’, or fawned on him in a Children of the Corn fashion, so an biblical comparison, if warranted, would have come later than today…

17   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 9:51 am

Let me ask one more question: I am assuming that the entirety of your argument and assignment of Obama to “anti-christ” behavior is wrapped up in his allowance of women to choose, correct? Or is there some other reason he is anti-christ?

To be consistent, are you also going to say that every person who is pro-choice is an anti-christ?
I assume you understand that scripturally speaking, an anti-christ is one who is fundamentally opposed to the idea that “Jesus is Lord.”

18   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:52 am

My Guy wsn’t running, He already reigns.

19   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:53 am

From your POV, the jury would not “still be out” if McCain were the president elect?

Per #16, yes the jury would “still be out”, because he would not yet be in office.

With either O or Mc, the jury is out until their actions define them as leaders.

S0, by the time Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps down for health reasons in 2010 and a replacement is named, I think the jury will have more data to run with…

20   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am

Will bbl – rl calls…

21   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am

To my knowledge, though, none of McCain’s supporters (let alone masses of them) swooned in his presence, called him a ‘messiah’, or fawned on him in a Children of the Corn fashion, so an biblical comparison, if warranted, would have come later than today…

So your definition of an anti-christ is not so much about the individual being anti-christ or embodying the goals and purposes of anti-christ but is wrapped up in the misguided projections or opinions of a few. Sort of like making an argument based on guilt by association.

That is to say, if we find a few people who think you are in some sense a “messiah” than I can rightly call you antichrist, despite your objections and despite your confession that Jesus is Lord.

22   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am

I am assuming that the entirety of your argument and assignment of Obama to “anti-christ” behavior is wrapped up in his allowance of women to choose, correct?

I would also toss Middle-East policy, gay marriage, religious freedom, free speech and several other issues into the pot, though abortion, by itself, is the biggest.

Calling Jesus “Lord” in one breath while holding the cloaks of the executioners with the next, seems contradictory, though not unredeemable (just as Saul/Paul).

23   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:01 am

That is to say, if we find a few people who think you are in some sense a “messiah” than I can rightly call you antichrist, despite your objections and despite your confession that Jesus is Lord.

I people think I am a “messiah” and I preach something other than Christ, even if I pay him the barest of lip-service, then yes, I am anti-Christ…

24   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 5th, 2008 at 10:03 am

I am assuming that the entirety of your argument and assignment of Obama to “anti-christ” behavior is wrapped up in his allowance of women to choose, correct? Or is there some other reason he is anti-christ?

I know I haven’t been in this game, but I the whole pro-life thing didn’t really play that much for my voting against Obama. I’m really more concerned with his economic policy of assuming that the government know how best to spend the citizens’ money. And it’s not that I’m just all about greed. I sincerely believe that government programs intended to help the poor actually end up hurting them. So it might sound nice to say we want the government to care for the least of these, but the dirty little secret is that it really sucks at doing that job.

I know Brian McLaren claimed that Obama is no longer working under the “warrior narrative”, but rather a narrative that seeks understanding and concensus. There may be some truth in that, but when it comes down to it, it’s still ruling by dominating. In Obama’s case, he just think those who don’t produce should have dominion over those who do for some odd reason.

Oh well, I’m just amazed that the same people who screamed the loudest about Christians selling out to the Republican party seem to have little problem with them selling out to the other side.

25   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am

I would also toss Middle-East policy, gay marriage, religious freedom, free speech and several other issues into the pot, though abortion, by itself, is the biggest.

Oh good grief, Chris.

You have been listening to Neil Bortz or Rush Limbaugh for far too long.

I guess everyone that disagrees with you on these issues is anti-christ as well, correct?

wow.

26   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Having differences of opinion is one thing – having the power to act upon them is another.

I guess everyone that disagrees with you on these issues is anti-christ as well, correct?

I didn’t say this.

God is neither Republican nor Democrat, and there are legitimate differences to be had.

Killing children is anti-Christ. Calling sin “an alternative choice” is anti-Christ. Capitulation to Islam (or Mormonism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism) is anti-Christ.

Neither political party has a lock on these, and the GOP didn’t do much about these when it had the chance, so I only consider them the lesser of two evils, wondering if the right course isn’t to follow the advice of Rick Frueh and Derek Webb and to just abstain from voting.

27   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am

Oh well, I’m just amazed that the same people who screamed the loudest about Christians selling out to the Republican party seem to have little problem with them selling out to the other side.

Well, there is that, too…

28   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 10:17 am

Neither political party has a lock on these, and the GOP didn’t do much about these when it had the chance,

Precisely.

Perhaps posting what you have here simply because from your very limited perspective (as we all have) the wrong guy got elected was unfair.

Having differences of opinion is one thing – having the power to act upon them is another.

Interesting. you would make a good politician :)

Are you really suggesting that the divividing line between what makes one an anti-christ or not is the ability to act on one’s beliefs and opinions?

So I can think anything I want about the issues you feel makes Obama anti-christ but since I can’t carry them out I am good in your book.

29   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:18 am

FYI -

Were I pre-mill, I might have posted this, instead:

For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.

However, it is part of the Olivet Discourse, which I believe was fulfilled in the years/months leading up to 70 A.D. and would be out of place in this discussion (just to go back to the pre- a-mill thing)

30   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:30 am

Perhaps posting what you have here simply because from your very limited perspective (as we all have) the wrong guy got elected was unfair.

And perhaps it was spot-on.

We’ll see.

The jury is still out…

31   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am

And perhaps it was spot-on.

We’ll see.

The jury is still out…

Well, then I guess we can say you are either a prophet or a false-prophet.

We’ll see.

The jury is still out.

32   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:36 am

Chad – I believe Rush Limbaugh is closer to being the AntiChrist than is Obama. Remember, he will be a deceiver and emulate Christ. Rush’s following mirrors that of Obama and he uses God’s name in vain as well as is saturated with self righteousness and self adulation.

33   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am

Kool Aid drinkers and Tinfoil hat wearers BOTH scare me!

34   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 5th, 2008 at 10:41 am

Oh well, I’m just amazed that the same people who screamed the loudest about Christians selling out to the Republican party seem to have little problem with them selling out to the other side.

This is so true. I was thinking about this last night. Many of the people who I know who screamed the absolute loudest when Bush was elected about how God didn’t take political sides and seeking a political solution was wrong and that James Dobson was worth slightly more than cow droppings because he threw his public support behind a republican are doing the same doggone thing today. It just amazes me! We’ve had years to watch Christians sell out to republicans and it didn’t work. Now, we may have years to watch the same Christians who got all fired up sell out to democrats.
Utterly amazing.

35   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am

Has anyone here read Obama’s narration of his coming to the Christian faith in his memoir Dreams of my Father?

36   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am

yes

37   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am

Going back to the OP…

…Regardless of what evil may rule here, we already know the end, and whether or not John’s description is literal or figurative, it seems to be a pretty good ending to me…

38   Chris P.    
November 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Hmmmmm
apparently only that passage from Revelation doesn’t apply to Nero’s day alone.

As for Obama…where does one begin?
His “soaring rhetoric” from the staged party in Grant Park made me think of this:

Acts 12:
21On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. 22And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” 23Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.
24But the word of God increased and multiplied.

Received this in my email this morning. it is the future of this nation on a nutshell.

Eritrean Christian Dies in Military Prison

Open Doors has received word of another evangelical Christian who has died while in military confinement. Teklesenbet, a member of the Full Gospel Church, was arrested during a prayer meeting in Assab about a year ago. According to sources, he suffered very harsh military punishment during his incarceration. He allegedly died after the commanders refused to give him medical attention for his critical case of malaria.
In 2002 all independent Protestant churches were outlawed in Eritrea. Only Islam and the Eritrean Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran Christian denominations were given official recognition. Buildings of all other churches were closed and private gatherings in homes were banned. Worshippers caught disobeying these restrictions have faced arrest and torture in prison camps that are notorious for their horrific conditions.
Compass Direct News estimates that more than 2,000 Christians, including pastors and priests from both Protestant and Orthodox churches, are now under arrest in police stations, military camps and jails all across Eritrea because of their religious beliefs. Although many have been incarcerated for months or even years, none have been charged officially or given access to judicial due process.

39   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Chris P,
Do you they have medicine where you’re at?

40   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Hmmmmm
apparently only that passage from Revelation doesn’t apply to Nero’s day alone.

Chris -

Perhaps you should get out a little bit more. The “partial” in “partial preterist” doesn’t ignore Revelation. What is does is separate the “pre-mill” events (such as those described in the Olivet Discourse) as having happened (literally or figuratively) around 70 A.D.

Being an “amillennial” position (i.e. there is no literal 1000 years, it is symbolic), it holds that there will always be ‘wars and signs of wars’, that antichrists will come and go, and that, in the end, Christ will have a final return, in which all – living and dead – will be judged.

Rev 20:7 – the end of Rev is post-mill, so I would content that it can happen now, as well…

(not sure what’s so difficult about characterizing an eschatology correctly, even if one disagrees with it…)

41   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 5th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Wow, you see reaction’s like those of Chris P. really make me wish there would have been some viable third party candidate. I remember when Clinton was elected, there were similar hysterics from Christians as well.

I’ve expressed my concerns over Obama, but I really don’t think this sort of over-dramatization helps anyone. Seriously, I think a lot of American Christians do have a “country first” mentality that’s very close to idolatry. America may rise and it may fall, but God’s still the one in whom we trust.

42   Bill    http://www.burke.urbanreformer.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Phil there was a viable 3rd Party candidate as well as a more palatable GOP candidate who were not successful because of a collection of the following reasons:

1. People accepted the force fed agenda of the media elite who spout the change mantra yet are feeding you the same rancid menu

2. When a man of consistent conviction and Constitutional adherence jumps into the mix Christians and Christian leaders failed to do their homework and encourage their friends and acquaintances there is a legitimate quality candidate when there was enough time to effect a true change, say back in the Spring, maybe?

3. More voted in this election but to be honest the only certainty you can take from that is that more uninformed voters cast ballots than in past elections. Pessimistic, sure. Jaded, maybe. Accurate? Consider http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html I know it is anecdotal, but should encourage discussion with others to find that they really know what they are voting for or against is actually true.

Many might say a vote for a 3rd Party candidate this years was a wasted vote, if that is your opinion then I guess mine was wasted because I chose to support a candidate who stands with me in allegiance to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but when it comes to how to rule this nation will first cunsult the Constitution of these United States. Needless to say he came from the Constitution Party, not the GOP or the Democratic faces of the same party committed to destroying our nation bit by bit.

Those are my opinions and as such cannot nor should not be considered anything other than that. Simple food for thought.

43   amy    
November 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

On Obama’s claim to be Christian:

Could one explain why many liberals who think that people who believe in Jesus are weird, crazy, weak . . . are enamored with the Obama who calls himself a Christian?

Could it be that they have more discernment as to who he actually appears to be following than do many Christians?

44   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Could one explain why many liberals who think that people who believe in Jesus are weird, crazy, weak . . . are enamored with the Obama who calls himself a Christian?

Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t have all those pesky beliefs that Christians have – just a name and a vague concept of what Jesus’ life narrative was…

Could it be that they have more discernment as to who he actually appears to be following than do many Christians?

I’d have to say I agree with your assessment, amy…

45   amy    
November 5th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

On “the antichrist” versus “an antichrist.”

I believe there is room for both in scripture.

On how he or they will be recognized: One thing is certain. Many won’t recognize them. And many will mock those who suggest that someone could be “an” or “the” antichrist, or have “the spirit of antichrist.”

On which prophecies have and have not been fulfilled: I believe that many of the prophecies in scripture can have different levels of fulfillment. I see no reason for saying that some – from a particular time period – can have only one level of fulfillment.

The book of Habakkuk I believe has a number of things in it that could be prophetic for the days ahead, even though it is a prophecy that was fulfilled once. At the very least the truths evident in the book still apply today.

46   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 5th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Could one explain why many liberals who think that people who believe in Jesus are weird, crazy, weak . . . are enamored with the Obama who calls himself a Christian?

Well, just to be fair, there are a fair number of Christians I know who I would describe as weird and crazy…

It’s like how everyone has that crazy uncle in their family.

47   amy    
November 5th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Comments 38 and 39.

The only medicine Chris P might be needing in light of his comment #38 is some kind of upper to pass out to people who are so asleep that they think that the kind of things that are happening in Eritrea

CANNOT

HAPPEN

HERE.

48   amy    
November 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Phil,
My comment originated from hearing about a group of folks from a certain PC correct city (who work with someone I know) who generally view Christians as weird, etc, because . . . because well, I guess basically the root cause is that Jesus is a stumblingblock to them and they have found their “god” in following political correctness.

49   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Well, just to be fair, there are a fair number of Christians I know who I would describe as weird and crazy…

True, Phil, but the things that qualify for “weird and crazy” these days tend to include belief in exclusivity of the gospel, a belief in creation (of any sort), and a belief in absolute truth (at some level).

For an example, just look at the way the press categorized Palin’s prayer for the troops video…

50   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

they think that the kind of things that are happening in Eritrea

CANNOT

HAPPEN

HERE.

Can they? Yes.

Are they all that likely in the near future?

Not likely.

51   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Has anyone here read Obama’s narration of his coming to the Christian faith in his memoir Dreams of my Father?

Haven’t read it. Probably wouldn’t put a lot of stock in it knowing he sat under Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and claims he never heard any of the wild and crazy stuff we’ve heard just in the past year and a half.

52   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 5th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Chris L: “My guy” didn’t make it through the primaries either.

Thought it was interesting that between the two parties, there were fewer votes cast this year than in 2004. What happened to all of the NEW voters and massive crowds we were told to expect?

53   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Thought it was interesting that between the two parties, there were fewer votes cast this year than in 2004. What happened to all of the NEW voters and massive crowds we were told to expect?

Actually, when they’re done w/ the absentee ballots, the total is expected to be slightly higher, but not the astronomical heights predicted.

54   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

“What happened to all of the NEW voters and massive crowds we were told to expect?”

They were at my house enjoying a productive pool party!

55   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 5th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

It just announced that BO has named Rahm Emanuel (D- IL) as Chief of Staff (Source). Emanuel was on the Freddie Mac Board of Directors (experienced in handling other people’s money).

56   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Doing my part to spread the wealth around

57   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 5th, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Chris L -
Read your little wealth spreading post. I dont know what has gotten into you, man. Depriving a minimum wage waitress of her tip, just because she expressed support for Obama is just mean. Not sure why you would be proud of that.
I’m sure she felt blessed by your witness.

58   nc    
November 5th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Liberals, in general, do not see people who believe in Jesus as just weird and crazy.

They see people who pray before rallies about people who pray to their god “hindu” as weird and crazy.

And they’re right.

59   nc    
November 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Chris P,

“Stage party”

yeah, and if McCain had won it would be a purely genuine outpouring of celebration for the righteous.

sheeeesh…

you’re a real piece of…work.

60   nc    
November 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm

I say that about liberals because I live and work among a ton of them right now.

Stop drinking from the toilet of Christian radio orthodoxy, seriously.

61   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 5th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Depriving a minimum wage waitress of her tip, just because she expressed support for Obama is just mean.

But now that BO is Prez, she won’t have to worry about her mortgage or gas for her car! Just ask Peggy Joseph.

We have a BO supporter in our office. When we suggested she “spread the wealth” by taking her annual Christmas bonus and splitting it among the other employees, she didn’t see the stupidity of Obama’s statement humor.

Thanks for the chuckle, Chris L. Personally, I’ll be buying all the guns and ammo–also clinging to my God–as I can between now and middle of January. After that, who knows. Nothing like the possibility of losing a basic right.

62   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Depriving a minimum wage waitress of her tip, just because she expressed support for Obama is just mean.

If you’re OK with the “spreading the wealth around” of other people’s money, why shouldn’t you be OK when it happens to your own?

I didn’t deprive her of her tip – I spread it around to someone less fortunate than her, just like she voted…

Had she voted for McCain, Barr, or Baldwin, I’d have been inclined to give her the 22% tip, since she would be in support of keeping what you earn.

I’m not sure what’s not to like about natural consequences of your ideology…

63   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Yes, Keith.

I’ve never owned a gun in my life, but since I might want/need one someday, it would likely behoove me to get one while it’s still available.

64   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 5th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Just ask Peggy Joseph.

Rofl – I’d forgotten “Peggy the Moocher”

65   M.G.    
November 5th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

To be precise, you should have distributed 40 cents of her money, provided 15 cents worth of services in return, and told her if she had only voted for McCain, you would have distributed 35 cents of her money. That, of course, is fine, because 35 cents is civic duty but 40 cents is socialist.

66   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 5th, 2008 at 11:07 pm

That, of course, is fine, because 35 cents is civic duty but 40 cents is socialist.

It’s not necessarily the particular tax rate that’s socialist (although even a rate of 35% is ridiculous), but as soon as you introduce a progressive rate structure, that’s pretty much some form of socialism. So apart from something major happening where the US would get a flat tax, the tax code will pretty much be socialistic.

I’m not against paying taxes, but I’m against using the tax code to punish certain people and reward others. Really about the fairest tax we pay is the sales tax, because it applies evenly across the board on a percentage basis.

67   M.G.    
November 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. It’s not a progressive
tax rate.

At least tie the way a government spends its tax revenue to whether it is socialist. A progressive tax regime of 2, 5, and 10 percent, with all revenue going to military expenditures, is hardly socialist.

The abuse that word has gone through is breathtaking.

68   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 5:07 am

Compared to the leadership in the rest of the world president Barak Obama is more Christ-like than most. Our probable next president(Jacob Zuma) is doing everything he can to stay out of court because of corruption charges. The previous one turned a blind eye to the AIDS pandemic as well as the situation in Zimbabwe. Whether Barak Obama will legislate anti-christian policies or not will be seen in time but that does not stop God from bringing good out of anything for those who love Him as promised in Romans 8:28.

That said, I don’t think it was God’s original plan to have people with that much power in their hands as the world leaders currently have.

69   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 7:18 am

If you’re OK with the “spreading the wealth around” of other people’s money, why shouldn’t you be OK when it happens to your own?

I didn’t deprive her of her tip – I spread it around to someone less fortunate than her, just like she voted…

Hey, whatever helps you look in the mirror, man.

70   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 7:34 am

I’m not sure what’s not to like about natural consequences of your ideology…

Chris, if the waitress you deprived of what may be the only money she gets to use to pay her rent and feed her kids was making 250K + a year than you might have a leg to stand on. What you did was just mean, plain and simple.

If you wanted to do the right thing and truly support her “ideology” (good grief) than why don’t you find out if she and/or her kids have health care and if not buy them some? Why not find out if she has a son or daughter in Iraq that she desperately wants home sooner than later? Why not find out if the reason she is waitressing right now isnt because she and her husband were laid off from good jobs due to the terrible economic crisis we are in and have been in for the last year (just like my sister was)?

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. I guess you think it perfectly acceptable to be the judge and jury towards everyone you meet that votes differently than you. Hey, how about this: Because everyone agrees that Obama intends to have our troops home sooner than McCain, lets only bring the ones home who voted for Obama – those who voted McCain can stay over there a while longer. We can put you in charge of making sure everyone receives the due consequences of their “ideology.” Vengence is mine, sayeth Chris L.

71   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 7:39 am

If you are wondering why I am taking such strong exception to your political posturing, Chris, it is in part because my sister is a single mother who is a waitress that just recently got laid off. She depends on tips to feed my nephews. Not to mention the fact that the Christian witness to people like servers and waitresses has long been deplorable precisely because “church people” are pegged as the worst tippers and most stingy with their money. You have only further contributed to that stigma.

72   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 7:44 am

Chris L. – I heard that story from others, did you just put yourself in it to see a reaction? Christ would never become involved with such pettiness, whoever actuall did that.

73   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 7:49 am

In post 25 and 26 during a discussion of what makes an anti-christ I asked Chris L-

I guess everyone that disagrees with you on these issues is anti-christ as well, correct?

He responded:

Having differences of opinion is one thing – having the power to act upon them is another.

Chris, would it be fair to say that you have figured out a way to give yourself the “power to act upon them”?

74   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 7:53 am

We have been mandated to “particpate” in an anti-christ sytem. It is called “preaching the gospel to every creature”.

75   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 7:59 am

It is called “preaching the gospel to every creature”.

Agreed. And for many, the only gospel of Jesus Christ they will ever see or hear comes through our actions. What sort of gospel does depriving a waitress of tips proclaim?

76   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 8:00 am

What sort of gospel does depriving a waitress of tips proclaim?

to answer my own question, I guess one could argue that it proclaims the gospel of a politician. We aren’t called to proclaim that or any other gospel, though.

77   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 8:05 am

If a man asks you to give him your jacket, give him your coat also. Unless his politics doesn’t line up with yours, then do not give him anything.

“exerpt from the new political version of the Bible”.

78   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 8:34 am

Rick-
Another favorite passage from that new Bible you quoted:

“For you are saved by grace, through faith and the correct political vote.”

79   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 8:42 am

VERSES FROM THE POLITICO BIBLE

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but some more than others.

Do not murmur or complain unless your leaders are liberal.

Go into all the world and bring democracy.

And be ye clothed with moral indignancy.

When men say all manner of evil against you falsely – RESPOND IMMEDIATELY AND GO NEGATIVE – before you lose votes.

80   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 8:46 am

and….

“Do unto others as the elected officials they voted for would do unto all” *

*some manuscripts read: Do unto others only insofar as it will win you votes.

“I was thirsty and you gave me a drink. I was hungry and you gave me food. I was naked and you clothed me. I was a waitress and you tipped me.”

81   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 8:47 am

Chad: Where does your sister live?–I’ll send HER Chris’ tip if you’ll quit whinning.

You are the typical Obama supporter–I work with one. She sounds just like you. I tell her the same thing: “But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.” BO has already named a Chief of Staff that had his hand DIRECTLY in the Freddie Mac fiasco…more shinanigans to come I’m sure.

I just keep reminding myself that God used Pilate and Judas to accomplish His plan as much as He did Moses and Abraham.

82   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 8:50 am

“I just keep reminding myself that God used Pilate and Judas to accomplish His plan as much as He did Moses and Abraham.”

An incongruous straw man that speaks of Calvinism. If that be true as presented, why vote, God will use everyone to accomplish His plan. Chad makes a valid point, though, and it goes with my contention:

Politics in America compromises our Christianty almost pervasively.

83   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 8:50 am

And you, Keith, are the typical McCain supporter – crying because your own messiah did not win the election and showing the grace of a fruit fly.

84   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 8:54 am

Politics in America compromises our Christianty almost pervasively.

I agree, Rick. The problem for most Westerners is we are blind to how much we have turned politics into an idol. We allow it to form our identity. As Christians our identity was given to us in our baptism. Our baptism has no political affiliation except for where it seeks to bring to death a politic of domination, economy and power-games. All of that died on the cross.

85   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 8:54 am

I am of Cyphas. I am of Paul. I am of Obama. I am of McCain.

I am of Christ.

See how politics deconstructs our spiritual lives and renders us just one of many in the carnal carnival known as politics. It is difficult enough to emulate Christ without getting involved in politics.

Matthew chapters 5 – 7 if taken literally cannot possible be achieved in the system known as politics.

86   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am

Spreading the wealth around:

Deut. 24:19.When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
20.When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow.
21.When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow.
22.Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

87   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 9:01 am

Some believers over use Romans 13 the way others use Jesus scourging the Temple. They use these verses as a template for a wide variety of Christian behavior. They are small sections of verses that have specific teachings but are not blanket endorsements of anything.

88   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 9:10 am

The reason I feel so strongly about this can be learned just from this past political season. Why can’t we all see that there was nothing Christlike about what has happened, regardless of who you supported, and that these elections strip millions of believers of their spiritual walk even when they THINK it enhances it?

The fight for morality and economics is counterproductive to spreading the gospel and living like Jesus. I contend, that if you are a believer who thinks you should vote, you should follow these guidelines:

* Never speak against anyone
* Listen 100 times more than you speak
* Severely limit your political conversations
* Be humble and attempt not to seem opinionated and right
* Vote quietly and without emotion
* Communicate to everyone the real answer is the gospel
* Leave the entire thing to God

That may be how a Christian should be “involved” in the political system

89   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:17 am

I get a chuckle out of the fact that we (us here) would never accept some of the shoddy statements in regards to Obama to be made about Rick Warren.

G.B.A.
Strawmen
Lack of Research
etc…

Oh the joy of politics. :) It corrupts absolutely.

90   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:24 am

Rick – I tend to agree.

Chris – how true – and sad.

Chris L and Keith – just so you know, if you were an Obama supporter and McCain won the election and you posted what you did in the OP and treated people in a way that reflects their political leaning rather than the Imago Dei within them I would be just as vocal and be making the exact same arguments.

91   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:27 am

proof of my above comments can be found in my response to Dr. Dobson.

92   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:30 am

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. It’s not a progressive
tax rate.

At least tie the way a government spends its tax revenue to whether it is socialist. A progressive tax regime of 2, 5, and 10 percent, with all revenue going to military expenditures, is hardly socialist.

The abuse that word has gone through is breathtaking.

I think your definition of socialism is too limited, actually. Government owner ship of production may be one part of a socialistic system, but an attempt at egalitarianism, i.e, redistribution of wealth, is part and parcel as well. Actually government ownership of production is more in line with communist governments like you see in China and Venezuela.

Actually, the US government is already well down the road of socialism, anyway, so this is sort of becoming a moot point. The federal government is already the largest employer in the country, and when you add in all the work done by private contractors for the government, you have quite a lot of people depending on the government in one way or another.

So perhaps it was a bit dishonest for McCain to accuse Obama of being a socialist, when really the only thing he could say is that he’s more of one than McCain. Although, I do believe McCain is probably a bit more fiscally conservative than many Pubbies in Washington right now.

93   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am

But Chad, let me also say that I personally could never support anyone who esouses and protects the murder of unborn babies. It is true that most politicians give lip service to that issue, but God, if His Word is true, hates the spilling of innocent blood. Ronald Reagan mentioned his support of a ban of abortion in every one of his State of the Union addresses, so he stands alone in that regard.

So if you do vote, it cannot be ANY deference to your pocketball – AT ALL. The love of money cannot trump womb murder.

94   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 9:33 am

pocketball = pocketbook

95   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:37 am

But Chad, let me also say that I personally could never support anyone who esouses and protects the murder of unborn babies. It is true that most politicians give lip service to that issue, but God, if His Word is true, hates the spilling of innocent blood.

I am pro-life, Rick. However, I hear the complexities around this issue – complexities we have been through on this site already. I’ll just say this: there are many pro-life issues worthy of consideration and not all of them (in fact most of them) are not contained inside the womb.

96   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:44 am

Another thing I would add regarding the whole “ownership” aspect in regard to the whole socialism thing is this. In many ways, the idea of private ownership in the US is kind of a farce. Try not paying property taxes on your home for a while and see what happens. After a while it won’t be yours.

Also it’s not like a business can just go build any building they want anywhere they want. Even to purchase land in most cases requires the approval of two or three government agencies, and then the government basically dictates what materials may be used in that building to a large degree and now through energy codes, it dictates how many light fixtures can be installed and what type HVAC equipment may be used.

I’m not saying I’m against things like building codes, or even against local communities having a say in things like zoning. I’m just saying that the government’s influence already impacts us more than we realize.

97   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:53 am

Can we all agree that politics is basically flawed men in a flawed system placed in a flawed world trying to control all the flawed aspects of creation. It will never be what God intended.

98   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:54 am

agreed. we live in the already-not yet.

99   Nathanael    http://borrowedbreath.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 10:07 am

Chris,
A hearty “AMEN!”

I think Greg Boyd put it best in his book “Myth of a Christian Nation” when he pointed out that kingdoms of this world have a “power over” mentality and the kingdom of God is based purely on a “power under” humility and service modeled by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Shalom

100   Nathanael    http://borrowedbreath.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am

Rick,
Have you read that book?
I think you’d enjoy it.

101   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:11 am

“…crying because your own messiah did not win the election.”

Chad: I didn’t vote FOR McCain; I voted AGAINST BO (had to hold my nose to do it, too. )

You also assume the waitress Chris L encountered was in need. Frankly, if she is in need, then she should be looking at working a longer shift or taking a second job before she goes off “partying the night before…” I’ve done it. It won’t kill her.

You do make a valid point that we, as Christians, should be taking care of those around us, but it AIN”T the gov’ment’s job to take care of the Peggy Joseph’s of the world! Moochers = “…”If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (2 Thess 3:10)

BTW, your $250k figure has already been lowered/changed several times. AND whether you make $250k/year or not, BO’s plan to raise the Capital Gains Tax on home sales will hit you regardless of your income level. Another cleverly cloaked statement from the BO campaign goes unnoticed. Keep you eyes peeled…there’s alot more of that kind of thing coming down the pike. I waiting for the day Jeremiah Wright becomes the White House Chaplain!

Unrelated gripe: “… rather than the Imago Dei.” Couldn’t just talk like regular folks and say “God’s image,” could ya?

102   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:25 am

You also assume the waitress Chris L encountered was in need. Frankly, if she is in need, then she should be looking at working a longer shift or taking a second job before she goes off “partying the night before…” I’ve done it. It won’t kill her.

Well, we humans are in the best place to judge that, huh? Good for you and Chris L.

You do make a valid point that we, as Christians, should be taking care of those around us, but it AIN”T the gov’ment’s job to take care of the Peggy Joseph’s of the world! Moochers = “…”If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

Yep. And this applies to a waitress, someone who IS working, how, exactly?

AND whether you make $250k/year or not, BO’s plan to raise the Capital Gains Tax on home sales will hit you regardless of your income level.

lol. First, you have to have EARNINGS to get hit with a capital GAINS tax. Second, if I am not mistaken, he said that low income families will not be hit with a higher capital gains tax and third, even if they are, that is a tax on EARNINGS made through investments and it is relatively small at any rate.

I fail to see how you are consistent on this at any rate. You complain that the rich will pay a slightly higher tax and then complain that EVERYONE will get a capital gains tax. You aren’t making much sense.

I waiting for the day Jeremiah Wright becomes the White House Chaplain!

Well, you no doubt love the sensationalism provided by Limbaugh and Fox Newsless but that won’t happen. So don’t worry, you wont have to put up with any more black people in the WHITE House than are necessary. Frankly, I dont think it would necessarily be a bad thing if Rev. Wright were the chaplain. :)

103   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:29 am

Here is an excerpt from a friend’s blog who is smarter on the math and tax stuff than I….

Simply do the research. Read the policies, do the math, and pay attention to history. Taxes were low in the 1800’s. Care to go back? Taxes are low in the middle east because they have tons of wealth but no foresight to spend a portion of their oil wealth on infrastructure. Is that what you’d like? A middle-eastern model for a few wealthy families and the rest starving without basic necessities?

Did you pass 6th grade math? This so called “marxism” is simply asking a guy making $280,000 in net profits to give another 3% on the 30k over 250k (that’s .3125% of his total income). That’s merely $900. Not exactly marxism. Not much more than a token.

Progressive tax policy is simply smart economics. When people who benefit from our economy the most invest back in our infrastructure (roads, schools, courts, financial markets, energy distribution, r&d, etc.) we get it back many times over. Without a middle-class, capitalism falls flat on its face. If you want to see what happens when a nation doesn’t invest in creating a strong middle-class, then just go visit a 3rd world nation. You’ll get a few land owners and 99% peasants. Japan and now China is recognizing how well building infrastructure and a healthy middle class can work.

I have a business degree and run a successful business. I’m tired of our nation borrowing money and running up massive debt. I’m happy to chip in now so we can yield results down the road. Being a fiscal conservative (As I am) means being responsible and patriotic. Simply, it means paying our own bills.

Read the article. Yes, I got the info from that really “liberal rag” bloogberg.com. Those wall street liberals are really crazy with their “investments” and “capitalism”. There are so many left win radicals down there on wall street. That Michael Bloomberg is a real liberal hippie trying to end capitalism as we know it.

Make sure you read in the article about those crazy liberal accountants who came up with the same numbers that I did. If that isn’t bad enough the tax foundation and Dun & Bradstreet added to the confirmation about Joe’s tax situation. Freakin’ liberals!

Source: http://www.faithprogression.com/

104   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am

“…you have to have EARNINGS to get hit with a capital GAINS tax.” Yep, you’re right. Thank God many of those BO supporters don’t work, so looks like a win-win!

“…I dont think it would necessarily be a bad thing if Rev. Wright were the chaplain.” Having read your blog and your comments here, I’m not at all suprized.

Thanks for reading mine and Chris L’s hearts and setting us straight. I gotta run. Peggy needs here mortgage paid and a tank of gas for her car. I sure wouldn’t want to disappoint her by not doing my JOB and paying those taxes.

There’s a lot more than “wealth” that’s going to be spread around in the coming days/montsh…and yes, Rick–all ordained by God. We get what we deserve.

105   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am

So don’t worry, you wont have to put up with any more black people in the WHITE House than are necessary.

Wow someone finally said it…

106   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:41 am

Keith,

Most, yes most, people (non-partisan) who have read the proposed tax plan agree that it is less intrusive than the current policies and does more for the middle class than McCain’s.

Did you actually read the tax plan? Do you understand how it works? Have you evaluated how much you currently pay in taxes? Do you think stimulus checks, government bailouts, and interest rates have helped the current economy?

I’m not asking you to agree but at the very least be informed and debate the issue.

107   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:45 am

Chris,
My past dealings with Keith have shown me that he cares less about being informed and more about just touting the party line. When he is pressed against a wall the same line always comes out in various forms: “Well, I’m not here to debate. Well, I don’t want to argue. Well, I gotta run, thanks for setting me straight.”

108   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 6th, 2008 at 10:48 am

Chad,
There’s some factual problems with your friends post.

The tax money isn’t only the 30,000 over the 250. In fact, no one knows exactly what the bottom number for “wealth” is going to be. Originally, OB said 250K, then he said 200K, then Biden said 150K.

If OB’s plan goes off as your friend suggests it will, then he may be right, it may be good for the country in the long run but there has been many changes in the proposal to date and proposals don’t really mean anything until they are put into practice. We will see.

Of course, this brings up the question of do the ends justify the means, and I am not going there but I often see people argue this way; they don’t argue over whether or not the course of the action is right or wrong, they only argue over the ends being right or wrong. This is different from how I typically look at things.

Either way, your friends passion is wonderful, but his facts are a little inaccurate. Perhaps, he wrote the piece before there was multiple renditions of the plan, IDK.

109   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am

By the way, OB is going to give out stimulus checks too. And neither Obama or McCain is going to effect the interest rates. Greenspan is the idiot that started the little fire that started this whole forest fire of the mess we’re in now but implying that either one of the candidates could effect the interest rate is not right

Oh and Keith, McCain’s plan’s would have spent more money and put us more in debt than OB’s proposed plan(s).

110   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:57 am

It was written weeks ago, so yeah, maybe before the (suppossed) changes. In any event, the number still add up – it is a tax on just what is made over the bottom number and in the end it is not all that much, relatively speaking.

If OB’s plan goes off as your friend suggests it will, then he may be right, it may be good for the country in the long run but there has been many changes in the proposal to date and proposals don’t really mean anything until they are put into practice. We will see.

Agreed. And this is true of any politician. My beef with this thread and the sensationalism being thrown at anyone who voted for Obama is that none of it is justified. Why not just keep silent about it? Why all these stupid antics like depriving a waitress of her tip to prove your point? If in a few years our country is in the pits and everyone is running around killing babies for fun and we are all forced to pray facing east than I will gladly recant and say you all were right. I wonder, though, how many of you here, if you end up riding the boom and the high that we all rode in the Clinton years will admit how wrong it was to judge so quickly and harshly?

111   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am

McCains proposal pay attention to the column that says average federal tax change. Everyone gets a tax cut with the wealthiest (over a mill) getting a $58,000 dollar cut. The middle class (between 20 and 100 K) get an average reduction of $433.

Obamas proposal the wealthiest get a tax increase of $262,000. While the middle class get a reduction on average of $958.

To fully evaluate both policies it’s important to understand that you must consider the number of contributors in each tax category. Unfortunately I’m not going to run all the numbers but suffice it to say that the middle class is much larger than the wealthiest.

Ultimately it’s a shell game. One side believes giving the money to the middle class will enable them to buy products produced by the wealthy. While the other side believes that allowing the wealthy to keep their money will enable the middle class to have jobs to produce the goods that they buy.

There are many, many, many variables that influence economic situations. It’s not good enough to say “my plan is better” because ultimately the “invisible hand” controls it all.

112   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 6th, 2008 at 11:10 am

My beef with this thread and the sensationalism being thrown at anyone who voted for Obama is that none of it is justified.

Here’s my thing: A lot of people who are getting pissed at the criticism being leveled at BO supporters are the same people leveled copious amounts of criticism at W supporters in ‘04. So for me that doesn’t wash too much. A lot of people who for the last 8 years have told me that the politics aren’t the answer seem to have really meant that “Republican politics aren’t the answer but now my guy’s won, so politics could be the answer again.”
This isn’t the first time, that the Democratic party was the party of the religious and I’m sure it won’t be the last for the Repub’s either.

everyone is running around killing babies for fun

We’re already killing them for convenience sake; 4,000 yesterday, 4,000 today, 4,000 tomorrow so I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.

Oh and Chad be careful using the word “you” with me, I tend to take it very personally when I am called on something I neither said nor publicly supported.

113   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:13 am

Wrong link in the original post.

McCains actual proposal.

114   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 11:17 am

I voted against Obama also, with vote for McCain. I hated the fact that I had to do that. Once the primaries were over, as was the case with Chris L, I didn’t have a dog in the hunt.

I find it interesting when a liberal democrat runs for office they make every attempt to not appear liberal. That was also the case with Obama. He made a definite move to the center in not almost to the center/right.

I believe, as it was the case with Clinton, one of the first things that is going to come off the table of Obama’s promises will be his tax cuts. As Clinton said, “sorry folks, things are a lot worse than I thought, I have to drop the tax cuts I promised“( paraphrased by me). We watched the initial 250k threshold get lower as the campaign progressed.

Both candidates were making promises that didn’t add up. The math isn’t that hard to figure out. There isn’t the money available without putting us deeper in debt. The debt that both candidates said they were going to address.

Obama’s stances on the war are going to change also, once he is briefed on the facts. He started to back peddle during his campaign as he became more involved in the briefings as this is what happens in all campaigns. They become more privy to what is happening, the things that WE are not privy to.

Obama said he’s going to cut the programs that aren’t working……we’ll see. It will all hinge on who’s program it is, if he does anything at all.

I hope everybody is maintaining a list of the promises as I am……as Chris L said the jury is still out….

115   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:19 am

I would also say that the characterization that higher taxes in this line is a bit naive.

“When people who benefit from our economy the most invest back in our infrastructure (roads, schools, courts, financial markets, energy distribution, r&d, etc.)

The fact is that those things, for the most part, represent a very small portion of the federal budget. If that’s really what taxes went to, it would be one thing, but the fact is that they don’t.

Currently over 50% of the federal budget goes to some sort of wealth redistribution program such as social security, medicare/aid, and “safety net” programs. 22% goes to defense, and about 10% goes to interest on debt. That leaves less than 20% for everything else. So if we were actually paying for better infrastructure and schools, it would be one thing, but the fact is that the amount of tax dollars that go to those things on a percentage basic is minuscule.

116   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 6th, 2008 at 11:21 am

Oh and Chad be careful using the word “you” with me, I tend to take it very personally when I am called on something I neither said nor publicly supported.

yeah, could have worded that better. Just don’t go off on me for stuff I didn’t say is all I’m trying to say. :)

117   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:24 am

Here’s a good breakdown of the federal budget.

118   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:26 am

Heres how taxes have been collected (personal vs. business) and distribution since 1934.

119   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 11:26 am

Well, you no doubt love the sensationalism provided by Limbaugh and Fox Newsless but that won’t happen.

Or that somehow people you disagree with listen to Boritz or any
other talk show.

Why does it always stoop to this.

120   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:28 am

The fact is that those things, for the most part, represent a very small portion of the federal budget.

While they represent a small portion of the federal budget I’m still taxed locally to support infrastructure. Which would raise that number significantly.

121   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:37 am

While they represent a small portion of the federal budget I’m still taxed locally to support infrastructure. Which would raise that number significantly.

Well, yes, but the president and Congress have no control over those tax levels, so that’s really germane to this conversation.

122   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am

A lot of people who are getting pissed at the criticism being leveled at BO supporters are the same people leveled copious amounts of criticism at W supporters in ‘04.

Joe,
I supported W in ‘00 and ‘04. I am not one of thos “a lot of people” you reference.

Also, my “you” in the above post was a general “you.” I was not meaning you personally but the sentiments of many on this thread. Sorry for not being more clear.

123   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:41 am

Or that somehow people you disagree with listen to Boritz or any
other talk show.

Scotty-
I listen to those talk shows as well. The fact of the matter is that Keith is just spouting off the talking points of many of those far-right radicals who are talking complete nonsense.

124   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 6th, 2008 at 11:43 am

What more could I expect from a Dukie. You know really and truly I believe there are two good things about the end of this election, (ok, 3):

1. We elected an African American. This gives me great hope that we have come farther than I thought.

2. College basketball is right around the corner, which means that pitchers and catchers report in 3.5 months. Woo Hoo.

3. The Yankees have never won a World Series with a sitting republican so let the new dynasty begin, baby.

Chad, I still hope that some day we can sit down together on somebody’s front porch, drinking an iced cold beverage from Pa. and have a fun discussion.

125   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:45 am

I actually listen to Rush for about maybe five minutes on my way to lunch everyday. I actually find him quite entertaining, even though I don’t agree with him as much as I used to. I think where he goes wrong is the idea that America can do no wrong. It’s funny because he criticizes people for saying the exact opposite. So as with many things, the remedy for one extreme isn’t the exact opposite extreme.

There is one person who occasionally would host Rush’s show who I really like, though. That’s Walter Williams, who’s an economic professor at Georgetown. He’s pretty much an across the board libertarian, and he’s pretty bright.

126   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:46 am

Chad, I still hope that some day we can sit down together on somebody’s front porch, drinking an iced cold beverage from Pa. and have a fun discussion.

No doubt. Perhaps this summer I will make a pilgrimage up to Mars Hill. I’ll bring the Black & Tan.

127   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Hey, whatever helps you look in the mirror, man.

My action at 8:15 a.m. on Tuesday will allow me to look in the mirror and sleep well at night with a clear conscience and no blood on my hands in the coming 4 years…

Chris, if the waitress you deprived of what may be the only money she gets to use to pay her rent and feed her kids…

From the context of her comments, she’s a student at Butler, IUPUI or UofI with other college roommates, not a single mother…

Hey, how about this: Because everyone agrees that Obama intends to have our troops home sooner than McCain, lets only bring the ones home who voted for Obama – those who voted McCain can stay over there a while longer. We can put you in charge of making sure everyone receives the due consequences of their “ideology.”

Well, considering that 70% of the military voted against BO, that will hopefully be enough to finish the job they’re there to do, rather than raising the white flag, cutting and running away like pansies…

Not to mention the fact that the Christian witness to people like servers and waitresses has long been deplorable precisely because “church people” are pegged as the worst tippers and most stingy with their money.

I waited tables, as well, when I was in college with a wife and child, and I hated Sunday lunch shift – for the reasons you mentioned. I started as a busboy at age 19 (can’t serve alcohol till 21), and one of the servers I supported gave me a hard and fast rule – don’t talk politics, sports or religion at your table even if you think they agree with you. If you do, your tip is more likely to go down than up. Instead, just be a good server and you’ll get what you deserve.

I just keep reminding myself that God used Pilate and Judas to accomplish His plan as much as He did Moses and Abraham. -Keith

Thank you, Keith… My wife made a similar reminder, as well… The Babylonian captivity was put in place to punish Israel, and its lessons still rattle the Jewish psyche. Seventy years in exile will do that to you…

And you, Keith, are the typical McCain supporter – crying because your own messiah did not win – Chad

This is true, Jesus wasn’t running in this election, and neither choice was a choice for Jesus. Rather, it was a choice between obvious evil and a relative status quo (potentially a lesser evil).

Spreading the wealth around:

Deut. 24:19

IIRC, all of the “spreading the wealth around” in scripture is directed by the individual receiving the wealth, not having it coerced from him by a godless third party for distribution as they see fit…

But Chad, let me also say that I personally could never support anyone who esouses and protects the murder of unborn babies. It is true that most politicians give lip service to that issue, but God, if His Word is true, hates the spilling of innocent blood. Ronald Reagan mentioned his support of a ban of abortion in every one of his State of the Union addresses, so he stands alone in that regard. – Rick

Exactly.

I am pro-life, Rick. However, I hear the complexities around this issue – complexities we have been through on this site already. I’ll just say this: there are many pro-life issues worthy of consideration and not all of them (in fact most of them) are not contained inside the womb. – Chad

Blah, blah, moral relativistic blah.

Whatever helps you sleep at night…

Can we all agree that politics is basically flawed men in a flawed system placed in a flawed world trying to control all the flawed aspects of creation. It will never be what God intended. Chris

Yes.

Yep. And this applies to a waitress, someone who IS working, how, exactly?

And, unless Indiana law has changed, she receives (at minimum) 70% of minimum wage/hour in addition to tips.

Peggy needs here mortgage paid and a tank of gas for her car. I sure wouldn’t want to disappoint her by not doing my JOB and paying those taxes. – Keith

Rofl…

Keith, the best thing to do in the coming years is a) pay down every scrap of debt you have; b) invest in “recession-proof” stocks, without any thought of cashing out until a future administration fixes the capital gains tax rates; c) minimize all discressional spending; d) shop at Sam’s Club, not Costco; e) care for the poor with service, teaching and training, not with cash; f) plant a large garden and hunt for as much of your meat as you can.

Besides being fiscally sound, you avoid pumping money into an economy that would be used to fuel further government takeover of our rights, and you’re better ready to emerge when the story passes…

So don’t worry, you wont have to put up with any more black people in the WHITE House than are necessary.

There you go – thank you! This wouldn’t be complete without false accusations of racism. Everyone I know who voted against Obama did so out of good conscience, not out of any deep-seated racism. Of course, if you oppose anything put forth by the “messiah” the next four years, you can be sure this inflammatory accusation will emerge. The key to fighting it, though, is not to back off and cower, but to just call it for the BS that it is and move on…

The tax money isn’t only the 30,000 over the 250. In fact, no one knows exactly what the bottom number for “wealth” is going to be. Originally, OB said 250K, then he said 200K, then Biden said 150K. – Joe

This. Additionally, to fund everything he says he wants to fund, the number has to go below $40K, unless you just plan on wild deficit spending.

Plus, you’ve not figured in the automatic inflation that occurs when the 0bama increases corporate taxes. Let’s see, when you tax a corporation, it has to make up that money somehow. And how does a corporation make money? Providing goods and services. So, everyone purchasing those goods and services ends up paying the tax, but cursing the company, rather than the government who is the culprit behind the inflation. Brilliant!

Oh and Keith, McCain’s plan’s would have spent more money and put us more in debt than OB’s proposed plan(s).

Except that McCain had already conceded that his plan couldn’t be funded before the current economic mess was cleaned up (which would have been A-OK with me).

My beef with this thread and the sensationalism being thrown at anyone who voted for Obama is that none of it is justified.Why not just keep silent about it? Why all these stupid antics like depriving a waitress of her tip to prove your point?

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte…

I wonder, though, how many of you here, if you end up riding the boom and the high that we all rode in the Clinton years will admit how wrong it was to judge so quickly and harshly?

You mean the years that the gains from Reaganomics were squandered by a morally bankrupt administration?

A lot of people who are getting pissed at the criticism being leveled at BO supporters are the same people leveled copious amounts of criticism at W supporters in ‘04. So for me that doesn’t wash too much. A lot of people who for the last 8 years have told me that the politics aren’t the answer seem to have really meant that “Republican politics aren’t the answer but now my guy’s won, so politics could be the answer again.”

everyone is running around killing babies for fun

We’re already killing them for convenience sake; 4,000 yesterday, 4,000 today, 4,000 tomorrow so I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. – Joe

Exactly. I love you Joe! (In a completely Platonic way, mind you…)

128   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

I love Walter Williams – his column has been carried in the Indy star for a long time…

129   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Apparently the “wealth spreading” has begun early here in Indianapolis, and by a lot more than my measly $2…

130   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I listen to those talk shows as well. The fact of the matter is that Keith is just spouting off the talking points of many of those far-right radicals who are talking complete nonsense.

So in other words, Keith is not allowed to have an opinion and is talking nonsesnse because you deem it so based on the fact that he may listen to talk shows and may accept some of what is said?When most of what those shows talk about are conservative issues?

Pesonally I see what you said as a conversation stopper. Don’t pigeon hole me either, I have little use for most of the talk show folks. Most are entertainers first and formost. Nor are they news people.

I think he showed a valid concern with the Rahm Emanuel appointment.

131   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

I agree, Scotty. The whole Rush/Bortz/whoever thing is pretty much just an ad homenim. I work in a place w/o radio, so I get a local libertarian/independent on the way to work (if I’m not listening to my iPod) and I definitely listen to the iPod on the way home (talk radio is Michael Savage, who is way-out nuts).

132   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

I’m sorry, but I found this quote from the article Chris linked to just too funny:

“I want my money today! It’s my money. I want it right now!”

Here we hear the rallying cry of the average Democrat voter! ;-)

I kid, I kid…

133   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

From the context of her comments, she’s a student at Butler, IUPUI or UofI with other college roommates, not a single mother…

I waited tables, as well, when I was in college with a wife and child, and I hated Sunday lunch shift – for the reasons you mentioned. I started as a busboy at age 19 (can’t serve alcohol till 21), and one of the servers I supported gave me a hard and fast rule – don’t talk politics, sports or religion at your table even if you think they agree with you. If you do, your tip is more likely to go down than up. Instead, just be a good server and you’ll get what you deserve.

Well I guess you showed her!!! Go get ‘em, Chris! Hey, instead of giving her tip to the bum on the street why not give it to the CEO on Wall Street so that you can be more consistent with your party??

By the way, earlier you said an anti-christ is not founded on their opinions but on their ability to act on them. How does it feel to be in a position to meat out your own political justice?

134   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Well, considering that 70% of the military voted against BO, that will hopefully be enough to finish the job they’re there to do, rather than raising the white flag, cutting and running away like pansies…

Yes, because Christ would never have us raise the white flag. No doubt Jesus is on the front lines mocking those who would not put COUNTRY first and screaming to all his comrades to blow the Iraqi bastards to hell.

A friend of mine on Facebook has for his profile pic a sign in the same font as McCain’s campaign sign that reads JESUS FIRST.

135   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

This is neither here nor there, really, but since we’re talking politics here, I just wanted to point this article out:

Italy’s Berlusconi hails “suntanned” Obama

Lol, I love that sort of stuff…

136   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

There you go – thank you! This wouldn’t be complete without false accusations of racism.

Sure. And your projections of the economic future, fear mongering, implications of who or what is an antichrist, declarations of who is morally acceptable and who is not, and judgments rendered upon waitresses are not false accusations but prophetic pronouncements. As I said before – I guess we will just wait and see whether this makes you a false prophet or not.

My money is on the fact that racism is driving much of this. The comments about Rev. Wright showcase that pretty well, I think.

137   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

My money is on the fact that racism is driving much of this. The comments about Rev. Wright showcase that pretty well, I think.

Oh come on…

I go to a church that’s 95% black, and actually many of the people probably supported Obama, but I still think the Reverend Wright is nuts. I imagine many of the members of my church do as well. I think that most black people were willing to overlook the Wright thing because of identity politics though.

Actually, probably the biggest contingent of racists in this election were white, blue-collar Democrats who were union members. There were actually quite a few of them in PA.

138   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Maybe, maybe not, Phil.

139   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

hit submit too soon.

Anyone can be made to look like a nut by pulling out a few clips on YouTube – clips that seek to condense an entire ministry and career of a man into 45 second soundbites. I agree completely that Wright lost a lot of credibility with his Richard Pryor-like antics after Obama distanced himself from him but that does not negate much of the truth in his message. America in general and Christians in particular could learn a lot from hearing with charity the articulation of the gospel as Wright brings it. We may not all agree in the end but it does offer us a critique and should prompt us to ask an important question: What is it that drives this critique?

Sadly, the message got lost in the hype and hysteria of a preacher saying something taken out of context and laced with the word “damn” next to “America.” Heaven forbid. I mean, we have a song that sings “God bless America” so that must be in the Bible, right? :)

140   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

“…Keith is just spouting off the talking points of many of those far-right radicals who are talking complete nonsense.”

Actually Chad, I’m spouting off what I think because I’m sick and tired of dead-beat freeloaders that are too good to get off their butts and flip burgers if that’s what it takes to make ends meet!

I lost everything I had…EVERYTHING !!!!! a little over 30 years ago. I didn’t sign up for welfare; I didn’t get food stamps; I didn’t sit around and whine about my situation. I took the $5 I had in my pocket, put a couple of dollars of gas in my truck, and drove an hour to my parent’s house where I asked to sleep on their couch until I got a job and got back on my feet. I was employed a week later. One year later I had money in a savings account and was buying my first home with my fiance (now my wife of 28 years).

According to the U.S. Dept’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current unemployment rate in America is 6.1 percent. That means that the EMPLOYMENT RATE is 93.9 percent!!! Tell these people to get a job(s)!!!

141   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

My money is on the fact that racism is driving much of this.

P’shaw…

If Obama was white, Hillary would have been the winner on Tuesday…

142   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Well, yes, but the president and Congress have no control over those tax levels, so that’s really germane to this conversation.

My point was that if federal taxes get lowered my overall tax obligation would be reduced.

That and the fact that your statement that federal taxes for infrastructure are not that much is essentially a red herrring. Most of infrastructure his handled by local municipalities taxes so obviously it wouldn’t fall to the fed.

143   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Actually Chad, I’m spouting off what I think because I’m sick and tired of dead-beat freeloaders that are too good to get off their butts and flip burgers if that’s what it takes to make ends meet!

I call statements like these the “nose beyond the face” statements. me, me, me, me.

I lost everything I had…EVERYTHING !!!!!

Except your truck, 5 bucks, and supportive parents who had a couch. Some aren’t that fortunate.

144   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Yes, because Christ would never have us raise the white flag. No doubt Jesus is on the front lines mocking those who would not put COUNTRY first and screaming to all his comrades to blow the Iraqi bastards to hell.

They’re there to do a specific job (which is around peacekeeping, not “blowing Iraqi bastards to hell”), in service to country. So… cutting and running at this point is akin to showing up to stop a back alley mugging, but leaving the guy on the sidewalk once you’ve bandaged the wounds…

I’d also note that only one candidate advocated invading unilateral invasion of Pakistan… I suspect I’ll get the last laugh on this one, as dovish presidents throughout history have always had to disproportionately show their willingness to use force early on, in response to international crises…

How does it feel to be in a position to meat out your own political justice?

Meting out justice…

As the father of four children, there have been many occasions in which I’ve allowed (or initiated) consequences in response to poor decisions. These consequences have been the most effective when they have direct correlation to the thought process that went into the initial mistake. So perhaps, when PYT leaves college gets a real job and starts a family, the lesson of “allow people to keep that they earn” might resonate just a little bit. Whether it is from the $2 she might have otherwise chosen to “spread around” on her own, or from looking at her pay stub, it doesn’t really matter.

145   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

That means that the EMPLOYMENT RATE is 93.9 percent!!! Tell these people to get a job(s)!!!

Not that it will make a difference; that’s not a factual or accurate statement.

Again these issues are far more complicated than just basic stats pulled off a website.

Again Keith I ask…
Do you know what data is compiled to formulate the unemployment rate? Do you know what the unemployment rate was during the great depression? What qualifies someone for unemployment? Or classifies someone as employed?

146   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

What is it that drives this critique?

Well, after listening to Wright speak, my guess would be insanity…

Seriously, though, the whole “God damn America” thing was the least of it. His whole endorsement of Louis Farrakhan was much more troubling to me. Basically, there’s a particular group of black leaders who make their living off of ensuring that black people always see themselves as victims. As far as concerned a lot of these people do far more harm to black people than racism does today.

147   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Actually Chad, I’m spouting off what I think because I’m sick and tired of dead-beat freeloaders that are too good to get off their butts and flip burgers if that’s what it takes to make ends meet!

I call statements like these the “nose beyond the face” statements. me, me, me, me.

But really, in many cases this comes down to “jobs Americans won’t do”, which is what has fueled the sentiment toward illegal immigration – there are jobs that need to be done that many Americans (even those unemployed) feel are beneath them, and the only way to fill them is often with immigrants (or either legal stripe)…

148   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Do you know what the unemployment rate was during the great depression?

It was 25% in 1933. Some models suggest the US will hit 10% sometime in the next 10 months…

149   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

But really, in many cases this comes down to “jobs Americans won’t do”, which is what has fueled the sentiment toward illegal immigration

It is more nuanced than that. Again these arguments can not be reduced to simple “You won’t work arguments”.

Chris with the work you do with Native Americans I’m having a hard reconciling that with your current positions on wealth and the poor.

150   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

It was 25% in 1933. Some models suggest the US will hit 10% sometime in the next 10 months…

Good…now can you tell me what was Roosevelt’s tax model that greatly attributed to the reversal of that trend?

I’ll give you a hint…Joe the Plumber!

151   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Basically, there’s a particular group of black leaders who make their living off of ensuring that black people always see themselves as victims.

*cough…just like some Christian organizations…cough*

152   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

They’re there to do a specific job (which is around peacekeeping, not “blowing Iraqi bastards to hell”), in service to country. So… cutting and running at this point is akin to showing up to stop a back alley mugging, but leaving the guy on the sidewalk once you’ve bandaged the wounds…

Well, then you should be happy that no one is talking about “cutting and running” like “pansies.”
In your initial comment of “running away like pansies” suggests you are more worried about America saving face. Country first, right?

So perhaps, when PYT leaves college gets a real job and starts a family, the lesson of “allow people to keep that they earn” might resonate just a little bit.

Chris, no matter how you want to spin this your actions were petty and un-Christ like. At the risk of sounding like PB or Chris P, you are becoming what you hate. You wince at the thought of the government deciding what is best to do with people’s money and then to make your point you do the same thing to a waitress whom you pass your unrighteous judgment upon. You repay evil for evil and then have the audacity to think you are teaching someone a lesson just as you do with your kids.

I have long held the utmost respect for you and still think you have a keen mind and some pretty sound wisdom in matters of faith. I have to say though that I am deeply disappointed in your holier-than-thou attitude in all this.

153   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Good…now can you tell me what was Roosevelt’s tax model that greatly attributed to the reversal of that trend?

Actually, many economists believe that Roosevelt’s actions probably extended and deepened the effects of the Depression. It was really our involvement in WWII that got the economy moving again.

154   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Basically, there’s a particular group of black Religious Right leaders who make their living off of ensuring that black Religious Right people always see themselves as victims **ADD** and abortion as the only issue that matters in the world.

155   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Chris: You say–”…Again Keith I ask…” I’m listening. Many of your points hold true…IF we are talking about people that have truly hit on hard times, etc. Those situaations which are unavoidable, I’ll be the first guy in line to help out. But you know as well as I do that we have raised almost an entire nation of crybabies that believe they deserve a “participation trophy” just for showing up! I have NO sympathy for them.

I don’t think you are listening to what I am saying. I created my own bancruptcy and I pulled myself out of it. That’s what I’m talking about. For those that believe cable TV, cell phones, and a free lunch are an entitlement…hit the road. Many Americans have simply become lazy slugs who believe it is someone else’s job to take care of them.

156   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Actually Chad, I’m spouting off what I think because I’m sick and tired of dead-beat freeloaders that are too good to get off their butts and flip burgers if that’s what it takes to make ends meet!

Hey Rick, I found another verse for your Politico Bible Version! :)

157   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

*cough…just like some Christian organizations…cough*

Yes, exactly. If we’re going to hold those on the right accountable, we have to do it on the left as well. I don’t understand why Christians think selling out to the Dems is any better than selling out to the Pubbies.

158   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

I don’t understand why Christians think selling out to the Dems is any better than selling out to the Pubbies.

I don’t see this as a matter of selling out to the Dems. My contention is with those who are demonizing the other side and/or can’t even get their facts straight and continue to use hyperbole, guilt by association or just plain lies to make themselves feel better about their politics. That is what is so distressing in this.

159   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

“…Some aren’t that fortunate” Key word: some. True statement. What do you do/say about the others? The ones that have the resources/skills and CHOOSE not to use them?

160   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Good…now can you tell me what was Roosevelt’s tax model that greatly attributed to the reversal of that trend?

Actually, a number of economists have suggested that Rossevelt’s tax and economic policy extended the depression by 3-5 years, and that only the increased production required by WWII saved the US’ economic bacon.

So perhaps we just need another war (j/k)…

In your initial comment of “running away like pansies” suggests you are more worried about America saving face. Country first, right?

No, I’m worried about international security. As the world’s only remaining superpower, unpredictability coupled with the ability to disproportionately respond in kind to aggression are keys to preventing large-scale war.

Cutting and running sends a message of unreliability (which is significantly different than unpredictability) on follow-through. The relative sustained peace that prevented WWIII for the past 60 years was directly a product of America’s willingness to follow through and “fix what it broke” in Germany and Japan. In the Middle-East, especially, “saving face” is not simply a matter of pride – it is a matter of self-defense and prevention of wars.

I would also point out that the sole biblical roles of government are a) self-defense, and b) provision of justice. Trying to extrapolate an individual’s responsibility to “turn the other cheek” (which is not strictly a pacifist teaching when viewed in context) to the level of government, I would argue, stretches the metaphor beyond the utility in which it was presented.

You repay evil for evil and then have the audacity to think you are teaching someone a lesson just as you do with your kids.

a) Are you suggesting redistribution is evil?;
b) Apparently, PYT does not believe redistribution is evil (since she voted for it), so how could she be repaid evil for that which she does not believe is evil?;
c) I like to think of it as “the audacity of hope” – hope that folks will learn not to repeat past mistakes…;

161   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

“…Some aren’t that fortunate” Key word: some. True statement. What do you do/say about the others? The ones that have the resources/skills and CHOOSE not to use them?

The Church should extend them grace 70 x 7. As for the government? Well, Obama said his tax break is for ‘WORKING’ Americans. This is just one more example of how your gripe doesn’t add up to the facts.

162   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Obama said his tax break is for ‘WORKING’ Americans. This is just one more example of how your gripe doesn’t add up to the facts.

Funny from the O-man-

1) 95% of Americans will get a tax break*
2) 5% are too rich to get a break**
3) 7% are unemployed
4) 40% of Americans pay no income taxes
5) It is doubtful any/many of the unemployed in #3 are contained in #2

Seems like a LOT of Americans paying no income tax, nor WORKING, will be receiving a “tax break”…

*floating target, likely to greatly decrease
**floating target, likely to greatly increase

163   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“…Some aren’t that fortunate” Key word: some. True statement. What do you do/say about the others? The ones that have the resources/skills and CHOOSE not to use them?

The Church should extend them grace 70 x 7.

Which goes without saying – but forced giving isn’t charitable or graceful (by definition)

164   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

a) Are you suggesting redistribution is evil?;

Nope. But you obviously think it is evil or at the very least hate the idea. Thus, you have become what you hate by repaying evil in your eyes with evil.

b) Apparently, PYT does not believe redistribution is evil (since she voted for it), so how could she be repaid evil for that which she does not believe is evil?;

I said this before – if she was making over 250K (or even 100K) you might have a leg to stand on. But no, you were just being mean.
If you really cared about sending a message and being consistent with your own party line you would have taken her $2, spit on the “scumbag” bum (Keith’s words) on your way out the door and given the money to Exxon or some other CEO on Wall Street.

165   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Chad and Chris: OK, fellas. Here’s the deal: neither of us are going to change the other’s (that’s me vs you two) mind. Chad expressed it as “…My past dealings with Keith have shown me that he cares less about being informed and more about just touting the party line. ” Because I disagree, that makes me uninformed?” I certainly don’t believe that about you, but whatever.

Bottom line: I think Chris L’s “experiment” was enlightning and funny. You don’t. Fair enough. I voted against Obama; some people voted for Obama. Obama won. Fair enough. I still don’t like him, still think he’ll be bad for America, still think he lied/covered up things, etc. AND, I’ll still pray for him.

Are we going to do this back and forth thing all day, or just call it and resign ourselves to the fact that we disagree and the probably all have more important things to do? Or is this more about winning the argument?

166   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Chad: For the record, I just did a search on this thread and NOWHERE did the word “scumbag” show up with MY name (or anyone else’s for that matter) attached to it. Do I at least get an apology?

167   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
a) Are you suggesting redistribution is evil?;

Nope. But you obviously think it is evil or at the very least hate the idea.

Maybe I’m just trying to warm up to the idea, since 52% of the country seems peachy-keen on the concept.

I said this before – if she was making over 250K (or even 100K) you might have a leg to stand on.

What does her salary matter when she’s much richer than the guy on the street? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, right? According to BO, that’s the philosophy he read to keep him grounded…

If you really cared about sending a message and being consistent with your own party line you would have taken her $2, spit on the “scumbag” bum (Keith’s words) on your way out the door and given the money to Exxon or some other CEO on Wall Street.

If I really wanted to be consistent (had PYT been wearing, say, a “Barr” button), I would have handed her the $2, because she earned it, and I would have paid less for my meal (due to less government tax being passed on through the cost of my meal), and could have afforded to give $ to the guy on the street, as well…

168   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Which goes without saying – but forced giving isn’t charitable or graceful (by definition)

Yeah, they call it tithing

169   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Still waiting for the apology, Chad.

170   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Which goes without saying – but forced giving isn’t charitable or graceful (by definition)

Yeah, they call it tithing

I don’t know about the church you attend, but I don’t know of anyone who’s forced to tithe…

171   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Yeah, Keith, I don’t find “scumbag” or “bum” anywhere…

172   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Yeah, they call it tithing

Well, last time I checked, there weren’t any Levites serving in Congress, so I’m pretty sure we’re not supposed to tithe to the government…

173   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

What does her salary matter when she’s much richer than the guy on the street?

Well, I guess if you don’t care about facts than her salary doesn’t matter at all. But the facts are that the waitress is not going to have her money taken from her like you so cleverly demonstrated with your living “gospel”

If I really wanted to be consistent (had PYT been wearing, say, a “Barr” button)….

…..yeah, and if if’n and butt’s were candy and nuts what a wonderful world it would be.

Keith, I didnt find the story funny in the least- I found it a pathetic display of Christian charity full of self-righteousness. Chris, why you want to continue to justify yourself is beyond me.

Sorry I quoted you as saying “scumbag” Keith. I am sure that based on the mood of your comments towards the unfortunate, the marginalized, and the downtrodden that the word “scumbag” is as far from an accurate portrayal of your sentiments as can be.

174   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Keith and Chris- what did you guys do with your stimulus checks? Did you return them?

175   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

From the Onion:


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

176   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Chad: Thanks for the apology for ascribing words to me I did not use.

“…the mood of [my] comments towards the unfortunate, the marginalized, and the downtrodden…” Are we reading the same thread?! I will help (and DO) ANYONE that fits the description of “unfortunate, the marginalized, and the downtrodden” and have stated such. The scenario–as it was presented–included no one that fit that description. You are reaching on this one…and not a very good mindreader.

177   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Which goes without saying – but forced giving isn’t charitable or graceful (by definition)

ALL taxation is a form of “forced giving.”

As for the tithing comment – read Deut. The “rich” land owners of Israel were “forced” by law to leave a sacred portion – the fringes of their fields so that the poor could get a break. No questions – they were allowed to just glean off the fields of the “rich.”

178   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Keith and Chris- what did you guys do with your stimulus checks? Did you return them?

I paid off a college bill.

Seeing how I paid more in taxes than what was returned, I would call it ‘giving me back some of the money the government took from me’. Had I paid no income tax, I would have been more than happy to return it, since it didn’t belong to me in the first place…

179   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

As for the tithing comment – read Deut. The “rich” land owners of Israel were “forced” by law to leave a sacred portion

Actually, people observed how loving they were by the size of the corners remaining (and whether they gleaned what fell during the harvest). Nobody forcibly compelled them to do so, but their generosity (or stinginess) was on display for the community to see.

180   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Chad: I just deposited my stimulus check two weeks ago. Found it stuck in a file.

I wrote a check, designated for “Missions” to our church, around the time the stimulus check arrived in the amount of $4000. (FYI–more than Joe Biden gave the entire past 10 years) Thanks for asking.

181   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

So neither of you saw no problem in taking a govt handout and putting it to use.

Chris, as for your having paid income taxes and feeling you were in some way owed this money since the gov’t took it from you in years past, how do you fail to see that this is exactly what, in essence, will be happening under Obama’s tax plan?

You justify spending your stimulus tax because you felt the government owed you something and then you poke fun or demean others who hope that the gov’t will cut them a break instead of giving the break to the rich people.

Don’t you see the incongruity there?

182   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

So neither of you saw no problem in taking a govt handout

WTH? How is letting me keep more of the money I earned a handout?

how do you fail to see that this is exactly what, in essence, will be happening under Obama’s tax plan?

Because under Obama’s plan, a) I’ll be paying more in hidden taxes (via inflation from taxing of corporations and capital gains) than I receive in “tax cuts”; b) Folks who pay ZERO income tax will also be receiving “tax cuts”, which is basically just a redistribution scheme…

You justify spending your stimulus tax because you felt the government owed you something

I didn’t feel they needed to refund more of the taxes they’d already taken, but if they were going to give it to everyone else who had paid taxes, I wasn’t going to complain. Granted, I doubt it ’stimulated’ anything, since it was really used for debt reduction…

183   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Don’t you see the incongruity there?

No, because – apart from Marxist philosophy – there is none there…

184   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Chad: You are a piece of work…

“So neither of you saw no problem in taking a govt handout and putting it to use.”

How could I have been so evil as to have given money to those sorry missionaries!!! Or for shame!

I paid approx $25,000 in taxes (state/federal) last year. Consider my stimulus check the refund I didn’t get. If you got a refund…YOU’RE WELCOME!!!!!

185   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

b) Folks who pay ZERO income tax will also be receiving “tax cuts”, which is basically just a redistribution scheme…

Chris-
Are you suggesting that they will be handed money? Are you saying that under Obama the person who is not working or does not care to work will, under this plan, be mailed a check paid for by people making a lot of money?

186   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

b) Folks who pay ZERO income tax will also be receiving “tax cuts”, which is basically just a redistribution scheme…

Chris-
Are you suggesting that they will be handed money? Are you saying that under Obama the person who is not working or does not care to work will, under this plan, be mailed a check paid for by people making a lot of money?

I don’t think you have really studied the tax plan Obama is putting forward. You can read the whole thing here:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

Its not the evil you seem to think it is and you were unjust to level out punishment on a waitress.

187   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

I didn’t feel they needed to refund more of the taxes they’d already taken, but if they were going to give it to everyone else who had paid taxes,

EVERYONE pays taxes, Chris. Income taxes are not the only tax out there. Here in NC we even have a food tax.

Obama simply wants to give the breaks to the middle and lower classes rather than to the rich. It is beyond me how Christians are so upset over this.

188   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Obama simply wants to give the breaks to the middle and lower classes rather than to the rich. It is beyond me how Christians are so upset over this.

Because whether people believe it or not, when the rich pay higher taxes, everyone pays higher taxes in some way or another. “Targeted” cuts are generally a myth.

Anyway, the top 1% of taxpayers already pay something like 33% of all taxes. What percentage should they pay?

189   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Chad: Please note…

“…level out punishment on a waitress” who obviously had enough money to party on. See everybody’s happy.

190   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Because whether people believe it or not, when the rich pay higher taxes, everyone pays higher taxes in some way or another. “Targeted” cuts are generally a myth.

I was in the Navy and overseas for most of the time, but I don’t remember hearing a bunch of complaints during Clinton’s term about higher taxes and everyone being burdened by them.
Even Warren Buffet thinks Obamas plan is the smarter of the two.

191   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Are you suggesting that they will be handed money? Are you saying that under Obama the person who is not working or does not care to work will, under this plan, be mailed a check paid for by people making a lot of money?

That it, by definition, what a “refundable” tax credit is. And yes, that is how he claims 95% of people will receive “tax cuts”.

It will be paid for by people making less than “a lot” of money, though, because of the hidden tax in corporate-tax-driven inflation.

Its not the evil you seem to think it is and you were unjust to level out punishment on a waitress.

As for the plan, I’ve read it, and I’ve read a number of analyses of it, which decipher some of the legalese within it.

The waitress wasn’t punished. By her cast vote, it was “spreading the wealth around”. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, right? I was giving her what she voted for…

EVERYONE pays taxes, Chris. Income taxes are not the only tax out there. Here in NC we even have a food tax.

Guess what – those taxes (food tax, sales tax, property tax) are state taxes. The federal government cannot give you a “refund” of your state taxes. If you have a car, you’re paying some federal gasoline taxes, but most of the non-income-based taxes you pay go to your state government, not the federal government.

Anyway, the top 1% of taxpayers already pay something like 33% of all taxes. What percentage should they pay? – Phil

And the top 20% pay for 95% of all income taxes paid…

192   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

I was in the Navy and overseas for most of the time, but I don’t remember hearing a bunch of complaints during Clinton’s term about higher taxes and everyone being burdened by them.

Then you weren’t paying attention, I guess. Actually, the middle-class tax cuts that Clinton promised while running for office never materialized.

193   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

When it comes to my and other people’s wallets, I’m pro-choice! Why should a bunch of old white men be able to tell me what to do with my money?

194   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

I was in the Navy and overseas for most of the time, but I don’t remember hearing a bunch of complaints during Clinton’s term about higher taxes and everyone being burdened by them.

I remember plenty (and I was only a lowly staff engineer) – just one example:

Clinton’s tax increase socked it to people making yachts, via a luxury tax. Unfortunately, that meant that the sales of yachts plummeted (since, by definition, they were a luxury item), and hundreds of middle-class, blue-collar workers in the shipbuilding industry were put out of work until, smartly, the tax was repealed…

195   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Obama simply wants to give the breaks to the middle and lower classes rather than to the rich. It is beyond me how Christians are so upset over this.

Because it sounds nice in theory, but it doesn’t play out in practice. Coveting what the rich have and stealing it via the hand of government isn’t a Christian concept…

196   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Actually, many economists believe that Roosevelt’s actions probably extended and deepened the effects of the Depression. It was really our involvement in WWII that got the economy moving again.

Unemployment became almost not existent during the war but the rate of unemployment was declining (with a brief spike in 1938) prior to our entry into the war in 1939. Both factors probably played a part.

197   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

“Even Warren Buffet thinks Obamas plan is the smarter of the two.” Well, DUH!!! He was bucking for BO as far back as May this year. I bet Obama thinks his OWN WIFE is pretty, too. (Not saying she isn’t, just using your own logic of what makes something true.)

198   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

It still amazes me folks think the government is a good steward of our money.

It’s been a while since I saw the stats but there was a time when I heard that just a small fraction of the monies given to the welfare system actually makes it down where it is needed..

I seem to remember figures of, almost 75 percent of the monies going to the system in overhead. I haven’t the time right at this moment to look it up, maybe somebody here already has it at their fingertips. Even if the figure is as low as 50 percent it’s still obscene!

199   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

The Dow has tanked nearly 1000 points since the coming of the One this week, right now below 9,000.

I wonder what investors (you know, the people that invest money in the economy) think of Obamanomics…

200   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

I seem to remember figures of, almost 75 percent of the monies going to the system in overhead. I haven’t the time right at this moment to look it up, maybe somebody here already has it at their fingertips. Even if the figure is as low as 50 percent it’s still obscene!

Hey, so my redistribution of the $2 had 0% overhead, making my method infinitely more efficient than the federal government…

If only there was some way to allow people to keep more of their money and donate it to causes as they saw fit…

201   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

I wonder what investors (you know, the people that invest money in the economy) think of Obamanomics…

Probably the same thing they thought about during the 3,000 point slide prior to Obama being elected.

Chris L. you’re just being antagonistic now. :)

202   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Well, DUH!!! He was bucking for BO as far back as May this year.

Yeah why would we consider the words of one of the richest men in the world when it comes to investments and the economic plans of the president. Maybe we should consult someone who’s broke and get their take on what is smart economics.

203   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Gas is $1.87 here in Tulsa. When it was over $4, Bush got blamed—who’s getting the credit now? Just “being antagonistic” asking.
8^)>

204   M.G.    
November 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Quick fact check: The luxury tax was a part of the 1990 omnibus tax increase that doomed George H.W. Bush’s reelection efforts. It was later repealed by Clinton, who realized, along with everyone else, that 10 percent is way too high.

I’m not opposed to luxury taxes, per se, but if excessive, like any tax, they will fail.

205   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Probably the same thing they thought about during the 3,000 point slide prior to Obama being elected.

Chris L. you’re just being antagonistic now.

Oh, you’re no fun.

I suppose I could just post a Dow vs. Obama-Intrade plot (a pretty linear inverse correlation), but then you’d get all “correlation vs. causation” on me…

206   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

“…why would we consider the words of one of the richest men in the world…” I can’t find the quote, but Buffet made a statement recently that he (paraphrased) “thought the banks would have acted more responsibly than they had.” Right, and people are basically honest.

207   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Well, DUH!!! He was bucking for BO as far back as May this year.

Yeah why would we consider the words of one of the richest men in the world when it comes to investments and the economic plans of the president. Maybe we should consult someone who’s broke and get their take on what is smart economics.

Well, then, we could always point to Donald Trump’s endorsement of the McCain plan, but that would be open to the same criticism of political favoritism…

208   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

chris: If I misquoted/misinterpreted, feel free to point it out and I’ll be glad to retract…but I ain’t backing off my “I’m tire of paying taxes to support deadbeats” position. Thought I should clear that up. (As if you thought I’d change my mind)
8^)>

209   M.G.    
November 6th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Quick fact check: Comparing Warren Buffet to Donald Trump is like comparing Mozart to Third Eye Blind. Donald Trump inherited a good deal of money, won some, lost some, and is now, well, who knows how much money he has.

Warren Buffet, the Oracle of Omaha, is widely considered one of the shrewdest investors in American history. Some have even put him on short-lists for Treasury secretary. (Although that’s unlikely).

210   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Well, then, we could always point to Donald Trump’s endorsement of the McCain plan, but that would be open to the same criticism of political favoritism…

I personally don’t think either plan is a viable long term solution. As I said earlier it’s a shell game. My proposal, if I we’re president, would be a combination flat tax and a lowered (in terms of at what level you need to pay) capital gains tax. I’m up in the air on whether to charge a tax on groceries or not.

but I ain’t backing off my “I’m tire of paying taxes to support deadbeats” position.

No need to back off of it…it’s just not very charitable nor does it encapsulate the whole of the issue.

211   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

“…it’s just not very charitable…”
Was that supposed to be a pun?

212   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

My proposal, if I were president, would be a combination flat tax and a lowered (in terms of at what level you need to pay) capital gains tax. I’m up in the air on whether to charge a tax on groceries or not.

Where in the heck were you TUESDAY!!! I would have had someone to vote FOR if you had been running!!!

213   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Where in the heck were you TUESDAY!!! I would have had someone to vote FOR if you had been running!!!

I have enough stress just being a youth pastor being president would surely kill me.

214   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I am placing this thread in a picture frame as evidence of how emotionally tied to politics, and MONEY, Christians seem to be. Let us remember, Jesus has saved BY GRACE every one of our unworthy and rebellious souls, and with that, we can join hands and hearts.

I love my politically active brothers and sisters, and I consider part of my calling as deliverance! :lol:

215   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

“…it’s just not very charitable…”
Was that supposed to be a pun?

Yeah but also serious.

216   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

My proposal, if I were president, would be a combination flat tax and a lowered (in terms of at what level you need to pay) capital gains tax. I’m up in the air on whether to charge a tax on groceries or not.

Actually, I would move to a FAIR Tax model, with no income tax whatsoever. You end up expanding the tax base by including illegals and hidden income (under-the-table cash payment, drugs deals, etc.) and you focus completely on consumption (which has a number of other side-benefits, as well). Everyone gets an equal monthly prebate to cover the tax on living essentials, and consumption above that is taxed. No corporate taxes, no double-taxation on investment (capital gains taxes), no state taxes, no sin taxes, etc. Just one tax on new goods sold.

217   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Alright! Who woke Rick up from his nap!?

218   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Oh – and the FAIR tax cuts the IRS by about 80% and makes tax law obsolete (both of which are non-productive segments of the economy).

219   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Chris L: I’m with you on the Fair Tax model…as long as there are still ways for our Congressmen and Senators to take care of the “wooden arrow” fiasco facing our nation.

220   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Everything that I’ve read about the Fair Tax seems to indicate that it may not generate enough revenue to maintain basic services. But I openly admit I haven’t looked deep enough into it to really know.

221   M.G.    
November 6th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

The fair tax would blow a huge hole in the treasury, would be monstrously regressive, and would spawn a black market the size of which we can’t imagine.

I’m unfamiliar with mainstream economists who favor it. Is this something you heard on the radio, Chris L.?

222   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

The FAIR tax is revenue neutral, and its enforcement would take far fewer resources to enact (preventing a black market) than the current IRS system.

And no, this isn’t something from talk radio (which I think I mentioned I don’t get b/c of my work schedule), but something I’ve been a proponent of for about 10 years now… (And it is hardly regressive)

223   M.G.    
November 6th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

If you believe that the Federal government could effectively regulate the underground economy with a whopping 23% sales tax, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you in Brooklyn. :-)

I’m sure the government would love to get its hands on all those cash transactions that occur *right now* and that don’t get reported as income. But it can’t. And the amount of money flowing, just in legal goods, must be in the hundreds of billions of dollars (if you stop to consider that the total underground economy is probably pushing a trillion).

224   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

To my knowledge, though, none of McCain’s supporters (let alone masses of them) swooned in his presence, called him a ‘messiah’, or fawned on him in a Children of the Corn fashion, so an biblical comparison, if warranted, would have come later than today…

Ha ha ha ha, I nailed it in comment #1.

Hilarious.

225   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

That is to say, if we find a few people who think you are in some sense a “messiah” than I can rightly call you antichrist, despite your objections and despite your confession that Jesus is Lord.

The radicalist Christian psychosis — if a person you don’t like inspires millions of people, they must be sent by the debbil, or the boogeyman, or somebody else completely terrifying.

On Obama’s claim to be Christian:

Could one explain why many liberals who think that people who believe in Jesus are weird, crazy, weak . . . are enamored with the Obama who calls himself a Christian?

Oh, Amy. That’s not what liberals think — liberals totally single out fundamentalist Christians, but not most Christians.

Read your little wealth spreading post. I dont know what has gotten into you, man. Depriving a minimum wage waitress of her tip, just because she expressed support for Obama is just mean. Not sure why you would be proud of that.

Wow, they have a name for people do things like that. It rhymes with “gashole.”

Stop drinking from the toilet of Christian radio orthodoxy, seriously.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Thanks for the chuckle, Chris L. Personally, I’ll be buying all the guns and ammo–also clinging to my God–as I can between now and middle of January. After that, who knows. Nothing like the possibility of losing a basic right.

Hysterical! You have a dust ruffle to hide under, or shall I send you one?

I didn’t deprive her of her tip – I spread it around to someone less fortunate than her, just like she voted…

Had she voted for McCain, Barr, or Baldwin, I’d have been inclined to give her the 22% tip, since she would be in support of keeping what you earn.

It also rhymes with “basspole.”

I’ve never owned a gun in my life, but since I might want/need one someday, it would likely behoove me to get one while it’s still available.

Oh lord. You people believe your own crap, and it terrifies you to the core. Hilarious!

Not to mention the fact that the Christian witness to people like servers and waitresses has long been deplorable precisely because “church people” are pegged as the worst tippers and most stingy with their money. You have only further contributed to that stigma.

Yeah. I used to wait tables. We fought over who got to skip Sunday lunch, because of Christians like Chris L.

You also assume the waitress Chris L encountered was in need. Frankly, if she is in need, then she should be looking at working a longer shift or taking a second job before she goes off “partying the night before…” I’ve done it. It won’t kill her.

And “Christians” like Keith. We also hated waiting on “Christians” like Keith.

“…you have to have EARNINGS to get hit with a capital GAINS tax.” Yep, you’re right. Thank God many of those BO supporters don’t work, so looks like a win-win!

Rhymes with “fit shed.”

Did you actually read the tax plan? Do you understand how it works? Have you evaluated how much you currently pay in taxes? Do you think stimulus checks, government bailouts, and interest rates have helped the current economy?

I’m not asking you to agree but at the very least be informed and debate the issue.

Too tall of an order, Chris. Aim much lower with Keith.

I find it interesting when a liberal democrat runs for office they make every attempt to not appear liberal. That was also the case with Obama. He made a definite move to the center in not almost to the center/right.

Actually, Obama’s voting record has never been as liberal as his detractors have convinced themselves.

Well, considering that 70% of the military voted against BO, that will hopefully be enough to finish the job they’re there to do, rather than raising the white flag, cutting and running away like pansies…

WHIIIIIIINE!

BTW, my brother works in intelligence in the US Navy — as he put it, the only people he serves with who voted for McCain are people he outranks. Dickish comment, to be sure, but honest.

You mean the years that the gains from Reaganomics were squandered by a morally bankrupt administration?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

My money is on the fact that racism is driving much of this. The comments about Rev. Wright showcase that pretty well, I think.

Of course it is! What, really, are extreme radical Republicans, but screaming, crying racists?

I’d also note that only one candidate advocated invading unilateral invasion of Pakistan… I

Wrong again, play again in four years.

Chris with the work you do with Native Americans I’m having a hard reconciling that with your current positions on wealth and the poor.

Oh my god, are you kidding, he works with Native Americans? I’ll take People Who Should Know Better for $500, Alex.

No, I’m worried about international security. As the world’s only remaining superpower, unpredictability coupled with the ability to disproportionately respond in kind to aggression are keys to preventing large-scale war.

Only superpower? Um, I do hope you posted that comment in 1995, oh wait, no you didn’t, good god.

4) 40% of Americans pay no income taxes

Lalala, life in the Republican brain, where federal payroll taxes are the ONLY KIND OF TAXES.

The waitress wasn’t punished. By her cast vote, it was “spreading the wealth around”. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, right? I was giving her what she voted for…

And Jesus just slammed his head on the proverbial desk AGAIN.

The Dow has tanked nearly 1000 points since the coming of the One this week, right now below 9,000.

I wonder what investors (you know, the people that invest money in the economy) think of Obamanomics…

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Everything that I’ve read about the Fair Tax seems to indicate that it may not generate enough revenue to maintain basic services. But I openly admit I haven’t looked deep enough into it to really know.

Also, like most Republican buzzwords, it means exactly the opposite of what it sounds like. Hideously regressive.

226   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Here we wasted all day trying to figure this thing out! If only we had waited for Evan…she sure told us!!!

For the record, I’m a GREAT tipper.

(Evan’s just angry over Prop 8 I guess. Funny–the same voters that gave Calif to BO –ALSO voted for Prop 8. How do you say that, Evan? “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha”)

227   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Eh, Proposition 8 is a battle lost, but the war is already won.

So no, I’m not mad.

228   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

It’s even going to happen in Oklahoma, Keith.

Quick, find something to allay your fears!

229   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

(if you stop to consider that the total underground economy is probably pushing a trillion).

Actually, it’s estimated at $1.5 trillion…

But drug dealers need to eat, too…

With a FAIR tax, you can also track goods from the manufactured source and crack down on the black market much easier (RFID and other technologies)…

230   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 6th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Hideously regressive.

How so? There are no more “hidden” taxes, you’re reimbursed for the tax on the basic living requirements, so if you’re poor you end up with a) no withholding on your paycheck; and b) a prefund each month to cover the tax on the basic foodstuffs, etc.; and c) Folks w/ trust funds & no work-based income end up paying a higher percentage, based on their consumption and lifestyle…

Not regressive at all…

231   Joe C    
November 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

The United States could completely tank, go totally bankrupt, and our military would still last for 10 years and keep us as the only super power in the world for that time period as well.

Trust me.

No. One. Comes. Close.

I’ll say it again, trust me.

You’d have to nuke mm….23 cities major cities “Jericho” style to dismantle our country and it’s military, rapidly and it’d reform anyways, pretty much at the same strength and global reach.

Just saying. Trust me. We’re teh best-est.

Except for Israeli pilots, they’re better at flying. But overall….

Go USA, teh bestest!!

end totally irrelevant post

232   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

“Quick, find something to allay your fears!”
Done and done.

233   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pm

“So no, I’m not mad.” Now you’re just trying to keep up the front.

234   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

The United States could completely tank, go totally bankrupt, and our military would still last for 10 years and keep us as the only super power in the world for that time period as well.

Trust me.

No. One. Comes. Close

I’m quite aware of that, but calling America the “only remaining superpower” shows a startling ignorance to the changing world.

Except for Israeli pilots, they’re better at flying. But overall….

And all their undeclared illegal nukes.

“So no, I’m not mad.” Now you’re just trying to keep up the front.

No, seriously, for two reasons:

1. We elected Barack Obama.

2. People opposed to gay marriage die every day, while supporters turn 18 every day. The “culture war” is over. Now it’s just playing out, which it will do in fits and starts, and ultimately the Supreme Court will strike down all the marriage bans.

235   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 6th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Great interview: Cornel West

I hope he’s right.

236   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 12:03 am

“People opposed to gay marriage die every day…” That’s a happy thought for you? Wow. I may not agree with you, but I don’t wish you were dead.

237   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 12:05 am

“Quick, find something to allay your fears!”

“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, [some trust in an elected official] but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.” (Psalm 20:7)

238   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 7th, 2008 at 12:32 am

Keith is my favorite Calvinsit! :)

239   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 6:59 am

“People opposed to gay marriage die every day…” That’s a happy thought for you? Wow. I may not agree with you, but I don’t wish you were dead.

That’s not what I said, Keith.

It’s a simple, albeit bluntly put fact.

For every member of the opposition that dies of old age, several more supporters turn 18. There’s a huge age gap on this issue.

240   amy    
November 7th, 2008 at 9:36 am

I have been thinking that as a Christian it is possible that I should not be conversing with Evan. My understanding is that he

1)claims to be some kind of Christ-follower.
2)uses the name of Christ when it suits his purposes.
3)twists the Bible to justify whatever he believes.

I think there is great room to talk about all kinds of things with people who are unbelievers. But according to Scripture Christians are to have nothing to do with people who make some present or past claim of following Christ but blatantly turn against His teachings.

Read Jude for example. Inherent in Jude and other passages like it is the assumption that at some point a person does have to make some sort of judgement about where another person is spiritually – not a judgement that determines ultimately whether a person is lost or saved – because only God can do that; rather a judgement that determines whether the person is to be treated as a lost person who needs Christ or one who has “tasted” but turned their back on Christ.

Keith I would especially like to hear your thoughts on what I’m saying.

241   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 9:38 am

2. People opposed to gay marriage die every day, while supporters turn 18 every day. The “culture war” is over. Now it’s just playing out, which it will do in fits and starts, and ultimately the Supreme Court will strike down all the marriage bans.

I’m not so sure about this, really. I really think liberals, at least on the social side of the movement, are the ones who are more at risk of dying out. If you look at birth rates in the US, conservative families tend to have more children than liberal ones, and the immigrant population, though they overwhelmingly for Democrats, tend to be pretty conservative socially. I think the fact the Prop 8 passed in California is a testament to that fact really. California is one of the left-leaning states in the nation, if not the most. So if a ban passes there, I would imagine it could pass almost anywhere if it passed there.

Of course, the issue could go to the Supreme Court, I suppose, although, I would be surprised if the current court would take the case, really. Marriage has pretty much been a state issue up to now, although there is the Defense of Marriage Act on the books already. So perhaps if Obama is able to put some activists on the court and get the issue to come up, there’s a chance of something being done.

Personally, I’d be surprised to see Congress, even under the Dems, do anything to support gay marriage. It just seems like there’s too much public opposition for politicians to take the risk right now.

242   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am

Amy-
I think it is a mistake to make a judgment call like you are making when all you know of Evan is what is written on a blog.

But I am sure no one would mind if you weren’t involved in a conversation :)

243   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am

If you look at birth rates in the US, conservative families tend to have more children than liberal ones

Is that for real? Where does that info come from? And what is the dividing line between liberal and conservative that this stat is probing?

I was surprised to see Prop 8 go through. I understood the point Evan was making about the generational divide. I do think that with time this won’t be nearly the sort of issue it is today. The demographics of those who voted on Prop 8 showed that the majority of those who voted YES were older and those who voted NO were younger.

244   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 7th, 2008 at 10:44 am

Amy-
I think it is a mistake to make a judgment call like you are making when all you know of Evan is what is written on a blog.

But I am sure no one would mind if you weren’t involved in a conversation :)

Chad,
My brother, please be careful you don’t make same judgements of Amy.

245   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am
If you look at birth rates in the US, conservative families tend to have more children than liberal ones

Is that for real? Where does that info come from? And what is the dividing line between liberal and conservative that this stat is probing?

I was surprised to see Prop 8 go through. I understood the point Evan was making about the generational divide. I do think that with time this won’t be nearly the sort of issue it is today. The demographics of those who voted on Prop 8 showed that the majority of those who voted YES were older and those who voted NO were younger.

Causal and correlational stats are so often used to skew stuff. I say it all the time: Statistics prove that ice cream sales and drowning deaths go up at the same time here in Mi. Ergo, ice cream sales must cause drowning deaths.

246   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am

Joe-
Point taken. Have I judged her or anyone else? I would never say of her or anyone else I have disagreements with on a chat forum the things she said of Evan.

247   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am

ice cream sales must cause drowning deaths.

Crap. I just bought a lb. of cookies and cream and I believe our kiddie pool still has water in it out back. I’m calling my wife to sound the alarm!
:)

248   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 7th, 2008 at 10:50 am

No, you didn’t. It was more a precaution. We’ve all had conversations with Amy that have driven our frustration levels (and I imagine hers) up to the point where we ran a dangerous line. Your last comment to her seemed to be close to that line.

249   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 10:52 am

Your last comment to her seemed to be close to that line.

In my alternate reality I am a master tight-roper in Barnum and Bailey’s Circus.

Seriously though, I hear ya, bro.

250   Sandman    
November 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am

I think it is a mistake to make a judgment call like you are making when all you know of Evan is what is written on a blog.

However, unless a mental disorder is involved, the things we write do tend to leave a reflection of who we are.

A lot of us base our beliefs and ways of living on the images drawn from things written in a collection of books from thousands of years ago. And encourage others to do the same!

But I am sure no one would mind if you weren’t involved in a conversation

Smiley aside, it’s lines like the above that leads me to believe the opposite of love isn’t hate, but indifference.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but, smiley aside, it seems like you want to give Amy a cyber left foot of fellowship because she rubs you the wrong way.

251   Sandman    
November 7th, 2008 at 11:00 am

Sorry, Chad, that wasn’t a pile on; I’m doing several things at once and several comments posted during that time, and I urge us all to avoid rash words.

252   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am

A lot of us base our beliefs and ways of living on the images drawn from things written in a collection of books from thousands of years ago. And encourage others to do the same!

And with that we have over 2000 years of history on our side and the collective voice of the Church giving what has been written an authoritative voice.
Surely you wouldn’t wish to equate pithy comments (interspersed with occassional profundity) on a blog with the same authority as scripture, would you?
The mandate from what we do hold as authoritative is to not judge – period. And if we are going to pass judgment (which we shouldn’t do) then at the very least do it from a place of RELATIONSHIP and where one can witness the fruit of one’s lived life. I would argue that that is virtually impossible in this virtual space. There are moments when I log on and post something immediately following a very stressful day at work or with the kids or with my wife and I may write something or respond to someone’s comments to me in a way that I would not do if I were face to face with them enjoying a Black and Tan. It’s just that simple – and complex.
Bottom line- we shouldn’t judge.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but, smiley aside, it seems like you want to give Amy a cyber left foot of fellowship because she rubs you the wrong way.

She does rub me the wrong way. In other conversations I have ignored her outright and in large part because of the sort of self-righteous judgment calls she made above. But her rubbing me the wrong way does not give me the right to question her salvation just because we disagree on any of the topics discussed here.

253   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 11:06 am

Sorry, Chad, that wasn’t a pile on; I’m doing several things at once and several comments posted during that time, and I urge us all to avoid rash words.

lol – love ya bro. I understand completely and will reiterate what I was typing out while you posted this…

There are moments when I log on and post something immediately following a very stressful day at work or with the kids or with my wife and I may write something or respond to someone’s comments to me in a way that I would not do if I were face to face with them enjoying a Black and Tan.

I would add to that: Many a time I am multi-tasking and come accross online as being abrupt. I would hope no one would judge my salvation based on that.

254   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 11:09 am

Is that for real? Where does that info come from? And what is the dividing line between liberal and conservative that this stat is probing?

Well, it’s a pretty widely accepted phenomenon, really. Here’s a page with a bunch of articles (yes, I realize the page is from the SBC, but most of the articles seem to be from fair sources). You can already see the effect of the declining birthrate in Europe. The only difference with that is that there population growth comes from Muslim immigration.

255   Sandman    
November 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am

Love ya back, man. I wouldn’t call your salvation into question, because I can’t judge what I can’t know. You have seemed uncharacteristically combative lately, but so have others. I’ve avoided interacting with a number of you lately becase, in my judgement, there has been entirely too much testiness here of late and I don’t really want to feed the machine by launching in with my own aggression in response to everybody else’s perceived combativeness.

Vicious cycle…

256   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Combative, perhaps. Passionate, no doubt.

I can get very passionate and perhaps combative when people use God and their religion to gain a place of power politically or economically and attempt to baptize their politics with Christianese while demonizing those that disagree.

257   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Amy: I’m been preoccupied this morning with work, but I’ll try to answer your question.

Simply-Evan and I are on opposite sides of the fence on several issues. 180 degrees. We are both passionate about our opinions–sometimes maybe too much. I will engage Evan in conversation here; his own blog is a little too coarse for me, but it’s his blog and he has that right. Here-he tends to tone things down.

As far as having “nothing to do” with him or others in whom we find ourselves in spiritual conflict, I say we still engage in as civil a manner as possible. I would expect him to do the same. He and I would most likely not run in the same circles, so it’s not a problem of me to dialogue with him (or Chad whom I also disagree with on some matters). Bottom line-be nice to me and I’ll be nice to you and vice-versa.

I see a distinction between carrying on a conversation versus being best buddies. I imagine Evan has and probably is a good friend, but he wouldn’t be mine, nor I his. We don’t share the same “interests” or convictions.

I hope he will continue to visit blogs that proclaim the name of Christ. I hope (and have prayed-yes, really) that he would rethink some things. I leave the rest up to God.

I’m one of very few reformed/Calvinist (sorry I don’t how else to label my doctrinal views) that hangs around here. It’s a frustrating place some days, but there are other days I am caused to at least stop and think about some of my opinions because of something that is stated here. I hope the same for Evan…and everyone else. (There are things I actually like about Chad, at least from what I’ve read here and on his blog, but don’t tell him…) Ialso miss Iggy.
8^)>

258   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 7th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Bottom line-be nice to me and I’ll be nice to you and vice-versa.

Isn’t there something about be nice to those who are not nice to you somewhere in some ancient writing?

:)

259   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Joe: You know, I think you’re right. Wouldn’t that be neat if it caught on more often?

Just to clarify: I try…I said TRY (not always successful) to be nice when I’m not treated in kind. I’m not advocating “I’ll be nice ONLY IF you’re nice to me.”

260   amy    
November 7th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I think there is great room to talk about all kinds of things with people who are unbelievers. But according to Scripture Christians are to have nothing to do with people who make some present or past claim of following Christ but blatantly turn against His teachings.

Care to reply to the last sentence here, Chad? I don’t think the answer to it should have anything to do with whether or not I rub anyone the wrong way.

It’s a question about scripture, ultimately. Just at what point does “Have nothing to do” with such and such a person apply? Or are such Scriptures simply to be ignored in the name of dialogue and tolerance?

In other conversations I have ignored her outright and in large part because of the sort of self-righteous judgment calls she made above.

The statement I made above is based on a lot of thought and pondering of Evan and Scripture. I really began to think about the issue seriously when Evan would not answer my question about who Jesus is.

Why are my opinions and thoughts and questions seen as judgement calls whereas yours are not? Why are mine “self-righteous” and yours are not?

261   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Amy-
For me it basically boils down to what your Christian worldview is (of if you have one). There are many Christians who think the point in all of this is dividing up people based on who is in and who is out. As such, they spend the bulk of their time parsing things people say and do and from there try to fit them into a category based on their own subjective understanding of scripture.
In a sense, they see themselves as God’s viceroys and judges, here to do what God is apparently imcapable of doing himself.

That is not the only way to see the world, though. Without going into great detail I can sum it up with this: Evan is a beloved child of God whether he knows it or not and irrespective of whether he accepts that or not and irrespective of how you or I or anyone else would like to objectify him based on our limited understanding of God and scripture.

I will not abandon a human being created in the image of God, declaring that they are in essence unfit for conversation with me, simply because they do not fit whatever mold I have created and poured God into – and that is true EVEN if it is perceived on by our very fallible perception that a person is an ememy of God. It’s called grace. For while you and I and Evan and the entire world were weak, were sinners and even enemies of God, Christ died for Evan, thus proving God’s love for him and all the world. We have been reconciled and are called to be ministers of reconciliation, not division.

Feel free to pull whatever proof text you like out of scripture that justifies any of us to judge another. I will simply repeat what I said above.

262   amy    
November 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Feel free to pull whatever proof text you like out of scripture that justifies any of us to judge another.

Who is judging, Chad? Perhaps you are:

Evan is a beloved child of God whether he knows it or not

That is unless “beloved child of God” can possibly mean something other than one who has received God’s salvation.

I repeat what I said earlier:

Inherent in Jude and other passages like it is the assumption that at some point a person does have to make some sort of judgement about where another person is spiritually – not a judgement that determines ultimately whether a person is lost or saved – because only God can do that; rather a judgement that determines whether the person is to be treated as a lost person who needs Christ or one who has “tasted” but turned their back on Christ.

Notice, I said:

not a judgement that determines ultimately whether a person is lost or saved.

_____
I asked a question about scripture because I am wondering if I am doing what is scriptural, yet you are apparently already categorizing who I would fit with, based on that question:

As such, they spend the bulk of their time parsing things people say and do and from there try to fit them into a category based on their own subjective understanding of scripture.

So then anyone who thinks that it might be biblical to separate himself from someone who claims to be a Christian but denies Christ by his words or actions is part of this “they” CATEGORY you’ve described above,

part of the “they” who “spend the bulk of their time . . . ” ;

part of the “they” who “see themselves as God’s viceroys and judges” (how about, see themselves as someone trying to consider what it means to be obedient to Scripture) ;

part of the “they” who have subjective views of scripture (which is to say that those having an opposing viewpoint have a correct view of scripture.)

I will not abandon a human being created in the image of God,

Yet in the church the Corinthians were instructed to do that very thing with Christians who claimed to belong to God but walked in disobedience. Abandoned so that they WOULD return to Christ.

263   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

That is unless “beloved child of God” can possibly mean something other than one who has received God’s salvation.

Everyone, amy, I repeat, everyone, is a beloved child of God. Like I said, it matters not whether a person accepts that truth or not.

I asked a question about scripture because I am wondering if I am doing what is scriptural,

Then I would say no. And part of my reason for saying you are not is because you cannot read a verse here and there and then draw blanket conclusions from them. Furthermore, even IF you determined to draw from those passages the conclusions you have then at the very least it would require community and relationship – neither of which you have with Evan. Paul was writing to churches – real people – real issues – real emotions. These instructions are not abstract moralisms we can just pick out and apply to any given situation.

Yet in the church the Corinthians were instructed to do that very thing with Christians who claimed to belong to God but walked in disobedience. Abandoned so that they WOULD return to Christ.

That’s where the rub lies, amy. You are not a part of Evan’s particular faith community. No doubt that in a church there can arise at times a necessity to show some tough love. But that would come out of the context of relationship and not based solely on a differing of opinion over doctrine

264   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I’m not so sure about this, really. I really think liberals, at least on the social side of the movement, are the ones who are more at risk of dying out. If you look at birth rates in the US, conservative families tend to have more children than liberal ones, and the immigrant population, though they overwhelmingly for Democrats, tend to be pretty conservative socially.

That’s true, but once those kids of conservative families start thinking for themselves/their parents get transferred to coastal locations, the kids end up more liberal, especially on social issues. It’s already that way among young evangelicals — they’re grossed out by the “culture war” their parents have been fighting. I know lots of people who vote differently from their parents. Without exception, it’s because their parents are Republicans.

So if a ban passes there, I would imagine it could pass almost anywhere if it passed there.

No. Conservatives demonize California as the “most left-leaning,” but the truth of the matter is that it’s a hodge podge. New England is truly liberal.

Personally, I’d be surprised to see Congress, even under the Dems, do anything to support gay marriage. It just seems like there’s too much public opposition for politicians to take the risk right now.

The point is that public support is still moving toward equality. Even though they squeaked by their ban in California, thanks to the influx of Mormon money, they still lost over 10 percentage points of support for the amendment between 2000 and 2008. That’s significant.

The statement I made above is based on a lot of thought and pondering of Evan and Scripture. I really began to think about the issue seriously when Evan would not answer my question about who Jesus is.

Because you were, typically, changing the subject, Amy.

That is unless “beloved child of God” can possibly mean something other than one who has received God’s salvation.

Oh, so God doesn’t love the “unsaved”?

Wow. What a monster.

265   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

I know lots of people who vote differently from their parents. Without exception, it’s because their parents are Republicans.

Lol! Those evil Pubbies!

I actually know people whose story is the exact opposite. Their parents are big leftists, but yet they turn out to vote Republican.

The fact is that if we took a national referendum on the matter of legalizing gay marriage, it would most be voted down pretty handily. I thought the Dems were for the will of the people?

266   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

I thought the Dems were for the will of the people?

50 years ago the will of the people was to keep black people on the back of the bus.

267   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

50 years ago the will of the people was to keep black people on the back of the bus.

And the Dems in congress wanted to keep it that way. It was southern Democrats who led the opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

Listen… I have no desire to debate this ad nauseum again and again. It gets rather old and boring as heck. The fact is that it comes down that the debate is rather pointless when each side feels justified in demonizing the other. Pretty much all politicians are whores and when it comes down to it, they are pretty much only interested in keeping their butts in office.

268   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

And on that, I agree :)

269   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

The fact is that if we took a national referendum on the matter of legalizing gay marriage, it would most be voted down pretty handily. I thought the Dems were for the will of the people?

The dems are for the will of the people, but not the tyranny of the majority, and there’s a difference. This is a constitutional issue: it’s not the “peoples’” business whether or not a suspect class is accorded equal protection under the law. The “people” wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights act either. That’s why this Prop 8 thing was such a joke — such a clear violation of the way things are to be done in this country, but then again, you can’t count on religiously motivated leaders to be Constitutional law scholars.

And it’s not over in California either. Oh, the Mormons and their Rick Warren-worshipping buddies think it is, but ha ha, no.

270   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

The dems are for the will of the people, but not the tyranny of the majority, and there’s a difference.

Well, yes, you’re correct of course. Which is why things like the electoral college still make sense. Ironically, there was some talk of trying to amend the Constitution a while back to get rid of it. The main point I was making was that it seems both parties will abandon their supposed “core principles” rather quickly for the sake of political expediency.

We will probably never see eye to eye on this issue or other issues, barring a minor miracle. Honestly, though, Evan, I have to say to you I don’t consider you my enemy. Even in a political sense, I do not campaign for anyone, and apart from here I rarely even get into political discussions. Even here, I try to view it more as a discussion of ideas. So I do apologize if I’ve ever come off as attacking you personally. I have this sense that you always respond to me like I’m some right wing polemist, which is just so ironic to me.

There are different degrees along the political spectrum, it’s just that we are pretty much forced to make a binary choice. It’s unfortunate, because I think it causes a lot more division than necessary.

271   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

. I have this sense that you always respond to me like I’m some right wing polemist, which is just so ironic to me.

Actually, no, I don’t think of you that way. Right-leaning, definitely, but not hard right.

:)

272   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Just expressing an opinion here.

Everyone, amy, I repeat, everyone, is a beloved child of God

I agree that ALL are created in God’s image, but I disagree “that everyone, amy, I repeat, everyone, is a beloved child of God” (emphasis mine). “Child of God” implies relationship and everyone doesn’t have that saving relationship with God. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t care about or love them in a general sense.

Or are we just haggling over semantics?

273   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

The Mormons and Rick Warren worshippers are BUDDIES?! When did I miss that?! Must have been during the election returns while I wasn’t watching.
8^)>

274   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

If you look at when the polls shifted on Prop 8 (originally we were ahead), it was when the Mormons started funneling money into the Evangelical coffers that used lies, manipulation, and shameless images of children to scare people into voting for the proposition.

275   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Evan: I heard one analysis that “credited” the defeat of Prop 8 more to the overwhelming number of minority (race) voters. The reporter stated something to the effect: “Black and Hispanic voters tend to take a more traditional view (man and woman) of marriage.”

Thoughts?

276   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
November 7th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Keith – in defense of Evan, I was in San Francisco all week on business (just back home yesterday morning)…

You should have seen the Mormons – they were absolutely everywhere, crawling on every corner, nook and cranny. I was completely freaked out that I spent most of the time in my hotel room.**

(** all sarcasm, except I was in Cali all wk)

Evan, what’s your favorite term again? Wingnut? Where do you get this stuff, seriously?

277   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

That’s a meme that the pro-Prop 8 forces started a couple of months ago.

Evangelicals and (especially) Mormons only like minorities when they’re serving (literally) their purposes.

Today they’re back to secretly hating them.

That “analysis,” though, doesn’t really square with the numbers. There was a specific shift in the polls that corresponded to the malelovent ads put out by the Prop 8 campaign. They did lots of things — they used Pepperdine U’s name without permission, as if to pretend that “academics” supported this (ha ha ha), they outright lied about the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, and they scared just enough people to squeak it over the top.

278   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Evan, what’s your favorite term again? Wingnut? Where do you get this stuff, seriously?

Oh god it’s you.

Where do I get it? From all the news reports and the Mormon church’s own statements on their contributions to the fight.

Don’t talk to me anymore. Seriously, don’t bother.

279   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Evan: Thanks.

[A lot of different people groups] only like minorities when they’re serving (literally) their purposes.”

280   nc    
November 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

I don’t think we should cast the “Dems” as some monolith on gay marriage.

Most Dems I know–even national leader types–are not for “gay marriage”.

281   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

I agree that ALL are created in God’s image, but I disagree “that everyone, amy, I repeat, everyone, is a beloved child of God” (emphasis mine). “Child of God” implies relationship and everyone doesn’t have that saving relationship with God. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t care about or love them in a general sense.

Or are we just haggling over semantics?

Keith, like I said, it doesn’t matter if anyone accepts that or not :)

Actually, Christ died thereby reconciling ALL things to God. There is relationship. Some just dont realize it….yet.

282   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
November 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Chad: Actually, Christ died thereby reconciling ALL things to God. There is relationship. Some just dont realize it….yet.

John: But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

To say we’re all saved – whether we accept Christ or not – flies in the face of the gospel message. We are reconciled to the Lord (as John clearly shows) when we receive His offering for our sin (Christ – the Lamb of God) as our Savior.

283   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

To say we’re all saved – whether we accept Christ or not – flies in the face of the gospel message. We are reconciled to the Lord (as John clearly shows) when we receive His offering for our sin (Christ – the Lamb of God) as our Savior.

Paul C-
I would say you are confusing this present salvation with our future salvation.

If you truncate salvation into nothing more than a ticket to heaven and then make that ticket dependent upon your “recieving” the ticket than you have made salvation come by works.

284   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Sorry, was in a hurry when I posted the above…

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Paul declares that Christ died, reconciling ALL things to God. He goes on then to say that you ARE reconciled, therefore, BE reconciled. I hear that in the passage you cite from John.

Another way of saying it is like this: I have two adopted children. They ARE my son and daughter. This is a fact about them whether they accept it or not and whether they even acknowledge me as their father. In adopting them I have also given them the right to become my children. They can now, because I have already adopted them, live in the present in relationship to me as father and they as my children.

Everyone is a child of God because of what Jesus did on the cross. Everyone has been adopted by God. Gentiles (every living being that is not a Jew) have been grafted in. Some of us just dont know it yet and are not living into are God-given identity. But even if my son and daughter do not live into their new identity as my children they are nevertheless my children.

285   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

“some of us just dont know it yet and are not living into OUR God-given identity.” Forgive the typos

286   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

So I guess the answer was “semantics.”

287   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

I don’t think so. Why do you think it is just semantics? Are you ready to say that every person is a child of God?

288   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Keith, there is a world of difference between my saying that every person is a child of God and you saying that only some people are children of God (you would probably say only those predestined to be as such). That isn’t semantics.

289   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 7th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

I guess “spreading the wealth around” extends beyond money to time, as well.

I wonder how the college-age Zobambies will react when they find out they’ve been sentenced to the equivalent of a Class C Misdemeanor….

290   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Hahahaha, you quoted John Derbyshire, but not really, you quoted some wingnut moron who left a comment somewhere, being quoted BY John Derbyshire.

Really scraping the bottom by using the Cornhole as a source, Chris, really scraping the bottom…

I love how it pisses conservatives off to think that THEY might be called upon to do something for their countries.

Let the poor fight the wars, while the 101st Chairborne sits around reading Derbyshire and commenting on Free Republic.

And heaven forfend the president call upon the American people to sacrifice in any way to make the nation better.

It’s more fun to just use the catchy slogans and bawl while listening to Lee Greenwood songs, right?

“Cuntry’ First!”

“Dreel baby Dreel!”

291   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 7th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

It’s not charity or service if it is compulsory…

292   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Actually, it is.

National service programs exist in lots of Western countries. As a result, their citizens tend to be more informed, more invested in the success of the country, smarter…it’s a good thing.

But the thing is — Obama’s really not talking about a compulsory thing. He’s talking about giving people incentives to national service. The rest is pretty much part of the Cornhole’s ongoing fantasy about Barack Obama, led by the Oedipally unqualified Jonah “Lucianne’s best boy” Goldberg and longtime Wonder Virgin Kathryn Jean Lopez, or as we like to call her, simply, K-Lo.

293   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 7th, 2008 at 11:49 pm

I mean, I know you like your way, because if we help people out of poverty and/or get people really involved in making their country work, then they’re less likely to believe in God, or something.

God forbid we ever have a society where people are expected to put down their iPods and give back…

294   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 12:01 am

It’s not charity or service if it is compulsory…

My undergrad school had mandatory community service that every person had to do in order to graduate. Many bawked (like Chris L is doing) at first but by the end of it every person I ever spoke to about it, including myself, thought it was wonderful.

Were soldiers who were drafted considered to have “served” their country? Of course they were.

295   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am

Our messiah-elect is getting set to compel all of our youth to become “community organizers”

-from Chris L’s blog.

Chris, you really need to just stop. You really are being petty. Are you going to act like this for the next 4 or 8 years? “Messiah-elect.” Good grief.
No one who takes an election as hard as you are taking it can reasonably say they see politics with a proper perspective (i.e. Jesus is Lord)

296   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 12:14 am

Chris, you really need to just stop. You really are being petty.

Not petty – just fulfilling the role y’all have on GWB the past 8 years…

Are you going to act like this for the next 4 or 8 years?

However long O’s around – the shorter the better…

“Messiah-elect.”

Hey, I’m not one of the zombie-eyed masses that called him a modern messiah, The One, etc… I’m just using the titles his sycophants coined months ago…

No one who takes an election as hard as you are taking it can reasonably say they see politics with a proper perspective (i.e. Jesus is Lord)

Jesus is Lord, and we have a role to play.

Confronting evil is one of them…

297   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 12:17 am

(Besides which, the more sand you throw in the gears, the slower they move… which in this case is a good thing…)

298   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 12:26 am

My undergrad school had mandatory community service that every person had to do in order to graduate.

Not a problem, if you knew it going in…

Many bawked (like Chris L is doing)

I’m not balking as all. I’m 40 and well beyond college age, though my kids are not.

Believe me, though, my kids do more than 100 hours/year through the church, and if that doesn’t count, I’ll pay ‘em whatever O bribes them before I have them do an hour of service for him.

but by the end of it every person I ever spoke to about it, including myself, thought it was wonderful.

As they say, work will set you free

299   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 12:26 am

My undergrad school had mandatory community service that every person had to do in order to graduate. Many bawked (like Chris L is doing) at first but by the end of it every person I ever spoke to about it, including myself, thought it was wonderful.

Because sometimes we need a little push to get outside ourselves and give back. Most don’t do it on their own.

Are you going to act like this for the next 4 or 8 years? “Messiah-elect.” Good grief.

If he keeps reading the Corner, he will. There’s not a writer over there with a mental age above 14 or so.

Not petty – just fulfilling the role y’all have on GWB the past 8 years…

Except that we didn’t have to make up our criticisms out of whole cloth.

Hey, I’m not one of the zombie-eyed masses that called him a modern messiah, The One, etc… I’m just using the titles his sycophants coined months ago…

Yeah, most of that was actually either quote-mined by right-wing mouthbreathing pundits or, again, created out of whole cloth, because they lie.

Confronting evil is one of them…

OOOOOH the boogie black man is coming, and he supports policies that might actually make things better, and if things get better, then the people we try to brainwash into our version of religious faith won’t be as desperate, and it’s HARD when they’re not desperate!

I think I’m figuring out the unconscious psychology here — in some peoples’ minds, everyone looks at things in spiritual terms (they don’t), so if the government functions well, then people will call it their God (because some people are hung up on Old Testament stories), when actually they’ll just call it a well-functioning government. And again, it seems that some people need people to be desperate and dejected, because they’re more ripe for the evangelical picking when their lives suck than when things are going well. I mean, good lord, The Black People wouldn’t have accepted Jesus if they hadn’t been slaves, and then where would they be? Africa. So now they have Jesus, so really they should just be grateful that our ancestors bought and sold them, bringing them to such a rock bottom that they started singing spirituals!

About right?

300   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 12:29 am

It has zippo to do with color, Evan, but I can understand the left’s need to hide behind empty accusations, since it’s been their game for the past century or so…

301   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 12:34 am

Hey, I’m not one of the zombie-eyed masses that called him a modern messiah, The One, etc… I’m just using the titles his sycophants coined months ago…

Oh and…also, some of that was that, once we figured out that it kind of bugged the crap out of a certain kind of rabid right-winger, it became a little bit fun to start calling him those things. It was mostly a joke. It’s kind of like how, since some people are stupid enough that it bothers them that his middle name is Hussein (LIKE THAT BAD MOOSELEM), Obama supporters started replacing their middle names on Facebook with “Hussein.”

302   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 12:38 am

It has zippo to do with color, Evan, but I can understand the left’s need to hide behind empty accusations, since it’s been their game for the past century or so…

Um, yeah, pot, meet kettle, since every wingnut accusation thrown at Obama has been pretty much pulled out their hind ends.

303   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 12:40 am

But we do know just how racist the Republican base really is now.

We saw Sarah Palin rallies on the teevee, unfiltered.

But I mean…it’s been this way for a LONG time. Ever since the days of Lee Atwater, it’s been that way, and it reached its climax when Ronald Reagan (peace be upon him) kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. It was the ultimate dogwhistle to the racist Right.

304   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 12:45 am

But we do know just how racist the Republican base really is now.

We saw Sarah Palin rallies on the teevee, unfiltered.

Whatever.

You find whackos at any political rally – right or left. There are far more poor white union (Dem) households with racial issues than Republican demographic groups…

Ever since the days of Lee Atwater

Actually, it was at Lee’s suggestion that I voted for the only Dem I’ve voted for in my entire life* – Jesse Jackson in the 1988 primary.

*- There have been some independents/libertarians in the mix, tho…

305   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 1:12 am

You find whackos at any political rally – right or left. There are far more poor white union (Dem) households with racial issues than Republican demographic groups…

Ha ha ha ha ha wow. Do you draw your worldview in permanent marker or does Mom request that you use Washables?

Actually, it was at Lee’s suggestion that I voted for the only Dem I’ve voted for in my entire life* – Jesse Jackson in the 1988 primary.

Ha. You took Lee Atwater’s suggestion. Wow. You’re a bad person. You’ve been revealing that systematically on this blog this week.

306   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 1:20 am

In case anybody’s not aware of why taking Lee Atwater’s advice makes Chris L a bad person, here’s a famous Lee Atwater quote, about the challenges of keeping racism alive while trying to elect Ronald Reagan (peace be upon him):

‘You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

”And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger.”’

And via Digby, a little “trajectory hermeneutic” for interpreting the Republican party’s strategy for the last five decades:

As I’ve written before, it’s always something:

1955 – They are an inferior race

1965 – They aren’t good workers

1975 – They make old white customers uncomfortable

1985 – Affirmative action means their diplomas are bogus

1995 – They are a litigation risk for discrimination

2006 – They don’t know how to behave in public.

During Katrina we saw a different face of coded racism: the “fear of the black mob,” the history of which goes all the way back to the early years of American history and the slave revolts. This is the racism that led Peggy Noonan, Jonah Goldberg and others on the right to lead the shrill cries to shoot first and ask questions later, based on the unconfirmed stories of marauding gangs of African American criminals. The hysteria to which they and the mainstream media succumbed was a significant factor in the sluggish relief and evacuation effort. It wasn’t that Bush didn’t “care about black people.” (although I doubt he cares much.) It’s that whites were afraid of black people. That’s just another side of the same bigoted coin.

This particular coded racist code has bee quite useful. It flies surreptitiously under the rightwing battle flag of “law ‘n order” (George Wallace’s latter day code for “nigger, nigger, nigger”) that was adopted wholesale by the GOP after 1968. It served the Republicans very, very well for more than 30 years and has probably only been temporarily shelved for their current obsession with “islamofascism.” It is being half-heartedly revived for the immigration debate today although they haven’t been able to integrate it very smoothly with their economic and national security arguments quite yet.

[snip]

The Mighty Rightwing Wurlitzer and its little volume pedal, the bigotsphere, are continuing the long tradition of American intolerance. The good news is that they are largely forced to find ways other than overt racist language to convey their hatred and intolerance. The bad news is that they manage to do it so very well. In case anyone has missed their latest brilliant rhetorical twist, here it is: if you call them on their racism, you are a racist. It’s one of the more successful applications of the GOP epistemic relativism of the “I know you are but what am I” variety. It’s quite frustrating, just as the Orwellian “losing means winning” rhetoric is. But don’t mistake it for anything but what it is. It’s not just a lame riposte. It’s not a defense. It’s code to others who think as they do. Racists.

307   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 1:32 am

Whatever, Evan. It’s all BS.

Racism is pretty much gone, and now is just the refuge of political cowards to hid behind…

308   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 2:12 am

That’s right. Racism is gone.

My god.

But, as usual, you fail to refute any of the specific points I made, choosing to “whatever” like a pubescent pre-teen testing boundaries with Mommy. Are you taking your toys and going home, too? Were you, perchance, a whiny child?

I’m glad to know that you’ve also revealed this week just how little respect or indeed love you have for America and for American democracy, by participating in the primary of a party of which you obviously aren’t a member, and you seem to be proud of it.

309   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 2:18 am

But really, only a flaming racist could say that racism is “pretty much gone” with a straight face.

Spoken like a true child of unfettered, and very obviously undeserved, white privilege.

310   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 2:28 am

But, as usual, you fail to refute any of the specific points I made

Since you didn’t actually make any points, choosing instead to cite kool-aid drinkers with an institutional need for the continuation of belief in widespread racism.

The “whatever” was because the idiocy of what you copied and pasted didn’t deserve any response, because it was utter BS…

But really, only a flaming racist could say that racism is “pretty much gone” with a straight face.

Catch-22 logic. My case in point.

I’m glad to know that you’ve also revealed this week just how little respect or indeed love you have for America and for American democracy, by participating in the primary of a party of which you obviously aren’t a member, and you seem to be proud of it.

I participated in a primary 22 years ago when I had no party affiliation yet, because I was 18…

311   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 2:33 am

I can see what the next four years will be like though…

Person A: The Obamessiah’s policy on X is wrong-headed lunacy

Person B: Petty racist!

Person A: WTH?!? I critiqued his policy, not his skin color. That’s not racist.

Person B: See – that proves you’re a racist!

Person A: Whatever…

Person B: Make that a childish, flaming racist…

312   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 3:18 am

Catch-22 logic. My case in point

That’s not a Catch-22.

The point is that only a stupid racist would actually say something quite so stupid as “racism is pretty much gone.” To believe such a stupid thing is to be either blind, willfully stupid, or both.

Got it?

That’s totally different from a Catch-22 situation.

Since you didn’t actually make any points, choosing instead to cite kool-aid drinkers with an institutional need for the continuation of belief in widespread racism.

No. Digby is one of the most respected political writers in the country. You, on the other hand, don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

I participated in a primary 22 years ago when I had no party affiliation yet, because I was 18…

But you were already a wingnut taking cues from Lee Atwater.

I can see what the next four years will be like though…

Person A: The Obamessiah’s policy on X is wrong-headed lunacy

Person B: Petty racist!

Person A: WTH?!? I critiqued his policy, not his skin color. That’s not racist.

Person B: See – that proves you’re a racist!

Person A: Whatever…

Person B: Make that a childish, flaming racist…

In this scene, both Person A and Person B will be played by Chris Lyons and the sock-puppet he made of Jonah Goldberg, apparently.

313   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 3:22 am

But I think it’s so funny that wingtards are now whining that people think that Obama is the messiah, considering the fact that Republican presidential candidates still have to have an “I can touch that doorknob first!” contest to see who can mention Ronald Reagan’s hallowed name first.

What a joke.

314   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 8:14 am

“Racism is pretty much gone”

That represents a particularly cloistered perspective which is far from reality. I will attribute it to a general frustration in your back and forth with Evan. I have heard conversations that openly call Obama a darky, muse about his assassination, relegate the entire black population as freeloaders, and many other racist statements made in public places. And I don’t get out much.

The nation has made much progress, but racism is alive and well within a significant segment of the populace. Even without realizing it, Obama’s race is processed differently among the races, some with an unearned positive perspective and some with an unearned negativity. But politics seems to squeeze out the worst in people, including believers. Political discussions mostly serve to reinforce our image as moral police, and it obscures the redemptive essence which should be our garment. The “Limbaughesque” element is particularly offensive and not in keeping with Christ, and when believers are emotionally contending/complaining for less taxes so they can keep more of that money, it again serves to cloud the issue and is completely outside the New Testament framework. Could there be any less fair a tax than was collected by Rome, and yet Christ commanded them to give it and no where set the example for murmuring.

Read many of the ODM sites and see what happens when an entire body of work becomes little else than well written murmuring, spiritually and politically. We of all people should stand out in stark relief against the hateful political climate, and yet we blend in with all the other malcontents who claim to have the answers to all the nation’s problems. I must admit I enjoy watching the frivolity of a presidential election, but many times I am grieved to see what happens to believers during this season because it reminds me of me 8 years ago. Christians who usually show patience and love to people seem to regress personally as they get stuck to this “tar baby” called politics. They morph into Americans at the expense of emulating Christ who commanded us to walk in humility.

We must pray for the president, regardless of who he may be, but we cannot get caught up and entangled with the affairs of this world in such a way we lose our witness. I have watched very spiritual people, praying and humble people, undergo a demonstrable change when they engage in political discussions, and many times they do not even realize it. Jesus Christ died for Obama, and Pelosi, and Reid, and all the other cast of characters, and that fact alone should not only temper, but should dictate our attitudes and words as followers of Christ. The continuing deception is that somehow we are doing God’s work by our self righteous attitudes about issues and our careless attitudes about people. There are no liberals and conservatives, just sinners.

The Sermon on the Mount never finds a voice in the political theatre.

315   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 8:21 am

Not petty – just fulfilling the role y’all have on GWB the past 8 years…

I voted for Bush both times.
Basically, what your saying is, you didn’t like how some people treated Bush for the last 8 years and so now your going to dish the same out on Obama. So you are not only being petty but being childish. Returning evil with evil.

Hey, I’m not one of the zombie-eyed masses that called him a modern messiah, The One, etc… I’m just using the titles his sycophants coined months ago…

Sorry, Chris, but you are being hypocritical. You defend people on this site all the time from the “zombie-eyed masses.” If Chris P or PB were calling Warren or Rob Bell a “Messiah” you would cut them down immediately.

Confronting evil is one of them…

Yeah, and community service is evil.

Seriously Chris, grow up.

316   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 8:28 am

I abhor the use of “messiah” as a term of derision when it is should only refer to Him Who IS our Messiah.

317   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 8:30 am

Racism is pretty much gone

Chris L, this is the most absurd thing I have ever read from you.

As the father of two black children I can tell you that you are either just plain ignorant or you are just a liar willing to say anything to prove your position here is justifiable.

I’ll never forget the day that a member of my church, upon seeing the pictures of two black children on a poster board in our church, asked me why we have pictures of black kids on the poster board? I told him they are the two kids we are adopting. He asked, what’s wrong with white kids? They need adopting too. He then said: Well, if I had a choice between a white car and a black car I’d take the white one.

Yeah, Chris, racism is pretty much gone.

318   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 8:33 am

Around here people think racism is “pretty much gone” just because they no longer burn crosses in people’s yards or lynch people. But in fact, it exists in many other forms, as the member of my church illustrates. If you asked him if he is a racist he would say “no way.”

319   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 8:37 am

I abhor the use of “messiah” as a term of derision when it is should only refer to Him Who IS our Messiah.

Ditto. I would think that instead of using that term to poke fun at someone, responsible Christians, regardless of their political leanings, should put a stop to that wherever they hear it.

Chris, rather than jumping on the band wagon with the “wide-eyed zombies” you should be more responsible.

320   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am
“Racism is pretty much gone”

That represents a particularly cloistered perspective which is far from reality. I will attribute it to a general frustration in your back and forth with Evan.

You are correct that this was an overstatement. To rephrase -

The institutional vestiges of white-to-black racism have been removed from American society, and the post-baby-boom generational attitudes abhor it, often bending over backwards to avoid it.

I have heard conversations that openly call Obama…

If so, that’s abhorrent…

I will grant you that I live in Indiana, a state that had a KKK member as governor in the early 1900’s (mind you), but where the church has been a stronger force in the past 40 years than what I’ve seen in other parts of the country – eradicating the racial prejudice that was once predominant. As such, “hate crimes” and the type of language you’ve heard are not the norm, and I can tell you that Evan’s use of the n-word (in a quote) was a shock because I’ve not heard it (or ‘darky’ or similar epithets) used in probably 20+ years (apart from Eddie Murphy in 80’s reruns).

Even without realizing it, Obama’s race is processed differently among the races, some with an unearned positive perspective and some with an unearned negativity.

And which exit polls suggested was a net positive for him, than a net negative, I would remind you.

For myself, were he white, I would have the same level of antipathy toward his policies.

Could there be any less fair a tax than was collected by Rome, and yet Christ commanded them to give it and no where set the example for murmuring.

Jesus’ comments about taxation were more about religious folks casting out those who touched Roman money (as idolatrous) and rank hypocrisy – I would note that Jesus’ audience for this teaching were Herodians (a class considered ‘unclean’ because they worked for the Romans, and as such, were not allowed within the Temple grounds), not zealots.

Christians who usually show patience and love to people seem to regress personally as they get stuck to this “tar baby” called politics. They morph into Americans at the expense of emulating Christ who commanded us to walk in humility.

And I know that I get sucked into this all-too-easily. The past month, I’ve purposely avoided far more political discussions, 24/7 news channels and obsessive/compulsive poll-watching than in any election year past, but even so the past week brought it all back to the fore.

We must pray for the president, regardless of who he may be, but we cannot get caught up and entangled with the affairs of this world in such a way we lose our witness.

I pray for his health, but I do not pray for his success. I see nowhere in scripture that they prayed for Caesar’s political success. In fact, I see where a number of Jesus’ (and Paul’s) teachings were subversive to the goals of Caesar, but non-violent in their execution.

Jesus Christ died for Obama, and Pelosi, and Reid, and all the other cast of characters, and that fact alone should not only temper, but should dictate our attitudes and words as followers of Christ.

Wishing ill upon them is not Christian, but praying for their success toward anti-Christian purposes isn’t either.

Basically, what your saying is, you didn’t like how some people treated Bush for the last 8 years and so now your going to dish the same out on Obama.

They were fine to express their opposition, just as I am mine. It’s just funny how when the left complains about the right, it’s “dissent”, but when it’s the reverse it’s “petty” and “divisive”.

I will stand in stark opposition to him and his politics, and I will pray for his political failure if he pursues the leftward course he’s on. I see nowhere in scripture where Paul prayed that the aims of the Roman government would be fulfilled. In those cases where he puts forth proposals congruent with Christian principal or which are sound and religiously-neutral (likely of the blind-squirrel-and-an-acorn variety), I will hope for their success. On the whole, though, I do hope for his complete and abject failure in office (a la Carter), because I see no need to pray for the ends to justify the means (a la Clinton).

I don’t want 2012 to be a repeat of 1996, where “he may be corrupt as hell, buy my pocketbook’s doing fine…” becomes the meta-narrative.

If Chris P or PB were calling Warren or Rob Bell a “Messiah” you would cut them down immediately.

The last time I checked, none of RW’s or RB’s supporters have called them such, and if they did, I’d be critical of them, as well. We have one Messiah.

Part of the problem (which is probably Rick’s strongest argument for just abstaining from voting) is that the assumption that seeing Obama’s aims as evil is automatically reflected back as “McCain is good” (i.e. complete disdain for one candidate is registered as adoration of the opposition). In truth, McCain was the lesser of two evils, with neither as a decent choice, and that’s why McCain lost.

Yeah, and community service is evil.

It’s what we sentence criminals to do, not our children. Abortion (and any level of support for it) is abject evil, though, and you now have the blood of (at least) 6+ million more children on your hands, no matter how you try to rationalize them away.

I have no problems with voluntary service to the community (I’m involved in it all the time). What I have a problem with is compulsory service (which is kind of like comparing the 0’s socialilsm to charity – charity is where I give to the poor, out of my love for them through Christ. Socialism is where I am forced, at threat of imprisonment, to give to whatever “poor” the government sees as most deserving.)

Seriously Chris, grow up.

If “growing up” means supporting the individual sitting in the office of the presidency (which I do support) for the next four years, no thanks. I will pray for his good health, and that he is a good father and husband, but I hope that his evil is not repaid in good, lest it become yet another example of the ends justifying the means and humanistic triumph.

Yeah, Chris, racism is pretty much gone.

I truly am sorry to hear your story. It could very well mean that I am sheltered here in Indiana. My own church’s youth minister has three adopted children, who happen to be african american, which everyone I know thinks is a great thing, regardless of their race.

In my professional HR life, I see people that bend over backward to make sure that all policies and actions are race-neutral and that any individuals expressing racist sentiments are dealt with swiftly and decisively.

Does unconscious and/or low-level racism still exist? I am sure it does, but I would suggest that that particular variety flows in all directions across all spectrums (and can be measured by such things as the IAT from Harvard)

At the same time, though, I would suggest that 99.9% of the opposition to 0’s policies has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his ideology, and the reflexive cry of “racism” every time opposition is spoken is going to become so tired and transparently stupid that such cries will eventually be ignored, even if the case comes along in which they are true…

Chris, rather than jumping on the band wagon with the “wide-eyed zombies” you should be more responsible.

Sometimes the best method is to illustrate the absurd by being absurd.

321   amy    
November 8th, 2008 at 9:54 am

I’ll never forget the day that a member of my church, upon seeing the pictures of two black children on a poster board in our church, asked me why we have pictures of black kids on the poster board? I told him they are the two kids we are adopting. He asked, what’s wrong with white kids? They need adopting too. He then said: Well, if I had a choice between a white car and a black car I’d take the white one.

What a jerk.

We have a number of black adopted kids in my church. One of their white moms laughingly told me that people tell them they look like them.

I spent hours this past summer painting a dark-skinned girl and for the first time started noticing all the beautiful colors in what we call “black;” I have to admit that I have become aesthetically prejudiced towards dark-skinned people.

As for racism today, it definitely exists but in many forms. In my state 1 out of 5 people said they made their election choice based on race. Since the comment was written without any angry following-up comment and since Obama won in my state (first time a democrat has won here since Carter) well . . .

322   amy    
November 8th, 2008 at 10:04 am

The institutional vestiges of white-to-black racism have been removed from American society, and the post-baby-boom generational attitudes abhor it, often bending over backwards to avoid it.

Agreed. Also, I live in the south as I did when I was a child. I have numerous stories of racism from my junior high and high school days, and I think for the most part kids most kids don’t have those kinds of attitudes today (burning crosses, shunning, etc). Most adults I know certainly don’t want to treat people of other races as inferior.

I remember even in elementary school going to a doctor’s office in my area and being told that I didn’t want to go in “that” waiting room. That was in the 70’s.

We need to remember though that amidst the racism of the past there were white people who went out of their way to be the opposite – to visit and befriend and even help financially. Those kind of people aren’t talked about. I’m really proud of my grandfather who was such a man.

323   nc    
November 8th, 2008 at 11:08 am

Chris L,

I think your praying for him needs to be a bit more nuanced.

Pray for his health only?

I mean, he is going to be the President…I’d pray that he is effective, and leads with wisdom. Why? Because there’s more to his responsibilities than some economic ideas you disagree with (almost to the point of making them sound like moral failures) and the issue of abortion.

Unless, of course, you’re at the point where you believe that nothing the man does with respect to anything will be good.

I just don’t see how you can come to that conclusion. And if you have, dude…

then there’s no point in anyone talking about these issues.

324   nc    
November 8th, 2008 at 11:29 am

another thing re: GWB

I was deeply critical of GWB because of the way christians got on his train after moralistically demonizing Clinton.

He wasn’t a good President. Even my conservative (NOT neo-con) friends hated his guts.

But you know what? The guy DID do some good on other policy areas and for that I’m grateful.

In my tradition we pray for the President by name every Sunday–at least–and then often times in our daily “office”.

It was important for my health so that I could rigorously critique him, but not slip over into derisive names, etc.

Another issue:

Do I like the high-flown quasi-religious fawning over B?

No…

But…
Obama is not responsible for other people’s rhetoric and calling him a “messiah”.

Second, Farrahkhan is a joke even within the Dem’s.
Third, I only heard that kind of “messiah” rhetoric in some limited quarters that did strike me as representative of the party of the party as a whole.

Therefore, I just chalked it up to be the simple fact that there are crazies on both sides.

Question:

If you’re offended by the “messiah” talk (presumably on religious/theological grounds), then were you offended by the Reagan language of “city on a hill” which clearly appropriated language about the Church to this nation? I thought that was blasphemous and only helped perpetuate the sin of nationalism in christians.

I’m wondering, because for me, until the Dem’s actually start talking about him like that I’ll just write it off as fringe dumbness.

325   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

I pray for his health, but I do not pray for his success. I see nowhere in scripture that they prayed for Caesar’s political success.

Nor do I see them praying for Caesar’s health. Are you making this up as you go along?

I agree with nc – your thinking of this is not nearly as nuanced and cohesive as other aspects of your thinking.

On the whole, though, I do hope for his complete and abject failure in office

This is what I mean.

So you hope that terrorism will win the day and people in the US will live in fear every day of their lives for the next 4 years.

So you hope the economy will continue to spiral out of control and all Americans suffer through a depression.

So you hope that under his leadership Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt and the elderly are left to die.

So you hope that his health care plan does not work and millions of people remain uninsured.

So you hope that our international presence and position continues to deteriorate to the point were our allies reject us completely and foreign trade becomes impossible.

You aren’t thinking this through very clearly Chris. Your focus on abortion as the only issue relevant to political office is blinding you.

326   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Sometimes the best method is to illustrate the absurd by being absurd.

Well, you certainly got the latter part of that down pat :)

Chris, apart from Obama being pro-choice, which of his policies do you label as being “evil”?

327   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

If you’re offended by the “messiah” talk (presumably on religious/theological grounds), then were you offended by the Reagan language of “city on a hill” which clearly appropriated language about the Church to this nation? I thought that was blasphemous and only helped perpetuate the sin of nationalism in christians.

Good question, nc.

328   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

I think it would just be best to drop out of this conversation.

I’m sure Al-Quaida, Hezbollah, and Hamas’ endorsed candidate will have our one-time enemies delivering puppies and daisies to us in rainbow-powered, carbon-free dirigibles four years from now, and we can join the YouTube kids singing “Obama will save the world…”

And then I’ll admit I was wrong to criticize The One…

329   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

God speed, Chris.

I wonder if I need to apologize to the ODM’s for the number of times I defended you when they rolled out that tired line, “you become what you hate.” I really am quite surprised….and disappointed, in the way you have handled this.

330   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Agreed. Also, I live in the south as I did when I was a child. I have numerous stories of racism from my junior high and high school days, and I think for the most part kids most kids don’t have those kinds of attitudes today (burning crosses, shunning, etc). Most adults I know certainly don’t want to treat people of other races as inferior.

Just because it has gone underground doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I had a member of my church call me the day after the election and say “Doesn’t matter the KKK will get him anyway”. Racism is alive and well in the U.S. of A. My hometown newspaper the day after the election.

331   nc    
November 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Chris L,

I don’t understand why he sticks in your craw so much, but people here aren’t calling him “The One”…

why is not ok for some people here to maybe entertain some nuanced support for his candidacy?

Honestly, this isn’t really like you–at least what has been communicated by you here over the last year or so that I’ve been engaging here.

I honestly have to wonder if there is something of particular significance to you/or importance on a personal level that makes this man embody such total darkness to you.

Is that the case? I’m genuinely asking…

332   nc    
November 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

as far as “endorsements” from some bad guys, hmmmm…

I don’t know if that really means anything unless you drink deeply from the toilet that is Fox News and talk radio.

Look at how many people around the world are happy to see an Obama presidency…does that mean that they are all somehow “down with terrorists” and the like?

Could it be that, despite the immoral tactics of such groups, that their support for an Obama presidency could only indicate the truth about the history of that region? (i.e. a space that has suffered under colonial abuse for years, then set on their own, messed with by the great powers for years after and then manipulated further for geo-political games. Maybe it really is about people needing to know that their legit. grievances may be heard and addressed? Maybe they see potential for this in the person of Obama as opposed to a guy who sang “bomb bomb iran”?)

Or could it be that for all their dubious activities, Hamas et. al actually may be right about something or it indicates a shift in their thinking? (think the IRA and Sinn Fein in Ireland)

Furthermore:

Honestly, criticism of his economic policies is fair. But calling it “socialism” when it’s not is ridiculous.

Criticism of his abortion position is fair. But some people saying he wants to kill babies is inflammatory and not going to help people work on solutions together.

Criticism of stupid fringe rhetoric on behalf of anyone is fair. But to attribute responsibility for it and then denigrate Obama doesn’t make sense.

He’s just a man. a man with flaws. some bad ideas and some good ideas.

Something to think about.

333   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

nc – it is just the nature of politics and the discussion of “issues” that are “conservative”.

Spiritually speaking, all the presidents in my lifetime have been dismal failures. What defines “success” and in fact we are to honor him and pray that we can lead peacable lives.

No one seems to be willing to entertain the idea that politics by design is always counter productive to spiritual growth, even when it is “conservative”. It either leads to prdieful exuberance or dismissive verbiage.

The gospel is always compromised, both practically and spiritually, when believers have a “dog in the race” and suggest that is God’s will.

334   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Arguing over moral issues is in and of itself self righteous. We are to preach the gospel with love and strength, but all these side issues are not only a distraction, it is actually at odds with the ministry of Jesus Christ.

How God must hate seeing emotional arguing over the behavior and issues of the lost when in fact our ministry must be reconciliation, not divisive. Does God really care about Obama’s “success” as president, or is He concerned about his soul?

Politics stinks like dead fish and still believers are content to roll around in its fragrance.

335   amy    
November 8th, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Chris,
I know racism is still a big problem. I was just saying it’s not what it used to be, at least where I live.

I’m sure Al-Quaida, Hezbollah, and Hamas’ endorsed candidate will have our one-time enemies delivering puppies and daisies to us in rainbow-powered, carbon-free dirigibles four years from now, and we can join the YouTube kids singing “Obama will save the world…”
And then I’ll admit I was wrong to criticize The One…

Chris L,
Iknow you’re simply being sarcastic here but if the above somehow happened with Obama I would look at him as more dangerous than I would if he accomplished little or caused more antagonism in world politics.

336   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 8th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

And then I’ll admit I was wrong to criticize The One…

I don’t think I’d worry about having to do that, Chris. If BO’s selection of Emanuel (former Freddie Mac board member) as Chief of Staff, not to mention his surrounding himself with many of Clinton’s cronies (where in the heck is THAT CHANGE?!) is any indication of what we’re in for…God help us.

337   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

I pray for his health, but I do not pray for his success.

So you pray some bad things for him.

Yet again, Chris Lyons is the Christian that, if I were a bit like him, I’d want you to shoot me to put others out of their misery.

They were fine to express their opposition, just as I am mine. It’s just funny how when the left complains about the right, it’s “dissent”, but when it’s the reverse it’s “petty” and “divisive”

If the whiny petty bratty shoe fits…

It’s what we sentence criminals to do, not our children. Abortion (and any level of support for it) is abject evil, though, and you now have the blood of (at least) 6+ million more children on your hands, no matter how you try to rationalize them away.

Oh god, for the last time, get yourself educated on this issue, and you’ll stop sounding like a complete moron.

I have no problems with voluntary service to the community (I’m involved in it all the time). What I have a problem with is compulsory service (which is kind of like comparing the 0’s socialilsm to charity – charity is where I give to the poor, out of my love for them through Christ.

You’re not a good enough person to give back to the community unless Jesus is holding a gun to your head, apparently…

But…
Obama is not responsible for other people’s rhetoric and calling him a “messiah”.

Correct. And since most of it a joke anyway…

Second, Farrahkhan is a joke even within the Dem’s.

Correct again.

You aren’t thinking this through very clearly Chris. Your focus on abortion as the only issue relevant to political office is blinding you.

Ding ding ding, and he doesn’t even understand the issue he’s most concerned about.

That must suck.

I’m sure Al-Quaida, Hezbollah, and Hamas’ endorsed candidate will have our one-time enemies delivering puppies and daisies to us in rainbow-powered, carbon-free dirigibles four years from now, and we can join the YouTube kids singing “Obama will save the world…”

God, you believe everything Jonah Goldberg craps out, don’t you?

I don’t know if that really means anything unless you drink deeply from the toilet that is Fox News and talk radio.

He does. He doesn’t even flush it first.

338   nc    
November 8th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Evan,

You’re rhetoric isn’t all that helpful either at times.

We just don’t need this kind of disdain in politics. It poisons the environment.

339   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

“You’re rhetoric isn’t all that helpful either at times.”

It may not be helpful but it is always entertaining, biting, and most of all predictable.

340   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 8th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Can’t we all just get along?

341   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 8th, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Chad: You know…you’re right. As one who has expressed some strong opinions here, I’ve still wondered: “Why can’t we just kindly express an opinion without trying to berate others into seeing things exactly as we do?” It’s like we can’t stand the thought that we didn’t win the argument. So you didn’t convince me and I didn’t convince you. And in the meantime, we’ve said things or had a tone that certainly didn’t sound Christ-like. What ever happened to simply exchanging ideas–just stake your case…and then moving on?

In the end, does it really doesn’t matter who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I’ve already stopped watching the news.

342   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

“In the end, does it really doesn’t matter who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”

The fountain of wisdom. :)

343   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 9th, 2008 at 9:35 am

I have written an essay entitled,

“Politics – What Have We Learned?”.

You will find it here.

344   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 9th, 2008 at 9:46 am

Correction #341: “…it really doesn’t matter…”

345   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 8:40 am

Keith – Chad: You know…you’re right.

Keith, I couldn’t disagree more strongly…. :)

In the end, does it really doesn’t matter who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Perhaps you can share this nugget of wisdom with Chris L. He is still taking this election very, very personally for some reason.

peace.

346   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am

Chad – forbearance, brother. Many people feel very strongly about certain issues and that is their right. I can understand passion about the abortion issue, the rest, not so much.

BTW – Purdue is on the skids as well, so take that into consideration. They even lost to Notre Dame which is no easy task!

347   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 9:19 am

I hear ya, Rick. But it is not someone being passionate about certain issues that concerns me but the constant smearing of a person and using the name Messiah more or less in vain. On Facebook he just posted two videos – one suggesting that our freedom of speech is going to be taken away now that Obama is president and this this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4

This is not taking a strong stance on an issue. This is personal and, at least I thought, totally unlike him.

348   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am

I have to admit, that for the most part I’m pretty tired of politics, and I had hoped that these discussions would die down after the election, but I will say this. It seems to me that there’s a bit of a double standard here. Through the years I’ve seen some very mean-spirited parodies of President Bush, and I saw very little in the way of condemnation from those on the left. In fact, it was almost the opposite.

So I guess the challenge is this – if you are morally outraged by a satire of Obama, you should have the same sort of moral outrage by a satire of Bush.

Personally, the way I see it is this. I feel that so much hope is being out into Obama’s leadership, that a big letdown is inevitable. It will be the same sort of thing that happened with the Christian right and Bush. Just because Obama is on the other side of the ideological spectrum doesn’t mean he’ll end up having much more success than Bush.

I just get the feeling that Bush may have been God’s attempt to teach the religious right a lesson, and Obama might be His attempt to teach the left a lesson.

349   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am

Phil-
There are several key distinctions between the paradies of Bush and Obama.
First and most obvious, Obama isn’t even in office yet.
But more to the point, the parodies of Bush were and are based on things he has actually said and done. I laugh all the time when Jon Stewart or Colbert poke fun at Obama and anyone else – but their satire is based on stuff that actually happened. Obama has never claimed to be a “Messiah.” Frankly, I find it blasphemous to use the name of our Savior just to make fun of someone.
It is unwarrented.

I asked Chris L on facebook: What would he say to Ken Silva if he kept calling RW “Messiah”?
So yeah, there definately IS a double standard going on.

350   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 9:53 am

Chad,
Well, you’re pretty much illustrating my point. All satires are based in reality somewhat, or else no one would find them funny. People have used messianic type speech to describe Obama all throughout the campaign – that’s not just a smear, it’s the truth. Did you see this article that was written by a college student? Sadly, it isn’t a parody.

You also have the phenomenon of teachers leading little kids in songs about Obama, which is very weird. When he was here at PSU, people were literally in tears trying to see him. Frankly, it is a type of idolatry.

So like I said before, none of these attacks come close to the attacks that Bush has seen. Do you remember the book from a few years ago that depicted Bush’s assassination? If that were written about Obama, all hell would break loose.

So, of course, two wrongs don’t make a right, but neither side has moral authority any longer precisely because they’re not consistent in their outrage. It would probably be best if Christians just kept their mouths shut for a little.

I remember when David Kuo’s book came out, and he called for a fast from politics, that I thought that was just ridiculous. But now I’m seeing the wisdom in that. It seems that it just blinds people.

351   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 9:58 am

Keith,
If you come back to this thread can you email me? You can find my email on my blog. Thanks

352   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 10:21 am

All satires are based in reality somewhat, or else no one would find them funny.

And Phil, you are illustrating my point. Who is laughing when people laud Obama as the anointed one or the Messiah or the One? Just because a few fringe groups or wackos might think a president is the answer to all their hopes and dreams doesn’t mean we should jump on the wacko bandwagon and use religious imagery to make fun of anyone, president or not.

Lets be honest – Bush gave us plenty of material to turn into humor (it almost wrote itself). But it was stuff Bush actually said and did. Obama is not going around claiming to be anything other than a man who wants to serve his country as president.

Let me ask you this: Do you agree that there are Christians who think Rick Warren is the best thing since sliced bread? Of course their are. Now, if or when Ken Silva or Ingrid or Chris R. start calling RW the Messiah over and over and over again are you going to call it satire? Would you just sit back and say “well, people make fun of Paul Washer also.” I doubt you would. I think you would speak out against such absurdity.

353   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 10:33 am

Let me ask you this: Do you agree that there are Christians who think Rick Warren is the best thing since sliced bread? Of course their are. Now, if or when Ken Silva or Ingrid or Chris R. start calling RW the Messiah over and over and over again are you going to call it satire? Would you just sit back and say “well, people make fun of Paul Washer also.” I doubt you would. I think you would speak out against such absurdity.

Actually, I don’t think there are many Christians who hold Warren in that high of regard, but it’s to the point where the ODMs have become parodies of themselves because of their obsession with Warren. I’ve always said that Rick Warren is to the ODM what Bush was to the left – the embodiment of all evil.

I think that both you and Chris are exhibiting some blind spots on this issue. Frankly, the Obama-Messiah link is a very mild parody, and there certainly are ways in which he has been held up as the answer to all our hopes and dreams. It’s not just fringe groups, either. I find the term making fun of the people who think like that more than Obama himself.

You also have to think that Obama brings some of this on himself with all his “hope and change” rhetoric. Some of it’s to be expected and can be written off as typical political stumping, but the weird thing in this past election cycle was that a lot people actually seemed to sincerely believe it.

354   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am

but it’s [COMING] to the point where the ODMs the religious right (and Chris L’s harping) have become parodies of themselves because of their obsession with Warren. Obama.

Exactly. That is all I am trying to say.

You also have to think that Obama brings some of this on himself with all his “hope and change” rhetoric. Some of it’s to be expected and can be written off as typical political stumping, but the weird thing in this past election cycle was that a lot people actually seemed to sincerely believe it.

Come on, Phil. God forbid the next leader of a country would talk about hope and change. God forbid that single mothers who cant get employment or health insurance for their children might actually be “hoping” for some relief. God forbid that parents with kids in Iraq might actually start to “hope” that their kids will come home – sooner than later.
Seriously, I didn’t hear any of you complaining when McCain proclaimed that he is promising “Change we can BELIEVE in.” I would hope that someone would call me retarded and knock me down a peg if I started calling McCain a Messiah or started mocking him because he had the nerve to promise a new course of action or direction for the country.

355   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 10:55 am

Seriously, I didn’t hear any of you complaining when McCain proclaimed that he is promising “Change we can BELIEVE in.” I would hope that someone would call me retarded and knock me down a peg if I started calling McCain a Messiah or started mocking him because he had the nerve to promise a new course of action or direction for the country.

Well, actually, I did mention somewhere that I was bothered by McCain’s idolatrous “country first” slogan – I don’t remember what thread it was in, though. I wasn’t really a McCain supporter, so I couldn’t even really tell you what the main themes of his campaign

All politics has the potential to be idolatrous. I think it has the tendency to produce this “true believer” syndrome in people where they see the passage of certain policies as the answer to all their problems.

I guess overall, that’s why I see smaller and more limited government as the only thing I can support. Unfortunately, both major parties abandoned this a long time ago.

So I guess my worry is that a president who has promised to expand government programs will lead to more people who are dependent on government for their well-being. As a Christian, I find it hard to swallow that we should just sit back and accept that a government program is the answer to people’s prayers. If anything it should shame us that it has gotten to that point. If the American church really wanted to, it could provide healthcare to all who needed it. Instead, we’d rather building new buildings and buy fancy sound systems and lights.

356   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am

Phil,
I don’t disagree with you. My point in all of this has been to point out the inconsistencies in the arguments put forth by some here who would soundly put people in their place who use fear as their main tactic and especially those who throw the name “Messiah” around little regard.

As a person who has a great deal of respect for all the contributors on this site I would have hoped (sorry to use that word here) for more from many of you. I would have hoped that rather than rolling over and playing along with the “Messiah” band-wagon you all would take the high road and declare how no political candidate should be called such. I would have hoped that Chris L would have argued against anyone, regardless of political affiliation, who blurs the line between President and Savior and definately would not have expected him to jump on that bandwagon and perpetuate such a “joke.” I also would have expected the contributors of this site, whom I respect, to have spoken out against all of that rather than justify it by saying people did the same thing to Bush.

357   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 11:36 am

Well, I do see your point, to some extent Chad. I guess it’s hard though, because people keep on giving so much material to work with. Did you see this post on Tony Jones’ blog from a few weeks ago?

Jones said this about Obama:

As a person who tries, often unsuccessfully, to stay centered in the midst of crisis and stress, I cannot but believe that BO’s own spirituality contributes greatly to the preternatural calm that he exudes.

Now, I usually like Jones, and I’ve even defended him here a few times, but it’s just amazing to me to see such infatuation over a politician. I just don’t get it. Sure Obama has his endearing qualities, but the amount of fawning I’ve read is almost jaw-dropping at times.

Is it wrong for Christians to call out other Christians on what seems to be a type of idolatry?

358   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 11:52 am

Chad,
I will also grant you that Obama seems to generate a lot of irrational hatred as well. It’s just like Bush and Clinton seemed to do so as well. It’s sort of sad how we tend to let our emotions get so tied into politics.

359   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 11:55 am

Is it wrong for Christians to call out other Christians on what seems to be a type of idolatry?

No. But lets be clear about what idolatry is. Idolatry is not being impressed with someone that you personally disagree with politically. Like Jones, I too have been impressed with the “even-steven” approach Obama has shown for the last 2 years. Even his critics say he has run a flawless campaign (apart from the PA comment) and that he has handled himself very well in tight spots.

It is not wrong in and of itself, nor idolatrous, to admire someone. And lets not forget that Obama is a professing Christian. I would hope that other Christians, if they saw in me a quality they admired, would attribute that quality to the work of Christ in me rather than my own ability (as Jones has rightly done, IMO).

One more thing: I could say the same thing Jones said about Obama about Rob Bell, someone that I greatly admire. Bell, despite the attacks on his character and his faith from all fronts rises above all of that and doesn’t get sucked into it. I would say I can’t help but think that his handling of such things is the work of the Spirit in him. Does this mean I idolize Rob Bell? Of course not.

360   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am

Chad,
I will also grant you that Obama seems to generate a lot of irrational hatred as well. It’s just like Bush and Clinton seemed to do so as well. It’s sort of sad how we tend to let our emotions get so tied into politics.

Amen to that.

361   DMac    
November 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Chris L Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Racism is pretty much gone, and now is just the refuge of political cowards to hid behind…

Wow…..

As a black British person who really has no interest in American politics, I find this statement shockingly ignorant. It seems as though Obama’s successful campaign has really brought out some peoples true colours.

Not that I’m a fan of Spike Lee, but he recently noted that whilst the Republican rallies are predominantly filled with white people, Obama’s support was both very diverse and young. This in his opinion can only be a good thing for his country because it clearly demonstrates the fact that the Republicans represent an era of American history that is now very much on the decline.

From what I have both seen and heard, I think he has a point. I guess change really is hard for some people, especially if they are white. Racism is very much alive in North America, as it is over here in the UK. To suggest otherwise is very silly.

362   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

DMac -

My apologies – I later amended the statement (primarily aimed at institutionalized racism).

I do think there is an undercurrent of racism in America, but it flows in all directions, across multiple different races.

363   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

And lets not forget that Obama is a professing Christian.

So is President Bush, but, it is by their fruits we shall know them. By his fruit of supporting FOCA and allowing an aborted infant to be murdered alive, we can see that he is not. We can also see this in Bush’s and Obama’s belief that all roads lead to heaven. He can profess all he wants, but if they do not have the fundamental understanding of Jesus being the only way, and God the Father as being the Only God, I am afraid they are hopelessly lost.

Bell, despite the attacks on his character and his faith from all fronts rises above all of that and doesn’t get sucked into it. I would say I can’t help but think that his handling of such things is the work of the Spirit in him. Does this mean I idolize Rob Bell?

Only in the fact that you (and others) will not disagree with him when he is clearly wrong, like on his teachings about universalism, Hell, and others. It is idolatry if we take the words of mere humans over the clear teachings of Jesus Christ and inspired authors of the scripture such as Paul, James, Peter, Matthew, Moses, et.al.

364   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

This is a great blog for all those who believe that no one believes that Obama is the Messiah...

Scary stuff.

365   Eric Van Dyken    
November 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

DMac said: “I guess change really is hard for some people, especially if they are white. ”

So DMac, is your version of racism any better than that of others? Do you justify your racism as a simple observation of reality? So do many others. Whether you tried to or not, you further advance the racism that you seem to decry with statements such as that. Additionally, observations by Spike Lee tend to be colored by his own preconceptions, much like other race peddlers in this country. I wonder how many of the Republican rallies Spike Lee actually attended. If in fact true, could it be that not as many blacks attended Republican rallies for fear of being labelled by racist blacks as “unce toms” or traitors because of the expectation that they should vote for Obama?

Interestingly, in the presidential race the most obvious example of racism that I observed was the constant reminder that Obama had the black vote pretty much guaranteed. How is it right for blacks to vote for a black because of his color and not the same for whites? To be clear, I don’t think anyone should be voted for or against because of their color.

It would also be helpful to the healing of racism in this country if Obama wasn’t hereinafter referred to as the “first black president” (not that anyone here did, but the rest of the world seems to). Let’s try to view him as a man with ideas and goals and a very tough task, not as a novelty.

366   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

“Obama is ready to rule on day one”

367   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

By his fruit of supporting FOCA and allowing an aborted infant to be murdered alive, we can see that he is not.

Oh for the love of God, PB, get yourself educated on this issue so you can stop sounding like a blathering idiot everytime your fingers hit the keyboard.

We can also see this in Bush’s and Obama’s belief that all roads lead to heaven. He can profess all he wants, but if they do not have the fundamental understanding of Jesus being the only way, and God the Father as being the Only God, I am afraid they are hopelessly lost.

A wonderful example of how you make salvation by works, not by grace through faith. Whether they believe other paths lead to heaven or not, they have confessed Jesus. They are only “lost” in your twisted system of doctrinal idolatry.

Only in the fact that you (and others) will not disagree with him when he is clearly wrong, like on his teachings about universalism, Hell, and others.

“clearly wrong.” Yeah. Right.

368   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

If in fact true, could it be that not as many blacks attended Republican rallies for fear of being labelled by racist blacks as “unce toms” or traitors because of the expectation that they should vote for Obama?

Eric,
How many blacks were filling the rallies in past Republican rallies? DMac or Spike Lee isn’t wrong to point that out. It was glaringly obvious in this election as well as in past elections where there was no black candidate.

369   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

How is it right for blacks to vote for a black because of his color and not the same for whites?

Spoken like someone who has never known the heel of someone’s foot on the back of their neck.

370   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

# 367

I rest my case. Chad, The neo liberal cult of DDS (Duke Divinity School) has clearly clogged your understanding. You are in darkness, my friend, if you believe that all roads lead to heaven, that there is salvation in any other name, that some profession of faith devoid of right belief and understanding placed there by the Holy Spirit is salvic in nature.

Universalism: Belief that all roads lead to God, and that all Gods are the same.
Pluralism: Belief that all roads can get to God, but my belief is the superior belief.
Christianity: Only in Christ can one be saved. God is the only one true God, the God of the Bible. There is no other.

It is no wonder that you can say Amen to your hero Rob Bell, for you believe the same way he does!!

371   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Spoken like someone who has never known the heel of someone’s foot on the back of their neck.

Sorta like you, Chad…

372   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

How many blacks were filling the rallies in past Republican rallies? DMac or Spike Lee isn’t wrong to point that out. It was glaringly obvious in this election as well as in past elections where there was no black candidate.

On this note, I was VERY SAD that the most qualified candidate in my view was not nominated…Condi Rice. I hope sincerely she makes a run in 2012.

Of course, she doesn’t count. According to the left, she does not count as a woman candidate or as African American, because she is conservative. It is the left who is VERY racist, because Bush’s cabinet was by far the most diverse, and qualified, but it didn’t count because they dodn’t like the politics.

373   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Only in the fact that you (and others) will not disagree with him when he is clearly wrong, like on his teachings about universalism, Hell, and others.

PB,

While I’ll agree with most of your commentary on BO/GWB, your continual misreperesentation of what Bell teaches is pretty sad, particularly when you’ve been corrected on the subject so many times.

By his fruit of supporting FOCA and allowing an aborted infant to be murdered alive, we can see that he is not.

Oh for the love of God, PB, get yourself educated on this issue so you can stop sounding like a blathering idiot everytime your fingers hit the keyboard.

Yeah, PB – it’s called “birth control”, not “abortion” or “murder”. In America, every woman needs a right to a dead baby, not just an abortion (just in case the fetus is accidentally delivered alive, a clear case of abortitave malpractice). We’re much more civilized today – we no longer toss the infants into a blazing idol for the purpose of personal prosperity. We do it in the privacy of a “doctor’s” office.

And since BO’s not an abortionist, he’s not a murderer – in the same way as the German Christian families who watched the Jews being rounded up and sent off w/o comment weren’t guilty of anything, either.

How many blacks were filling the rallies in past Republican rallies?

I know of several here in Indiana, many of whom were treated rather badly by other blacks for “not supporting a brother”… Racism does work in both directions, you know…

374   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

The neo liberal cult of DDS

LOL! Hey PB- which DDS professor have you read? You amuse me, PB, seriously.

Who said anything about me believing all roads lead to heaven? I really think you have a problem reading, PB.

And your definitions of universalism shows that you know nothing about Rob Bells theology or mine.

375   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Universalism: Belief that all roads lead to God, and that all Gods are the same.
Pluralism: Belief that all roads can get to God, but my belief is the superior belief.
Christianity: Only in Christ can one be saved. God is the only one true God, the God of the Bible. There is no other.

It is no wonder that you can say Amen to your hero Rob Bell, for you believe the same way he does!!

PB -

Bell has made it clear – in sermons this year, I would also note – that he only believes and teaches that there is one true God by which any may be saved.

Let’s leave him out of this…

376   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Yeah, PB – it’s called “birth control”, not “abortion” or “murder”. In America, every woman needs a right to a dead baby,

Chris, I am convinced that you have some deep-seated, personal anger about this issue which is causing you to see red when you discuss politics. It’s a shame you cannot be as rational and insightful on this topic as you are with so many others. Not that you need to disagree with a pro-choice president but at the very least not be ignorant and incindiary in the same way PB is with respect to Rob Bell’s teaching on universalism (or any topic, for that matter).

I know of several here in Indiana

Cool. Three or four black people in Indiana attended a Republican rally.

The point Dmac was making, I think, is that the republican rally looks like the “white” party. Forget this election – even elections in the past have been predominately white.

377   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Not that you need to disagree with a pro-choice president

That should be “agree” not “disagree”

378   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Chris-
serious question: Do you unleash this much venom on the women who actually have an abortion?

379   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Hi John Chisham,
I want you to know that I just prayed for you as you continue to lie and present lies about my friend and pastor. I pray that God will either show you the errors of your ways, or shut you up any way that He needs to do so.

380   Eric Van Dyken    
November 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Chad,

Why do you choose to comment on my question without answering it? You have no idea what I have or haven’t had to deal with in my life. Are you suggesting that Obama has had someone’s foot on the back of his neck?

Why don’t you take a stab at actually answering the question if you think I’m so wrong? Racism is racism, no matter how you (or others) try to justify it.

I never have said that past Republican rallies have been filled with blacks. I merely suggested one reason why in this election and others there may not be as many blacks at Republican rallies.

Dmac also did not point out an observation of his own, but rather an observation made by a race baiting celebrity with an obvious financial stake in the continuation of racial tension (read: he makes a lot of money and gains status from his numerous movies laced with racist themes).

So please Chad, explain why it is morally acceptable for a black to vote for a black (and against a white) because of his color and the reverse is not true, since your comment seems to suggest that it is.

381   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Lynn Swann is an African American republican and he got crushed in his run in Pa. Which is too bad, if I still lived there, I would have voted for him.

382   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Chris, I am convinced that you have some deep-seated, personal anger about this issue which is causing you to see red when you discuss politics. It’s a shame you cannot be as rational and insightful on this topic as you are with so many others.

Sorry, maybe I just need to get more comfortable rationalizing away murder. It would probably help me sleep better, blissfully careless of the blobs of tissue tossed out for convenience sake. If only I would be rational and toss up my hands and say “‘hey’ – the government’s not Christian so why should I expect it to protect the lives of its citizens?”, and perhaps I should ignore history and God’s obliteration of Israel (the northern kingdom), primarily for its idolatry and allowance of child sacrifice. And while I’m at it, I’ll just go ahead and ignore Jesus’ use of Gehenna to describe hell, since Gehenna (the valley of Hinnom) gained its reputation because that’s where the children were taken to sacrifice them to Molech.

Yeah, if only I’d just care less about slaughter of the innocent and be rational.

That would do it.

Do you unleash this much venom on the women who actually have an abortion?

I see many as victims of sorts, though others who do it for sex selection, or career ambition, etc., I’ve got little compassion to spare when compared to the compassion for the life they take.

Now abortionists and the lawyers/politicians (and the folks who vote for them) who keep them in business … that’s another matter.

383   amy    
November 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

For a just-published novel that deals with an America which amends the First Amendment, read The Sinner by Ted Dekker.

384   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Are you suggesting that Obama has had someone’s foot on the back of his neck?

Not Obama himself, but the entire black race.

So please Chad, explain why it is morally acceptable for a black to vote for a black (and against a white) because of his color and the reverse is not true, since your comment seems to suggest that it is.

It’s simple: I, as a white male, have never been told I cant sit there. I have never been told I can’t use that bathroom. I have never been told I can’t eat here. I have never been told that I can’t vote. I have never been told that I am part of the “American Problem.” I have never been told that I am less human because I am white. I have never had a family member lynched solely because I am white. I have never been treated as someones property.

I could go all day with such a list. So when you ask how a black person can be morally justified to vote for a black candidate just because they are black I submit to you 400 years of hell that they have endured – hell that was administered by the hands of white men. This is why I said your comments sounds like something from a person who has never had a boot on their neck. As white people, we can’t even begin to imagine what it must be like to finally be able to vote (a recent miracle!) for a black person to the highest office of our land. I do not begrudge them that vote for vindication. In fact, I rejoice with them in it.

385   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

I see many as victims of sorts, though others who do it for sex selection, or career ambition, etc., I’ve got little compassion to spare when compared to the compassion for the life they take.

Now abortionists and the lawyers/politicians (and the folks who vote for them) who keep them in business … that’s another matter.

You sidestepped the question, Chris. I asked if you have this much venom, this much hatred, aimed at the actual people (women and their families) who make the decision to murder their child? No government official or doctor or laywer is forcing them to go have an abortion. So I am wondering if you are consistent with your vengence. How do you rationalize showing pity or grace to the women who actually DECIDE to murder their kids while you demonize the ones who give them that right to choose?

When someone chooses to take a life with a gun do you unleash your righteous justice on the one that actually choose to use the gun to murder or do you attack the store owner that sold it and the politicians that make gun ownership possible?

386   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

In many ways I think that blacks have been to the Democrat party as Evangelicals have been to the Republicans – a voting block that they can take for granted. It’s always amazed me that blacks have consistently supported Democrats over the years, but they really haven’t gotten anything to show for it.

I think that’s really the danger of identity politics. Once you vote for someone because of what he represents to you instead of what his principles are, you are really projecting onto that person. I have a hard time believing that a white candidate with the same qualifications and background of Obama would ever have survived the primaries. It’s just that Obama became a symbol to so many people, and that’s a very powerful thing.

387   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Sorry, maybe I just need to get more comfortable rationalizing away murder. It would probably help me sleep better, blissfully careless of the blobs of tissue tossed out for convenience sake.

See, this is where you lose me, Chris, and you start to sound just like the ODM’s you consistently speak out against.

No one is rationalizing murder. Certainly not me. There comes a time, however, when we need to wake up and smell the coffee (or napalm). Legislating abortion rights IS NOT GOING TO STOP ABORTION.

388   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Sorry, maybe I just need to get more comfortable rationalizing away murder. It would probably help me sleep better, blissfully careless of the blobs of tissue tossed out for convenience sake.

See, this is where you lose me, Chris, and you start to sound just like the ODM’s you consistently speak out against.

No one is rationalizing murder. Certainly not me. There comes a time, however, when we need to wake up and smell the coffee (or napalm). Legislating abortion rights IS NOT GOING TO STOP ABORTION. Cal Thomas, in an article worth reading, said this:

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Source: http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2419

I agree with this. If stopping or decreasing the number of abortions that occur is our stated goal (and I assume that is the goal we all share) than we need to be smarter about how we go about that. It isn’t going to happen because of legislation. There are plenty of countries that have made abortion illegal and they still have tons of them each year (read http://www.thirdway.org ). We need to do exactly as most pro-choice people say we should do and encourage women and familes to seek out the counsel of their church and clergy (like Obama suggested). It is only when we begin changing people’s hearts and getting to the root of the fears that women have in carrying a baby they did not expect to be carrying are we ever going to be able to put a dent in the number of abortions that occur.

389   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

You recently preached a sermon called “God wants to save Christians from hell.” I was discussing the message with a guy who after hearing this message was a bit disturbed and somehow came to the conclusion that you didn’t believe in a literal hell. Let me ask you, do you believe in a literal hell that is defined simply as eternal separation from God?

Well, there are people now who are seriously separated from God. So I would assume that God will leave room for people to say “no I don’t want any part of this”. My question would be, does grace win or is the human heart stronger than God’s love or grace. Who wins, does darkness and sin and hardness of heart win or does God’s love and grace win?

I don’t know why as a Christian you would have to make such declarative statements. Like your friend, does he want there to be a literal hell? I am a bit skeptical of somebody who argues that passionately for a literal hell, why would you be on that side? Like if you are going to pick causes, if you’re literally going to say these are the lines in the sand, I’ve got to know that people are going to burn forever, this is one of the things that you drive your stake in the ground on. I don’t understand that.

Especially when so many fail to recognize the hell that many people are experiencing today and do little about it.

Yeah, I would think it would be your duty as a Christian to hope and long and pray for somehow everybody to be reconciled to God. If you are really serious about evangelism, as I’m sure you friend would claim, and you wanted to save people from hell, then wouldn’t your hope be that everybody reconciles with God? Why would you hope for anything else? It would be your duty to long for that. I would actually ask questions about his salvation.

HT The ooze

Bell believes in hell on earth, so when he says he believes in hell, then really, he is considering hell on earth, is he not? And is it me telling lies, or is it just my interpretation of the words he spoke?

How about Universalism?

So this is reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross, he was reconciling “all things, in heaven and on earth, to God.” All things, everywhere.

This reality then isn’t something we make come true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making. (VE 146,)

This from velvet elvis, according to my reading is universalism. Though the shedding of Jesus’ blood was effective for everyone, everywhere, it is only efficient for those who repent and trust in Jesus. The greek word used in John 3:16 and other verses is pisteuo, and it means belief in, trust in, placing faith in, committing to, and entrusting oneself to. The requirement for salvation being efficatious for us is more than just believing in that reality. as Bell puts it. It is a matter of doing what God has commanded; to repent and believe.

390   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

PB,
On this issue with Rob Bell you seem to be using the same tactic as politicians – repeat a lie enough times and it become the truth…

Simply put, universal atonement is not the same as universalism. So either you’re just ignorant or deliberately slandering Bell. Either way, it’s getting old…

391   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

No one is rationalizing murder. Certainly not me. There comes a time, however, when we need to wake up and smell the coffee (or napalm). Legislating abortion rights IS NOT GOING TO STOP ABORTION

Hey this is great. With this postmodern logic, lets rewrite the laws.

Laws to stop drug abuse have clearly not worked, lets repeal them. Child pornography? Well, we really do not know where childhood begins or ends. And we really cannot stop it. Prostitution? hey, it is their body. Let them and the Johns do what they want. Murder? well, we should not try to regulate that, because people are still going to murder. Rape? shouldn’t a man be guided by his conscience? After all, we have laws against rape, and they do not seem to be working.

Yep. That logic works.

392   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

PB-
See my posts 261 and 284 and some of the comments in between.

Simply put: You are not understanding what you speak against.

393   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

390

Phil, where in the book I am holding does it make this differentation? It does not. Bell believes as he states that it is true for everybody…no matter what they believe.

It is not a lie, I am quoting his book. Please, if you can, place it into context with Bells words please.

394   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Both those posts fall short of truth, Chad.

But believe what you will, I will not convince you, but from those two, I believe you also are a Universalist.

395   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

The exact link for that thirdway article and the statistical findings on abortion is at http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/17/demographics_of_abortion.pdf

page 14 is particularly interesting. Says that 97% of all abortions happen outside the USA. Of those, 44% of them are done in countries where abortion is illegal.

Would a law against abortion be nice? Sure. But it most likely would not be permanent and wouldn’t do what we hope. The answer is not in getting your own brand of Messiah in the White House to effect the change you so desire.

396   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Both those posts fall short of truth, Chad.

But believe what you will, I will not convince you, but from those two, I believe you also are a Universalist.

Well, you are just a fool then, PB. And quite frankly I don’t care what your opinion is of me.

397   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

PB,
Well I’ll type slowly here, but what would be the point of Bell even encouraging Christians to say the following if he didn’t believe people needed to be reconciled to God?

Yeah, I would think it would be your duty as a Christian to hope and long and pray for somehow everybody to be reconciled to God.

I doubt that he would even bother being a pastor if he thought everyone was automatically going to be reconciled to God. As far as everyone being reconciled to God, that is true. The work has already been done. Whether or not we choose to walk in this is up to us having the faith to believe it.

I mean this has been discussed ad nauseum here, so to go around again and again seems rather pointless.

398   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

So the answer is to get your brand of Messiah in the white house?

I think not. But we shall soon see. 1 abortion is one too many. 4000 is a stench in the nostrils of God. God Bless America? He has. but I will not be surprised at all when it stops.

399   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

So the answer is to get your brand of Messiah in the white house?

*sigh* Not only are you a fool but you are obviously illiterate.

400   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

The fact is that what bell says and what Chad says fall short in this way, according to Jesus’ own words, found in John 3:16-18:

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

We are not already reconciled, we are already condemned unless we pisteuo-believe (trust in, place faith in, entrust our salvation to), Jesus. This means that if you do not do this, you are not reconciled, or in an unrecognized state of reconciliation, you are in a state of condemnation.

401   Bo Diaz    
November 10th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Does anyone still wonder why we say Pastorboy slanders and lies? Yet another example.

Is someone who claims to be a pastor in the church who publicly and often lies a stench in the nostrils of God? Or is God’s nose only offended by sins that aren’t committed by ODMs?

402   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Would a law against abortion be nice? Sure. But it most likely would not be permanent and wouldn’t do what we hope. The answer is not in getting your own brand of Messiah in the White House to effect the change you so desire.

Can I take this is chunks?

Would a law against abortion be nice? Sure. But it most likely would not be permanent and wouldn’t do what we hope

.

To me, this argument is irrelevant. If Obama passes legislation that makes abortion easier to get (and he has said that he will) and I voted for him then I believe I have committed a grave error. Yes, I realize what I am saying about my friends and brothers and sisters whom I love. I realize that some if not many will be offended by what they will take as my condemning tone but I feel this is an issue that has a line and I must decide where I am standing in relation to that line.

The answer is not in getting your own brand of Messiah in the White House to effect the change you so desire.

This is a true statement. What concerns me is there are many people who seem to be embracing Obama as the answer to questions that only Jesus is the answer for. I am not saying this is you at Chad.
I think there are many people who got way upset over religious leaders lending their public support to Bush and other republicans and now they are doing the same thing to Obama.

The truth is there comes a point in all of this where I think Christians lose sight of the fact that there hope is not in the economic plan of the Political party but in the spilled blood of Jesus Christ. Our hope is not in a American of African descent who promises to bring change, but in a God/man of Davidic descent who promised to change us.

403   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Chris L-
PB is illustrating beautifully why I have had such a hard time reading some of the things you have been saying as of late. PB thinks Rob Bell is Satan (or the antichrist) because he cannot imagine any good coming out of someone who doesn’t line up perfectly with his own doctrinal idols. While we all agree Bell is not a universalist there are many who call him such (PB). Would it be fair for everyone to call him a universalist since some misguided people do? Of course not.

You have done the same thing with Obama. You can’t mention a post about him without calling him “Messiah” or “The One,” just like PB can’t talk about Bell without calling him a Universalist or a heretic. You both are wrong to do so.

Furthermore, you, like PB, cant imagine any good coming out of Obama because he is pro-choice. In fact, you have gone so far as to say you wish his entire presidency is an “abject failure” through and through and that you will only pray for his health and nothing else.

Please explain to me how it is that you have not become what you hate in PB and other ODM’s? I’d really like to be able to defend you in that regard when the wolves circle again.

404   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Not only are you a fool but you are obviously illiterate.

well, what does Jesus say?

Mt 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

405   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Well, since we’re throwing out verses. Poor Paul, he wouldn’t be allowed in John’s little club.

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

406   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Joe,

#402, beautifully said.

Now if we can just get you off the Yankees, you will be complete! :)

407   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

“I do not begrudge them that vote for vindication.”

Are you saying that alone would be reason enough to vote for a candidate…even without considering or knowing the candidate’s platform?

408   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

PB-
That has been addressed already and the answer I gave in post 284 answers that. It seems pointless to explain again to you very simple theological concepts. You just don’t get it.

409   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

We are not already reconciled, we are already condemned unless we pisteuo-believe (trust in, place faith in, entrust our salvation to), Jesus. This means that if you do not do this, you are not reconciled, or in an unrecognized state of reconciliation, you are in a state of condemnation.

The only problem is that in John 3:16 and the immediate context, Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, so when He is talking about those who do not believe, He is speaking specifically of the Jews who will face the soon coming judgment. They will be condemned, and in fact already are.

You can’t separate the Gospels from their eschatological underpinnings. Jesus was announcing not only hope for Israel, but proclaiming imminent judgment because of their prolonged and willful disobedience.

410   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Ha! Never happen. :)

411   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

PB: re. 404….

you are a fool.

412   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Are you saying that alone would be reason enough to vote for a candidate…even without considering or knowing the candidate’s platform?

Keith-
I am saying that I do not begrudge them a vote for vindication.

My hunch is that many, many Americans cast votes without a clue about platforms.

413   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Well #405 Joe is misquoted, taken out of context, et.al by you, Chad, and Bell.

read the Greek, it is clear that Paul; is speaking about the church, the saints, those for whom Christ died. He did not die to reconcile dogs, cats, and those who would not repent and believe. He is reconciling those who trust Him alone on earth, and trusted in Him before He came, like Abraham, and David, and countless other Old Testament believers.

Get a concordance, a commentary, a lexicon. You will see it is true. Actually, ask the Holy Spirit to give you illumination. He will guide you in all truth.

414   Eric Van Dyken    
November 10th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Chad,

You said: “I do not begrudge them that vote for vindication. In fact, I rejoice with them in it.” That reflects a very Christ-like attitude.

It appears as though the crux of your argument is that since one has been somehow disenfranchised, disadvantaged, or abused in some way, then the indivudual is justified to turn around and inflict the same on another. I’ll just say that you’ll not be winning any ethics debates with that line of thinking.

What you seem not to want to recognize is that evil is evil, no matter how you couch it. You seem to want to couch evils such as racism and murder (abortion) in sympathetic terms and thus justify them.

If you had a child that came home and told you that he got in trouble for kicking and punching a person in class, but that he didn’t think he should get in trouble because he has been kicked and punched before, how would you respond? To be consistent with your previous line of reasoning you’d have to give the kid a free pass, and maybe even pat him on the back.

Your use of the term “hell” to describe what you feel an entire race has experienced for the last 400 years is unfortunate. The Bible describes hell as far more heinous than anything an individual or class of people can experience here on earth. In fact, the Bible teaches that we will all endure suffering here on earth, but that the pathway to glory is through suffering. Christ gave us the ultimate example of enduring suffering.

Racism against others is not justified by claiming victim status. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” comes to mind.

415   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

409 Phil

John 3:16 Jesus brings it from the Jews to the whole world (kosmos gr.) In this transition, he shows the whole world as being condemned, the Jew and the Gentile.

416   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

#411

I guess you do not fear God, Chad.

I am a fool, for Christ. And to be called a fool? Okay by me. Examine yourself, Chad. I am not insulting anybody. It is the one with a weak argument that must go on a personal attack.

417   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

PB,
You’re a piece of work. Actually, you’re making that piece of Scripture say almost exactly the opposite of what it’s saying. Look at verse 17:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Also, note, Jesus has pretty much only ministered to Jews up to this point, so Jews were the only ones who have had a chance to believe in Him. Unbelieving Jews are the ones who stand condemned – at least condemned in the sense of it coming from God.

Your attempt to twist Scripture into your own neat little theological box is quite stunning.

418   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Eric –

Casting a vote for a black candidate is not the same as “kicking and punching” a kid in revenge.

419   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Eric,

Huh? Really…huh? That was one big pot of gobbly gook logic.

I’m sure I missed something but your claims against Chad and what you wrote don’t seem to make sense.

420   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Look at all three verses: It does not say Israel, it says Kosmos.

God’s plan? To save the world. (kosmos)
God’s solution: Send Christ
Man’s response? Believe (trust in) or be condemned.

It does not say for God so loved Israel, it says God so loved the world (kosmos) which includes but is not limited to Israel.

421   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

PB is reading scripture through is theological lens (Calvinism) rather than through the OT.

422   Eric Van Dyken    
November 10th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Chris,

“I’m sure I missed something”

I’m sure you did as well.

Chad,

The same? No, never said it was. Analagous? Yes.

The bottom line is that you are attempting to defend racist attitudes and actions. That is a rather untenable position.

423   amy    
November 10th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Sorry, maybe I just need to get more comfortable rationalizing away murder. It would probably help me sleep better, blissfully careless of the blobs of tissue tossed out for convenience sake.

See, this is where you lose me, Chris, and you start to sound just like the ODM’s you consistently speak out against.

Since when do only ODM”s talk about abortion the way Chris is, Chad?

424   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

My hunch is that many, many Americans cast votes without a clue about platforms.

Boy, you slobbered a bib full there!! (Okie translation= “You said a mouthful” = “True”

All the more reason for a Voter IQ Test to be eligible to vote. A voter should be able to at least name the candidates and CORRECT running mates, as well as, generally stating at least one of the candidate’s platforms. I would also be in favor of requiring some type of voter ID for all states. (I’d like to also require some type of literacy test, e.g. being able to read the Gettysburg Address within 3 minutes–278 words by my count, shouldn’t be too tough, although a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of 10th grade may be a stretch for some. I’d be willing to give this one up for voter ID)

Just some thoughts; not looking for agreement or argument.

425   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

FYI: My Calvinistic “theological lenses” are bi-focals.
(Just trying to keep it light.)

426   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

All the more reason for a Voter IQ Test to be eligible to vote. A voter should be able to at least

name the candidates and CORRECT running mates, as well as, generally stating at least one of the candidate’s platforms. I would also be in favor of requiring some type of voter ID for all states. (I’d like to also require some type of literacy test, e.g. being able to read the Gettysburg Address within 3 minutes–278 words by my count, shouldn’t be too tough, although a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of 10th grade may be a stretch for some. I’d be willing to give this one up for voter ID)

Translation: All those who don’t agree with me must be stupid therefore we need to have a litmus test.

I don’t know sounds a bit Jim Crow to me.

427   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

#423

Chad,

I am not a Calvainist, though I do tend to be more reformed in my theology than you.

428   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

All the more reason for a Voter IQ Test to be eligible to vote. A voter should be able to at least name the candidates and CORRECT running mates, as well as, generally stating at least one of the candidate’s platforms. I would also be in favor of requiring some type of voter ID for all states. (I’d like to also require some type of literacy test, e.g. being able to read the Gettysburg Address within 3 minutes–278 words by my count, shouldn’t be too tough, although a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of 10th grade may be a stretch for some. I’d be willing to give this one up for voter ID)

I would settle for someone who is alive and has a verifiable residence in the state.

429   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Chris: I’m sorry you misinterpreted my comments. One of the dangers of the internet. Chad (and obviously you) don’t agree with me and I have NEVER called or thought you were stupid.

430   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Chris: Your “Jim Crow” comment tries to imply I’m aiming my comments only at blacks. UNTRUE. There are PLENTY of other races that I would include, but then this election wasn’t about race…

431   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

PB is reading scripture through is theological lens (Calvinism) rather than through the OT.

Really?

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

Genesis 22:18 “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Acts 3:25 “It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’

Galatians 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”

I would prefer it to be called a systematic approach.

432   M.G.    
November 10th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

PB,

I’m curious. Is Martin Luther in heaven despite his unrepentant anti-semitism? Or did he show himself to be unredeemed like Obama?

433   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

MG

It is not my place to say who is in heaven and who is in Hell.

But, unless you repent you will likewise perish.

434   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

I have come to believe that Rob Bell is a sincere Christian, a family man, engaged in missions and humanitarian efforts, and in no way reflects some of the sinister portrals with which some have painted him. I disagree with his direction and some of his teachings concerning the essence of eternity for both the lost and the saved, but I have grown weary of hearing a constant flow of incendiary and provocative verbiage that is careless, graceless, and is counter productive to any legitimate discourse as borthers.

The beating a dead horse image seems to be what amuses and consumes many in the ODM world at the expense of devotion to Christ and humility about our own standing in grace. John – you have your opinion about Rob Bell, but it is unchristian to throw him under the bus on a blog where he is the pastor of some of the commentors. I consider that bad form and satifying to your flesh, but not the Spirit.

Sometimes you have good and wholesome points of discussion, other times you seem like you graduated from the Chris P. college of blog disruption.

435   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

I would prefer it to be called a systematic approach.

Well, which is the problem. Systematic theology often misses the forest for the trees.

It seems those verses you are quoting are backing up the point I’m making – Jesus isn’t saying God is condemning the whole world in John 3, He’s saying He’s offering rescue. The would is already condemned because of the effects of the Fall.

The whole point is that you keep on saying that Bell is somehow a universalist, even when there is ample proof to the contrary. Read his newest book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians, and it’s abundantly clear. You’re choosing to slander the man just because he’s describing the Gospel in terms that don’t fit your narrow Reformed view.

436   M.G.    
November 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

PB,

Unless I repent of what?

437   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Rick,

I will never be able to measure up to your standard.

I guess using ones own words is out of bounds in trying to determine one stance or another. It seems to me that saying that Bell should be accountable for what He writes and says and the varied interpretations of it on this blog is tantamount to a reporter from Fox quoting Barack Obama and being demonized because they use a quote that is very clear in its meaning, but has had to be spun out of recognition so as to mean something different.

I guess it depends what team you are on.
Some are with McClaren, others with Bell, some are of Pagitt, others of Piper.

I am of Christ.

438   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

MG,

sin.

439   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

435,

He is offering rescue, but for those who will not ‘grab the rope’ as it were, they will not be saved, for they are condemned already.

The offer of salvation goes to everybody, for Jesus’ blood was sufficient to reconcile the whole world. But, not everyone will be saved. There is the difference. Man can refuse the offer, and stands condemned, not reconciled.

440   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Man can refuse the offer, and stands condemned, not reconciled.

This is almost to the point of being a matter of semantics, and it’s really ridiculous that you’re trying to use it prove something about Bell being a univeralist.

If Jesus paid the entire debt of sin on the cross, then the work is done, no other payment is necessary. What you’re describing is very close to saying that salvation is dependent on what we do.

The more ironic thing is that a good Reformed Evangelical would say that Jesus was slain “since the foundation of the world”, thus making the Atonement a timeless event. So saying that the act of salvation takes place when we repent has other problems then.

441   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

No one is rationalizing murder. Certainly not me.

Maybe you’ve not been reading what you’ve been rationalizing re: Obama the past few months…

Legislating abortion rights IS NOT GOING TO STOP ABORTION.

True, but it will stop a lot of them, which is a good start. Removing a bad judicial decision that makes abortion a “right” will put the issue back where it belongs – in the legislature.

Let’s just look at parental notification – Claire’s Botique has to have my permission to pierce my daughter’s ears, the local tattoo parlor forbids giving her a tattoo if I’m not present and granting my permission, but if a school counselor wants to take her to get an abortion there’s no legal reason I have to know – or parental right to stop her.

If she has an abortion and the baby’s accidentally born alive (which happens rarely), The One would just prefer the baby die than be given life-saving treatment, lest Roe be threatened.

But hey, I guess I’m just not ‘nuanced’ enough to see that murder isn’t murder and to think that the government out to fulfill one of its two (justice & self-defense) God-given responsibilities – justice on the behalf of truly the least of these.

See, this is where you lose me, Chris, and you start to sound just like the ODM’s you consistently speak out against.

Speaking out against utter undeniable sin is not a behavior limited to ODM’s.

In actuality, it underscores a truth I’ve generally tried to espouse – that supporting what is truly biblical is likely to place you in direct opposition with both the traditionalists (be they Pharisees or Fundies) and the liberalists (be they Herodians or Emergent), because you won’t sell out to the desire to be legalistic (in the name of “obedience” and “discernment”) or to be spineless (in the name of “love” and “tolerance”). I believe this is the tack that Jesus took – to the disappointment of many – and that it is the one I should attempt to take (though I’m not even nearly as good at it).

This is why I can agree with you on the sound but challenging teaching of Rob Bell, but disagree with you vehemently on supporting pro-choice politicians – while doing the reverse with PB. Certainly you’re likely to be invited to fewer parties, but life isn’t a popularity contest.

There are plenty of countries that have made abortion illegal and they still have tons of them each year

And there are plenty of countries that outlaw other types of murder, and they still have tons of them each year. To argue for moral abdication in search of a full loaf is a loser’s gambit. No thanks.

It is only when we begin changing people’s hearts…

It’s not an either-or proposition. You can outlaw abortions AND work on changing hearts. Trying to force it into an either-or is a sucker’s choice. No thanks.

The answer is not in getting your own brand of Messiah in the White House to effect the change you so desire.

The truth is there comes a point in all of this where I think Christians lose sight of the fact that there hope is not in the economic plan of the Political party but in the spilled blood of Jesus Christ. Our hope is not in a American of African descent who promises to bring change, but in a God/man of Davidic descent who promised to change us.

Wise words, Joe. I do not find hope in politics – I just see tools that can be used for or against the kingdom.

Furthermore, you, like PB, cant imagine any good coming out of Obama because he is pro-choice.

It goes beyond “pro-choice”, but it need not. I don’t think I could have voted for Guiliani, either, though his policies apart from abortion would have been much better than 0’s (or McCain’s, in some cases). When I look at Obama, I just see a slick-talking, Marxist crook from S Chicago, like many of the others that have slithered out of there into the NW corner of my state. “Change”, by itself, does not imply a direction, and “hope” isn’t a strategy.

All the more reason for a Voter IQ Test to be eligible to vote. A voter should be able to at least name the candidates and CORRECT running mates, as well as, generally stating at least one of the candidate’s platforms. I would also be in favor of requiring some type of voter ID for all states.

IQ testing is too problematic, and can be discriminatory. I’d just like to see a) voter ID to prove residence and to be required at the polls; b) a master database to prevent voting in multiple states/counties, and c) proof of life.

442   M.G.    
November 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm

PB,

Why would you accuse me of not being a Christian? I am one thank you.

Anyway, I don’t see the distinction between refusing to opine on Martin Luther, but then declaring that if Obama were to die today of a heart attack, he would go straight to hell.

443   Bo Diaz    
November 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

I see that Pastorboy is again trying to decide who is in and who is out of the kingdom of God based on “by their fruits..”, interesting that neither Pastorboy nor any of the ODMs themselves make the cut based on that reasoning.

444   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Chris L.
I’m still interested to hear a response to post 385 and 403.

thanks

445   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Chad,

The same? No, never said it was. Analagous? Yes.

The bottom line is that you are attempting to defend racist attitudes and actions. That is a rather untenable position.

Eric,
Sorry, I fail to see how they are analagous at all. I fail to see how physically hurting someone in revenge is the same as casting a vote for a black person.

446   pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

#442

MG
I didn’t say that you were not a Christian. I was not even addressing you when saying repent. I was quoting Jesus in Luke 13. And the you is everyone; Unless people repent they will perish. I don’t care if you are Pope Benedict, Martin Luther, Rick Warren, or Bo Diaz. You must repent or you will perish.

And repentin does not stop when one becomes a Christian, MG.

Bo Diaz

Were it not for the grace of God, I would not make the cut. I am no better than any non-believer. Just better off.

447   nc    
November 10th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Actually parent-notification tends to increase the chance of an abortion for underage women who are pregnant.

448   pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

#447

And dating increases the chance of date rape. Since there is no Parental notfication laws there, would that change the statistic?

449   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

How do you rationalize showing pity or grace to the women who actually DECIDE to murder their kids while you demonize the ones who give them that right to choose?

Some decisions are made in a sterile environment, apart from personal involvement. Others are made under extreme duress. In this particular case, the impersonal policy decisions have much wider repercussions (going beyond 1 life to hundreds of thousands of lives) than an individual decision made under duress. This ‘duress’ situation may vary in extreme (ranging from physical danger to the life of the mother to economic stress to ‘this would stunt my career’), which is why I would moderate the sympathy involved.

Please do note, though, my entire quote:
I’ve got little compassion to spare when compared to the compassion for the life they take.

But I’ll tell you what – I’ll work to adjust your perception of my relative sympathy when I get the feeling that you are far more offended by this

than you are of this:

450   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Furthermore, you, like PB, cant imagine any good coming out of Obama because he is pro-choice. In fact, you have gone so far as to say you wish his entire presidency is an “abject failure” through and through and that you will only pray for his health and nothing else.

Tell you what, I’ll amend it to “abject failure, apart from anything that is good for the kingdom of God…”

451   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

NC;
Number 447, are you referencing the Stanford study? I thought they threw that study b/c the method was bad. I’m unaware of any vetted research journal articles that support that claim. Can you point me to one?

452   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

You have turned into a pretty disturbed man, Chris L.

453   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

on some level doesn’t #447 really bring into focus what we’re talking about though? I mean that is what is happening. That is what we’re “debating.” It’s disturbing, yes. Shouldn’t it be?
I fear we’ve lost our way on the abortion issue b/c those who went before us handled the objective so poorly

454   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

I think I am going to wish you all well and take leave from this site. Chris L, who I take to be the “Messiah” of this site, has deeply disappointed me and I see no reason in continuing to be part of a community where he can apparently do no wrong.

Jerry – your last post was wonderful. I wish it conveyed the sentiments of the bulk of the writers here. Too bad you all can’t help your brother Chris L see where he has gone off the deep end.

peace out.

455   Bo Diaz    
November 10th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Were it not for the grace of God, I would not make the cut. I am no better than any non-believer. Just better off.

Ah, and there it is, the mealy mouthed double-speak of the follower of the “doctrines of grace”. You have no problem holding someone up for damning judgment, but when the same measuring stick is held up to you, its suddenly a different story.

At its core your soteriology is a theology of works.

456   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 10th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Pastorboy in 364: That blog has the subtle marks of satire. From your past experience with the word, I understand why you missed it.

Oh for the love of God, PB, get yourself educated on this issue so you can stop sounding like a blathering idiot everytime your fingers hit the keyboard.

No sh*t. I’m beginning to think PB types his responses without the aid of opposable thumbs, but rather claws of some sort.

How many blacks were filling the rallies in past Republican rallies? DMac or Spike Lee isn’t wrong to point that out. It was glaringly obvious in this election as well as in past elections where there was no black candidate.

Chad, Republicans need desperately to believe that there are black people who think like them. They’re about as rare as unicorns, and they usually give off a shining veneer of self-hatred (like Alan “the abortion” Keyes), but I will grant that they do exist…

On this note, I was VERY SAD that the most qualified candidate in my view was not nominated…Condi Rice. I hope sincerely she makes a run in 2012.

Did you notice, PB, how Condi Rice did everything but endorse Barack Obama? When asked about Sarah Palin she damned her with faint praise. Might as well have complimented Palin’s earrings.

Yeah, PB – it’s called “birth control”, not “abortion” or “murder”. In America, every woman needs a right to a dead baby, not just an abortion (just in case the fetus is accidentally delivered alive, a clear case of abortitave malpractice). We’re much more civilized today – we no longer toss the infants into a blazing idol for the purpose of personal prosperity. We do it in the privacy of a “doctor’s” office.

Oh god, Chris, I’m going to do this slowly:

If
an
abortion
results
in
a
viable
fetus
it’s
already
protected
under
the
law.

I swear to god, this is why no one can make any progress on this issue: the right-to-lifers insist on believing insane crap.

And since BO’s not an abortionist, he’s not a murderer – in the same way as the German Christian families who watched the Jews being rounded up and sent off w/o comment weren’t guilty of anything, either.

Except that BO’s abortion policies have been proven time and time again to do more to reduce the abortion rate than so-called “pro-life” policies, but you people actually don’t give a sh*t about the babies anyway. It’s just more of your sensationalized “world’s out to get me” paranoia, and no doctors will back up the crap your people spew, because it’s all based on malignant lies. Putting up disgusting pictures of fetuses doesn’t have any effect on anyone in society except the stupidest, most retarded among us.

If only I would be rational and toss up my hands and say “‘hey’ – the government’s not Christian so why should I expect it to protect the lives of its citizens?”

But you don’t care about the welfare of the living, so I know you’re a liar when you wax emotionally moralistic about the unborn.

I could go all day with such a list. So when you ask how a black person can be morally justified to vote for a black candidate just because they are black I submit to you 400 years of hell that they have endured – hell that was administered by the hands of white men. This is why I said your comments sounds like something from a person who has never had a boot on their neck.

The thing, though, is that black people don’t always vote for the black candidate. They’re not as stupid as white Republicans want them (need them) to be. In my city this year, in our Democratic primary, they chose the white Jew over the young black woman by an 87% margin. They also laugh people like Alan Keyes off the stage. They’re not stupid.

There comes a time, however, when we need to wake up and smell the coffee (or napalm). Legislating abortion rights IS NOT GOING TO STOP ABORTION.

Spoken like the grown-up in the conversation.

Would a law against abortion be nice? Sure. But it most likely would not be permanent and wouldn’t do what we hope.

The abortion rate would go down for about five minutes while a black market develops, abortion would become more dangerous, and none of the root causes would be addressed. That’s the right-to-life movement’s end-game.

To me, this argument is irrelevant. If Obama passes legislation that makes abortion easier to get (and he has said that he will) and I voted for him then I believe I have committed a grave error.

But Joe, you’re really taking him out of context there. What Obama supports is making the services available, affordable and safe…but not just the abortion services, though: all of it. Family planning, healthcare, etc. Addressing those problems actually reduces the abortion rate. He does fundamentally disagree, as do a majority of Americans, with the premise that all abortion should be illegal. But he’s nowhere near as radical as right-to-lifers have made him out to be, mostly over a bill they refuse to understand.

You have done the same thing with Obama. You can’t mention a post about him without calling him “Messiah” or “The One,” just like PB can’t talk about Bell without calling him a Universalist or a heretic. You both are wrong to do so.

Furthermore, you, like PB, cant imagine any good coming out of Obama because he is pro-choice.

That’s because they’re exactly the same. I saw through the veil on that one months ago.

True, but it will stop a lot of them, which is a good start. Removing a bad judicial decision that makes abortion a “right” will put the issue back where it belongs – in the legislature.

Wrong. This is the repeatedly disproven myth that right-to-lifers drink up every, but it’s utter crap, according to all real experts on the issue.

If she has an abortion and the baby’s accidentally born alive (which happens rarely), The One would just prefer the baby die than be given life-saving treatment, lest Roe be threatened.

Wrong. Babies are not “accidentally born alive” during abortions. Occasionally a fetus that is NOT VIABLE ANYWAY (that’s a medical term for you right-to-lifers) will not have completely expired. Usually, though, in situations like this, the fetus has already died. Abortions that result in “born alive” babies are no longer abortions, because the law protects “born alive” babies. Obama’s opposition to the law was partly because Illinois state law ALREADY provides for ALL BABIES BORN ALIVE. It’s amazing the crap that a stupid unqualified, uneducated zealot nurse named Jill Stanek can inject into the national discourse, and how many people can be deceived by her.

And there are plenty of countries that outlaw other types of murder, and they still have tons of them each year. To argue for moral abdication in search of a full loaf is a loser’s gambit. No thanks.

Yes, but to support stupid policies that don’t work, just because they seem, in your head, like they should work, even though all the research shows that they don’t work, and that they may indeed contribute to the problem…well that’s just insane.

When I look at Obama, I just see a slick-talking, Marxist crook from S Chicago, like many of the others that have slithered out of there into the NW corner of my state.

Name one crime, Chris.

Also, the tossing around the term Marxist so flippantly doesn’t do what you think it does. It’s a buzzword, a catchphrase, a dogwhistle, and as usual with things like that, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. In other words, when academics who have actually studied these things hear you say that, they just smirk to themselves and roll their eyes.

Oh, and parental notification laws punish children who have been abused/raped by their fathers/brothers, etc.

457   nc    
November 10th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

PB,

Are you serious?

The point is that parents of underage women tend to encourage an abortion.

To all,

Let me be clear, I hate abortion. It’s evil.

Roe v. Wade is some holy grail that too easily becomes a “flash point” for both sides.

Also, the “exception” rule of rape, incest, life of mother represents realities that are incredibly rare…life of the mother is almost unheard of because of modern medicine.

As Christians, we believe God redeems our lives and can use all things for good. That’s why the rape/incest exception in particular does not make sense to me–in light of our theology.

That being said…

All that leads me to why I think churches should start pushing adoption–specifically targeted at women who might consider an abortion.

You don’t have the right to push for abortion bans, etc. and not be willing to start opening your homes to unwed mothers and/or taking their babies. It’s time for Christians to put their money where their mouths are instead of generating billions of dollars in revenue each year (per Barna’s research).

Finally, Late term abortions of any kind are particularly reprehensible to me. If you can get the kid to the last 3 months then take it all the way and adopt them out.

I also don’t think the rhetoric evidenced by Evan (no surprise) or Chris L (disappointing surprise) on this issue help any of us move toward some kind of solution that addresses the “whole” issue. (i.e. systemic and individual realities that drive it.) The need to demonize people on this is just dumb.

I’m jumping out of this fiasco now. There’s a bit too much jargon and, frankly, craziness coming out of both sides here. It’s clear this has become personal on a level that I don’t understand for some of you here–and in such a way that you haven’t helped me understand why.

Patience is clearly a deficiency of deficiencies for some here. I’ll hope ya’ll can work on it.

This issue is too important for petty name calling and unconstructive rhetoric. That’s the main reason we can’t get any traction on this issue.

458   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Chad,
Per #454 you never answered the question about the picture. I get it, you’re disappointed with Chris L. Truth be told, I’m not that big a fan of some of his decsions on this thread as I am sure he’s not that big of a fan of some of mine on others. I’m curious, are you lumping my disagreement with you into this whole “writers here” statement. That is an honest question.

Let’s be honest, Obama is going to make abortion more accessible to thousands of women.
His top advisors have confirmed that he is going to rescind the ban on using state money to fun abortions in other countries. How is that helping to reduce the number of abortions.
Obama’s past actions have not backed his rhetoric on abortion and I doubt seriously his future actions will match the rhetoric of his campaign either. If he pulls us out of the war and turns our entire country’s economy around. Helps all the poor people in the country not be poor, he’s still going to take our tax money and send it to other countries to help them become more adept at killing babies. At the end of the day I cannot get my brain around that one. I’m sorry, but I can’t.

459   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 10th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Why is not demonizing to call a 38yo woman who kills her husband a murderer but we’re demonizing the same woman if we call her that when she kills an unborn baby. I don’t understand that either.

460   Zan    
November 10th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

nc,

from the website cited above (http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/17/demographics_of_abortion.pdf), I found this…

In 2001, abortions were performed on 33 out of 10,000 teens in states with strict
parental consent laws.
• In 2001, abortions were performed on 39 out of 10,000 teens in states with
moderate parental notification laws.
• In 2001, abortions were performed on 63 out of 10,000 teens in states with no
August 30, 2005 The Demographics of Abortion
Third Way Issue Brief 15
consent/notification laws.*xxxvi
But as a percentage of overall abortions in each of these categories of states, teen
abortions are close to the same suggesting that consent and notification laws have little
impact on abortion.
In 2001, teens represented 17.6% of all abortions in states with strict parental
consent laws, 17.0% of all abortions in states with moderate parental notification laws,
and 19.1% of all abortions in states with no consent/notification laws.

So, it basically comes down to a parental right, which I would hope that you would see the discrepancy between ear-piercing/tattooing/surgery parental consent and the encroachment of our rights when it comes to our children. I would wonder how many of you have children. How many of you have felt the rustle in your abdomen of the growing, living being inside you. I have, over the years, come to believe that any woman who has born children but still believes that a fetus is just tissue has truly lost her humanity. Call me extremist, call me whatever you want, but when I think of Jesus sitting and beconing the young children to Him, and His gentleness and love He showed to them, I can’t condone a personal or political stance of anything less.

461   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 11:32 pm

The point is that parents of underage women tend to encourage an abortion.

Parental notification laws require that parents consent to an abortion. No notification is required for pregnancy – so this point seems irrelevant

Also, the “exception” rule of rape, incest, life of mother represents realities that are incredibly rare…life of the mother is almost unheard of because of modern medicine.

As Christians, we believe God redeems our lives and can use all things for good. That’s why the rape/incest exception in particular does not make sense to me–in light of our theology.

That’s why I’m not in favor of an “exception” clause, though I would take part of a loaf if I couldn’t have the whole loaf…

All that leads me to why I think churches should start pushing adoption–specifically targeted at women who might consider an abortion.

I definitely agree – and the churches I’ve attended the past 15 years have specifically done so, helping to set up and support ($ and time) ministries aimed specifically at these crisis pregnancies.

You don’t have the right to push for abortion bans, etc. and not be willing to start opening your homes to unwed mothers and/or taking their babies. It’s time for Christians to put their money where their mouths are instead of generating billions of dollars in revenue each year (per Barna’s research).

I fully agree, as well.

It’s clear this has become personal on a level that I don’t understand for some of you here–and in such a way that you haven’t helped me understand why.

It is personal specifically because I consider it to be cold blooded murder, and I find arguments like Evan’s and Chad’s to be either ignorant, insulting, full of non-existent ‘facts’ and disingenuous (in the former case) or inconsistent (in the latter case). Because I see it as murder, and because I take Jesus’ teaching seriously – particularly because of his ruling on the value of life in the parable of the Good Samaritan (where he was supporting the Oral Torah interpretation which demanded that all religious laws – apart from abstaining from worshiping other gods and from sexual sin – be jettisoned when faced with a life/death situation), I take abortion far more seriously than any other political issue. If the Dems were pro-life and socialistic, but the ‘Pubs were pro-death and free market, I would be forced by my conscience to go with the Dems. As it is, I agree with a number of Republican positions on economics and foreign policy (and disagree with some as well), but that is all secondary to the support of murder.

Like it or not, most Americans are law-abiding citizens, and if abortion were illegal in their state of residence, a large number would not pursue it. The pre-1973 and post-1973 statistics bear this out. I do believe that the church bears a huge responsibility in caring for all children – wanted and unwanted – and I would agree that their history of caring beyond passage of laws has been spotty. However, I believe that it is ready, willing and able to step forward and meet that challenge.

462   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Chad: Just an observation, but returning to my comment (#341)–I think a lot of this thread, including your decision to bail is based on “winning the argument.” Both sides have stated their case. After 450+ comments, you’re disappointed that everyone else hasn’t declared you/your opinion as “right.” Then you resort to comments like: “You have turned into a pretty disturbed man, Chris L.” Because he doesn’t see things the same way as you?

You believe your sources and opinion are the most valid just as much as Evan, Chris L or myself believe the same about our opinions/sources. Calling someone “disturbed” doesn’t negate what we honestly belief to be true.

I think you’ve allowed this thread to become too personal. Maybe you should take a break from here…I’ve been hanging around here for a while and if this thread bothers you, man you ain’t seen nothin’!

463   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 10th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

I’ve been hanging around here for a while and if this thread bothers you, man you ain’t seen nothin’!

Oh, Keith, let’s not get back to talking about hair-styles ;)

464   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 11:47 pm

#459–good question, Joe.

465   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
November 10th, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Chris L: Heck, I wish I HAD a hair-style these days!!! Turning 50, and balding in the same year ain’t no fun.

466   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 11th, 2008 at 12:46 am

Abortion is murder – period. If you believe tha great, if you don’t I cannot convince you. It is not my calling as a Christ follower to convince people that abortion is wrong, it is my command, from the lips of the Master, to preach His gospel. That issue is usually conspicuously absent in moral debates.

As for being “disappointed” with this one or that one, I usually am most disappointed with one called Rick Frueh. He is the hypocrite I know best.

467   Neil    
November 11th, 2008 at 1:51 am

I swear to god, this is why no one can make any progress on this issue: the right-to-lifers insist on believing insane crap.

I believe it should be illegal for a pregnant woman to have her unborn child killed… if that’s insane… well call me “Crazy!”

468   pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am

#467 I guess I am crazy also

469   John Hughes    
November 11th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Well this has been an interesting ride but

No sh*t. I’m beginning to think PB types his responses without the aid of opposable thumbs, but rather claws of some sort.

The ad homin attacks have gotten out of hand and a double standard is becoming evident as Evan has not been warned or moderated.

470   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 11th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

John,

To be brutally honest, I tend to ignore most of evan’s comments any more, as he discredits himself so quickly (as noted) with insults, ad homenims, etc.

Maybe it’s a double-standard, and in fact it probably is, but I tend to hold those who should know better (i.e. that they take the Bible to be God’s word and a guide to behavior, and not just a nice set of suggestions) to a higher standard of behavior. When I’ve caught language issues (as with his first postings here), I’ve made it clear what is & isn’t acceptable. At the same time, it is hard for me to issue a warning while in the midst of a debate w/o appearing to have ulterior motives.

So – evan, John’s complaint (and other back-channel ones) are duly noted, so please back off the personal insults & ad homenims, language, etc. You’re welcome to post, but if you want to stay unmoderated and taken seriously, you’ll accept this feedback from the community.

Thanks…

471   amy    
November 13th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Chris L,

I thought you might like to read this:

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/604698668.html

472   nc    
November 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I just read that article and then threw up a little in my mouth.

Talk about GIGO.

473   nc    
November 13th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

I mean, nevermind that statistically it’s been confirmed that it was the “black vote” in California whose high turnout ensured the passage of Prop 8.

Yeah…they’re all just an unprincipled race fixated monolith.

sheeeeeyeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

474   amy    
November 13th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Ninety-six percent of black voters supported Barack Obama and the majority of these voters were influenced by black preachers to put race ahead of their country and their faith,” said Rev. Peterson.

I don’t know anything about this Rev. Peterson but I would guess that he might have some idea of what he’s talking about.

475   amy    
November 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Yeah…they’re all just an unprincipled race fixated monolith.

That’s overkill on what Rev. Peterson was saying.

I mean, nevermind that statistically it’s been confirmed that it was the “black vote” in California whose high turnout ensured the passage of Prop 8.

That doesn’t surprise me at all.

By the way it would be interesting to hear you explain what principle guided you to vote for someone to spite someone else. (My understanding about why you voted for Obama.)

476   John Hughes    
November 13th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Hey Break the Terror,

What are your thoughts on the terrorist raid on the church in Lansing, MI?

477   nc    
November 13th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Amy,

it’s called the “rebuke” part of the christian journey that ODM’s and the like only appreciate when it doesn’t apply to themselves, their high-minded moralisms, and their sin of nationalism and their revisionist lies about American history and “mission” in the world.

the other principle that says that competent government of a pluralist society is not predicated on getting 2 moral issues right that have little to nothing to do with the daily running of said government.

It’s called justice for making the mission harder for principled conservatives and ministries who cringe at the rhetoric of national evangelical voices.

It’s called the tearing down of idols and critiquing the acting like the end of the world is upon us because of one person. He’s just a man, with flaws and virtues.

So, no it’s not spite. It’s reaping what was sowed. And I rejoice for the Church’s shame. Yep, you read that right. My hope is that this will be the impetus to stand on our convictions, but to position ourselves as that voice which comes with powerful rebuke to both parties and to clearly communicate that NO party can consider us their base.

478   John Hughes    
November 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Now, where did you get to little comment? Oh there you are:

After delving into the issues, researching the candidates and finding I could overlook certain glaring faults like Obama’s support for abortion, I ended up considering overall the good outweighed the bad, and after much introspection and prayer I voted for Obama . I voted for the man because I hate the arrogance of the church, My vote was to rebuke evangelicals – nc

I thought I felt a sharp stinging sensation on my cheek last Tuesday.

479   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 13th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

What are your thoughts on the terrorist raid on the church in Lansing, MI?

Well living in Michigan I have a few thoughts on the whole story as well as a few thoughts on Mount Hope church. But you didn’t ask me so I’ll refrain.

480   nc    
November 13th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

It’s interesting…

My reasons for voting are grounded in a legitimate theological concern that speaks to the framework in which we offer our “cultural engagement”…

but somehow that’s deficient…

But not wrestling with the betrayal of the Gospel that is the being co-opted by any political party is totally cool.

Got it.

481   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 4:22 am

Who did the “terrorists” hurt?

Nobody?

Thought so.

Also, Chris ignores my comments because he’s a little middle-management child with “little man” syndrome, he can’t make a coherent argument in my direction, and I make him look stupid.

Lots of people unhappy with him right now.

I will say, though, that if I’ve been snippy with anyone else in a comment where I also responded to Chris, I’m sorry, because it’s all directed toward him.

482   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 4:23 am

Oh, but kudos on calling it a “terrorist attack.” Way to display the typical Fundamentalist victim mentality.

483   Break The Terror    http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 4:27 am

And with that said, I think I’ll make like Chad and stop posting here.

Let the little zealot argue with himself from now on.

484   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 14th, 2008 at 6:26 am

I suspected as much, Chris Lyons (aka “The Little Zealot) is the source of all my problems and when he expresses his views it interferes with and frustrates my empirical evidence that supports my unassailable view.

Oh that Chris Lyons, he wields such power! :roll:

PS – After seeing pictures of Chris on a youth retreat, I believe the adjective “little” is ill advised. :)

485   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 8:31 am

Hey Break the Terror,

What are your thoughts on the terrorist raid on the church in Lansing, MI?

Okay Evan answered so now my thoughts…

I caught wind of this via a friend who attends Mount Hope.

All of the frenzy being whipped up by the bloggers is quite frankly lies. Which I know is hard to believe but they are flat out lying. According to the press release from the church:

The group threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted sentiments such as, “It’s
okay to be gay” and “Jesus was a homo” during a Sunday morning service. The Eaton County
Sheriff’s office was called and the illegal demonstration ceased.
Mount Hope churchgoers were unclear as to what the purpose of the demonstration was. One
churchgoer commented on the “lack of civility” in the demonstration and said, “There must be a
better way for this group to advance their perceived cause.”
The group’s blog states that they were “targeting a well known anti-queer, anti-choice, radical
right wing establishment” and stated that they would have a “militant” looking presence outside
of the building.</

Calling it a terrorist attack and playing the blogging equivalent of the telephone game is disingenous, harmful, and again, lying. You know, lying, one of the big Ten (no not the conference)?

486   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 9:02 am

While calling it a terrorist attack is quite disingenuous, I would say they used terrorist tactics. They did have a coordinated attack with the purpose of at the very least disruption and at the most to cause a scene in which churchgoers were to hopefully respond in a violent way.

What is disgusting to me as an evangelist who loves free speech is that the message of the Gospel, the message of love and peace with God is silenced on public property while the violent perverse message of these homosexuals is not punished on private property. Even the way that Prop 8 crowds terrorized an eighty year old woman, assaulting her and stomping on her cross while she was silent was never prosecuted or stopped.

We hear cries from these groups of acceptance and tolerance, but their actions and attacks on Christianity show that the only tolerance they desire is one that accepts their acts and their morality while attempting to silence those who hold a different view. That is NOT tolerance.

487   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
November 14th, 2008 at 9:28 am

PS – After seeing pictures of Chris on a youth retreat, I believe the adjective “little” is ill advised.

I’m not sure what youth retreat photos are floating around, but most any photos of me floating around will validate your assertion… It’s sad how just looking at food sometimes results in absorption of calories…

What are your thoughts on the terrorist raid on the church in Lansing, MI?

I would also agree that “terrorist raid” is not a good description. It does boggle the mind, though, that groups protest churches that don’t fit in with their worldview (also bringing to mind the feminists picketing in front of Mars Hill (Seattle), because Driscoll won’t allow women in positions of authority over men…

488   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am

PB,

Agreed! However I do believe that these people are at least being investigated for disturbance of the peace and public nuisance.

I’ve also never heard of a street evangelist being prosecuted in the United States. I may be mistaken but I don’t think that’s happened.

489   pastoraldude    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am

chris,
my good friend Shawn Holes is being charged with trespassing for passing out gospel tracts on public property

490   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 14th, 2008 at 10:24 am

my good friend Shawn Holes is being charged with trespassing for passing out gospel tracts on public property

What was the property?

491   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am

How can someone be charged with trespassing on public property?

I believe the woman attacked at the pro-gay rally was 69 not 80.

It would be a good show if Mount Hope did not persue pressing any charges.

492   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am

PB,
I assume you’re referring to what’s described on this blog post.

A state university campus is not exactly public property, although I’ve seen a lot of people handing out tracts here (at PSU). It doesn’t surprise me that universities would try to limit it. A lot of those things end up on the ground.

493   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am

This is why we need to remember there are two sides to every story… Not that I am a fan of the “Lawman” but the video and his commentary shed a bit more light on the situation than just saying “Shawn Holes is being charged with trespassing for passing out gospel tracts on public property.”

LINK

494   amy    
November 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am

#477
I think it would have been simpler and more accurate to simply say,

“It’s called blindness.”

or

“It’s called trying to justify evil.”

495   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am

Amy,

So you think Chirstians who voted for Obama were/are blind? That giving reasons for doing so is simply justifying evil?

Neil

496   amy    
November 14th, 2008 at 11:36 am

Neil,
I think that this is blind:

I voted for the man because I hate the arrogance of the church, My vote was to rebuke evangelicals

And the reasons given for doing so also show blindness, and a willingness to justify evil.

Along the same lines of your question you could ask nc if those in the church who voted for Obama, or at least didn’t speak out against him or what he stands for, are somehow not to be classed as part of the “arrogant church.”

497   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am

I think you just did…

498   pastoraldude    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 11:57 am

It is disingenuos to say that one type of speech should be disimigrated against because you don’t like the speech. Free speech and expression of religion is guaranteed in our constitution. Universities funded by tax dollars are public property, though you cannot disturb classes or other normal functions. This was not the case at USD they were outside and just passing out literature to those who would take it.

499   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 14th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

I believe the woman attacked at the pro-gay rally was 69 not 80.

Well, that makes it all better

500   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

So you diagree with the Lawman’s Blog when he wrote:

The brothers in this video were not persecuted for their faith in Christ. They were arrested for violating the law. Had they been Avon ladies handing out free samples of their products, or members of a political action group collecting signatures on a petition, or members of PETA decrying the treatment of yellow-belly, sap-sucking, three-toed lizards (I don’t think such a creature exists) and behaved the same way, they would have been arrested.

And

The evangelist’s attitude toward those in authority was less than stellar. Finger-pointing, veiled threats of a lawsuit, and his sarcastic, prideful tone when he tried to “school” the officers on the law did not glorify Christ and did nothing to help his case…In my humble, albeit fallible opinion, I believe the evangelists erred both legally and spiritually.

501   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Well, that makes it all better

All I meant to do was lessen the hyperbole…

502   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 14th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

PB,
Did you even read the article Neil linked to? The university has a right to limit where and in what manner things like tracts can be passed out, despite the fact it is a public university or not. There are plenty of things you can’t do on a university campus. The fact that they are partially publically funded means very little (and actually when you look at most state universities a relatively small percentage of their total budget comes from public funding anymore).

At Penn State, even as a registered student group, when we registered for an information table, we couldn’t hand out stuff without having it pre-approved. Now an individual student could probably actually have more freedom, but it’s not like the university just singled out Christians.

503   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

This was not the case at USD they were outside and just passing out literature to those who would take it.

According to the Lawman’s Blog the University has a specific policy designed to protect students and upheld by the courts… the Evangelists not only appear to have ignored and violated the policies, they became belligerent when they were asked to abide by them.

504   amy    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

I only watched a few minutes of the evangelists’ video.

The whining about the camera (from the evangelist guy) was not impressive. It’s a shame when some people come across as more American (”I want my rights!”) than Christian.

505   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Now an individual student could probably actually have more freedom, but it’s not like the university just singled out Christians.

Not only that, but these guys were not even students…

506   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Here’s another thing. Why do these people film these things anyway? I guess it really makes me question their motives to some extent. Is it just so they can put up a video on their sites showing how gutsy they are? Is it for use as evidence? It seems to me that filming these things will always end up making a bad situation worse. For whatever reasons, college students act about 50% dumber in the presence of a camera.

507   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

The whining about the camera (from the evangelist guy) was not impressive. It’s a shame when some people come across as more American (”I want my rights!”) than Christian.

Great point Amy… reading the Lawman’s comments below the video are even more enlightening. I found the behavior on the video embarrassing.

I think it particularly relevant that Lawman is a street preacher himself… since I am not a fan of that kind of evangelism my opinions may be taken with that in mind… but Lawman comes from the same perspective.

508   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Speaking to the greater issue of s0-called persecution… and given the fact that last Sunday was IDOP for the Persecuted Church… it has always been a pet-peeve of mine when I see Christians act like jerks, then claim persecution when they are treated as such.

Again – speaking to the greater issue here…

509   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Here’s another thing. Why do these people film these things anyway?

There are legitimate reasons: to post as an encouragement to others, to post as a report to supporters, to documents any questionable encounters, etc…

It’s just that, in this case, it kinda backfired…

510   pastoraldude    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Both Shawn and Jon have had a mea culpa about the incident but this does not change the policies legality IMHO we will be testing this in the courts.

511   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
November 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

There are legitimate reasons: to post as an encouragement to others, to post as a report to supporters, to documents any questionable encounters, etc…

Well, maybe…

I guess I just overall have a hard time with this style of evangelism. We would occasionally get these people at PSU, and I always felt that as campus pastors there, we were part of the clean-up crew.

512   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

PB,

I see the most recent post where he said he should have handled it better – good for him. Although he then tells a story about getting kicked off another campus.

513   Neil    
November 14th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

I guess I just overall have a hard time with this style of evangelism. We would occasionally get these people at PSU, and I always felt that as campus pastors there, we were part of the clean-up crew.

I agree.

In a sense this is like our whole thing with the ADM’s except the shoe is on the other foot. I think the whole preaching on the street corner thing is… well, let’s just say it’s not anything I am gonna do.

That said, it is just a method… so, unless we want to become like the ADM’s we should not assign motives, or the other dastardly things they do. We can discuss the stategyas a method, but let’s not become to them what Silva and the other are to Bell… make sense?

514   pastoraldude    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

the reason for video is three fold; to encourage people to evangelize, to train and evaluate, and to protect both parties in a disagreement . 3his will be useful in a he said she said situation like at USD and DSU.

515   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 14th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

#512

Neil,
At that campus we obeyed all the rules laid out by the Vice President, offering to submit to filling out paperwork, etc. ‘Christians’ were the ones who complained and lied to the administration after a time. We were not kicked off, but we were told at first we could not speak to any students unless we were approached, could not give out any literature unless we were approached and could not preach. When the police were called, they helped us reach an acceptable compromise which moved us to a far less populated area, but there were allowed to preach. It resulted in 3 hours of good news proclamation, including about an hour with 15 or so curious students who we had a long and fruitful discussion with.

516   nc    
November 14th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Amy,

so you’re saying I don’t have a complaint about the church?

Are you saying that I don’t have the right to help express in clear definitive way (as voting does) that complaint?

Are you saying that the issue which is the co-opting of the Church by a political party as their “base” is not something I’m allowed to resist at the very point it gets manifested? Should I just not have voted?

Are you saying that the legitimacy of my opposition to abortion is only contingent on a single vote?

Really…I’m asking.

Are you saying that the arrogance of the Church isn’t real with respect to our cultural engagement?

Are you saying that the rhetoric of national voices on a host of issues is something we just have to put up with even if it means that my ability to then even talk about abortion with my pro-choice friends is impaired?

The facts of our actual deeds/words are a matter of record in the “culture war”.

My reasons, while “blindness” to you, have merit even if you disagree with them.

It’s not about the abortion issue for me. It all hinges on it for you.

It’s about the whole of our cultural engagement and our idolatry of a political party and it’s calloused “use” of us.

I don’t know how many times i have to make that statement, but there it is again.

Do I think principled, not crazy, not arrogant people voted McCain on the abortion issue? Yes.

But the overwhelming FACTS of our witness is that we come across like a single-issue fixated group of angry fanatics.

You can be pro-life and still rebuke the failures that have given us that image. It’s not a betrayal to do so.

It IS a betrayal of the Gospel to be “owned” by human systems that stand under judgement. It’s fine to vote however you want. It’s wrong to place faith in the system. We need to look outside the political structures to address the problem of abortion. (Point in case: Roe v Wade overturned WILL NOT END abortion. That means it’s irrelevant to me. The issue isn’t solved there.)

all I care about is the Church and it’s witness. I think we can do it without laying down with the dogs. And no, a single vote for Obama ain’t the same thing.

If my vote helped contribute to a situation that makes the Church as a whole leave off their current sleeping arrangements then I’m glad for it. An in truth, it didn’t, I live in Tennessee. So my vote didn’t really affect the electoral college count for Obama.

I get it though. You’re vote of protest against abortion is legit. My vote of protest against the methods, rancor and rhetoric of the Church isn’t.

At least it seems you’ve upgraded me from “demon-possession” to just simple “blindness”.

Yikes.

517   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 14th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

“Are you saying that the legitimacy of my opposition to abortion is only contingent on a single vote? ”

Yes, nc, I am, respectfully.

518   nc    
November 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Well, you’re still welcome to my scotch, Rick, or whatever your drink of choice is.

However, that seems strange coming from someone who doesn’t vote…

just say’n.

519   amy    
November 15th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

It’s not about the abortion issue for me. It all hinges on it for you.

I don’t believe I’ve ever written out why I didn’t vote for Obama, so you’re making assumptions here. True, the abortion issue is enough in itself to have caused me not to vote for Obama, but it’s only part of what Obama represents.

all I care about is the Church and it’s witness. I think we can do it without laying down with the dogs. And no, a single vote for Obama ain’t the same thing.

You can be pro-life and still rebuke the failures that have given us that image. It’s not a betrayal to do so.

You can be pro-life and support a person who supports murder, judging by his past record? You can support a person who claims that he’s going to help the poor victims of pregnancy so they don’t HAVE to commit the type of murder that he supports?

Obama’s past record speaks for itself. His current plan to “help” honestly makes me even madder, because it’s taking an evil belief and trying to make it look good.

520   nc    
November 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Amy,

Abortion is wrong. We agree.

I don’t have to submit to the dominating voices of the Church who demand that I must base my vote on one issue. We don’t have popes and no one gets to judge my spiritual condition based on my vote.

My own mother-in-law said that I couldn’t be a Christian and vote for Obama.

That’s heresy–a damnable one–and any of you here who “think it” or “feel it” too, while maybe smart enough not to say it, are in the same boat.

Abortion is evil. I’m sorry you have to betray the gospel to demonstrate that fact.

I respect that people voted for McCain, it’s your right.
I don’t have to respect the demonizing rhetoric.

It won’t help us “move the ball” on the issue of abortion.
It never has.

That’s the facts.

521   nc    
November 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

To be honest,

if the rhetoric hadn’t been there…the embarrassment of the pre-McCain rally prayers about praying to “hindu”…the undeniable fact that Christians helped perpetuate garbage about Obama’s “muslim” heritage instead of just standing on the real issues…

combined with McCain’s crappy healthcare tax increase…and the choice of Palin…

I might have not voted for Obama…

but the rhetoric of the church was too much for me.

Why should I support a scorched earth approach to anything that violates the spirit of Christ in the prophetic witness of the Church?

I don’t have to.
And no one has the right to tell me I do.

I’m not bashing anyone for voting for McCain…never did.

Because it’s not about him to me…

it’s the “spirit/attitude” in those who bear the Name.

522   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

nc – I am not judging your Christianity, just the implications of your vote. Since McCain was all too willing to nominate a pro-choice VP, his pro-life stance is meaningless.

However, it is impossible to fully understand the horror and unrighteousness of one abortion, not to mention millions. If one believes that God desires and directs believers to vote, I cannot see any scenario in which He would help elect someone who would encourage infant murder. Murder trumps everything else but it gets lost in the political rhetoric.

523   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

BTW – I believe you are on the path I eventually took and arrived at where I am. I saw the entire process as unchristian and unproductive to the gospel message.

524   nc    
November 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

I hear you Rick,

I’m also of the mind that abortion really has little to do with competent governance.

I want to see the Church move away from placing faith in the political process and making the way we vote a basis on which we judge people.

Also, while it may not make sense to us…Rom. 13 still stands…it wasn’t Christians that “put Obama over the top”.

Regardless of a pro-life or pro-choice president…R v W is the settled law of the land…which is another reason why i don’t think “abortion” should be the driving issue in elections…

If there was so much deep moral indignation on the part of the party that supposedly only real Christians support then there would have been a heck of a lot more movement on this issue for as long as they controlled congress.

A constitutional amendment could have been passed and with the in-state organizations that pushed marriage amendments I think people could have gotten it done.

But they didn’t…

so even the hard core pro-”family” politicians are full of crap to me.

There’s got to be another way for the Church.

It doesn’t matter if you’re pro-life if you don’t actually do anything about it.

That’s a track record the “other side” seems to conveniently ignore.

525   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

“There’s got to be another way for the Church.”

I believe that Way has already been given. :)

526   amy    
November 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

nc,

Abortion is evil. I’m sorry you have to betray the gospel to demonstrate that fact

This was addressed to me. What are you talking about, “betraying the gospel?”

527   nc    
November 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

uh-oh, Rick

you just might make an Anabaptist out of this Anglican yet.

;)

528   nc    
November 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Amy,

It was a general “you” to any people, like my mother-in-law, that says, thinks, feels that people who vote for Obama aren’t real Christians. The statement is predicated on the previous 2 sentences in the post.

It’s a betrayal of the Gospel to say that my vote for Obama makes my salvation and Christian identity not legit. I won’t make any pronouncements, but people who do this need to re-read Galatians…

My Christian identity is not derived from my opinions about abortion, gay marriage, etc. OR the way extra-biblical evangelical “popes” declare I must act it out.

529   amy    
November 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

nc,

My Christian identity is not derived from my opinions about abortion, gay marriage, etc.

So you believe that a person’s opinions about abortion or gay marriage have nothing to do with his Christian identity? What are other beliefs that have nothing to do with one’s Christian identity?

One can not have a “Christian identity” without Christ living in them. At what point does His living in them not affect their beliefs one way or another?

I’m having a hard time picturing a Christ living in one person, cheering them on while they have an abortion, saying, “Hey, that’s cool! You did the right thing for YOU, my beloved!”

And another Christ living in a person who is considering an abortion, “Life! Life! That is my creation! And I created you to love and be loved by that creation.”

I can’t reconcile the idea of two such very different Christs.

530   nc    
November 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I said my identity as a Christian is not derived from my opinions on those issues.

My identity precedes those issues.

I understand the priorities of that identity differently than you. I understand how to live that out differently than you.

I have repeatedly said that I am not for abortion.

I have NEVER said “hey, that’s cool, etc.”

What I have also repeatedly stated was that our involvement in the system has not birthed any results.

It has only served to hamper our ability to actually speak about “life! life!” to people because of our rhetoric, tone and willingness to hang our total witness on ONE issue and sell our souls to a political party that has done NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to end the evil of abortion.

if a loss to Obama destroys the Church’s idolatrous faith in that party and causes them to seek out new ways to address the problem that is a good thing.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. You see Amy that kind of high-minded casting of people’s positions into extremis to serve your own purposes is the very kind of behavior that alienates the very people you would want to reach. It’s that attitude that makes people not want to hear us.

To say that I am cheering on a person to have an abortion with some kind of third grade relativism is down right offensive and misrepresents what I have repeatedly stated.

that sucks, Amy. Really.
and it’s a load of crap too

You owe me an apology.

531   Bo Diaz    
November 15th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Amy,
Its that kind of post that makes most of think you’re either obtuse or despicable.

You do owe NC an apology.

532   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

nc,

in the absence of a forthcoming apology from amy (which I wouldn’t hold my breath for) let me offer my own apology: I’m sorry you have to hear such crap.

There is a new book on the shelves, I hear.

The Theology of the Religious “Right”
by
Woo Flung Poo

533   amy    
November 15th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I don’t believe I did. You have been discussing people (in particular your mother-in-law)who have judged you according to your voting for Obama. Judged your Christian identity.

In the overall context of your not liking someone making statements about your Christian identity, you said, “My Christian identity is not derived from my opinions about abortion, gay marriage, etc.”

What I understand this to mean in the given context is “Others cannot make a reasonable conclusion about my Christian identity based on my beliefs about abortion and gay marriage.” You compared such judging to the book of Galatians, where Jews were judging Gentiles because they were not circumcised.

I simply asked you this: So you believe that a person’s opinions about abortion or gay marriage have nothing to do with his Christian identity? What are other beliefs that have nothing to do with one’s Christian identity?

I think those are perfectly reasonable questions in the context of this discussion. Christians are asked to examine themselves – to “derive,” come to a conclusion, of whether or not they are indeed “in Christ.” I believe that would include examining their beliefs about right and wrong, which will affect what kind of fruit they produce.

And we are asked to judge others by their fruit.

I have repeatedly said that I am not for abortion.

I have NEVER said “hey, that’s cool, etc.”

I never said you were for abortion, or that you said it was cool.

To say that I am cheering on a person to have an abortion with some kind of third grade relativism is down right offensive and misrepresents what I have repeatedly stated.

Never said that either.

I was painting a picture of two Christ’s that I couldn’t reconcile, based on my understanding that you believe one cannot come to a reasonable conclusion about another’s Christian identity based on their beliefs and actions.

534   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

NC,
Hey Man, I didn’t even read Amy’s comments so I’m not going to get into that but this quote

political party that has done NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to end the evil of abortion.

I would argue that. Strides forward to limit abortion have been made by the Republican’s and Obama has said he’s going to undo all of those as soon as he can. To me that’s important. I don’t really think that anyone is going to stop abortion but we have to be honest and say that Obama has said he’s going to make it much more accessible. Yes, he’s also said he’s going to address poverty and educational issues to “reduce the number” of abortions but he’s also going to make them more accessible which would seem to indicate that the number performed each day will probably go up.

535   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 15th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Amy’s words:

I’m having a hard time picturing a Christ living in one person, cheering them on while they have an abortion, saying, “Hey, that’s cool! You did the right thing for YOU, my beloved!”

anyone else would have a hard time picturing that Christ as well, amy. That is why nc said your charicature is immature and unrealistic. And it is why you owe him an apology. Your extremes are absurd.

536   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 15th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Yes, he’s also said he’s going to address poverty and educational issues to “reduce the number”

Joe,
The largest segment of women having abortions are the uneducated and lower income women. During Clinton’s term the number of abortions among that segment decreased. During Bush’s term they increased.
If Obama’s plan goes like Clinton’s we can hope for a decrease among the largest segment of those getting abortions.

537   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 15th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

pssst, nc…told ya not to hold your breath :)

538   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 15th, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Actually Chad,
According to Fact Check, your statement is not accurate. Abortions during Bush’s presidency are at the lowest in history. This statement seems to be credited to a Prof at Fuller using bad math, and it got picked up by the media and even Hillary Clinton.
But a simple check of the numbers shows that abortions are lowest ever under Bush.

539   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
November 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Amy,

For what it is worth, I cannot reconcile it either. Actually, I am very disappointed with Bush and the Republicans who rode in on a wave of Roe vs. Wade sentiment and did nothing whatever save appointing a couple of Judges and some legislation. But they did not stop Roe Vs. Wade. And I am disappointed.

At the same time, NC, I cannot reconcile voting for a person who says he wants to decrease abortions, yet has also said he will sign the FOCA, as well as his record in the Illinois senate.

The fact is, I believe we should legislate to protect all human life from the womb to the tomb, but it will have limited success because men and women will still sin, doctors will still kill babies, we will still practice assisted suicide. But the numbers will be reduced according to the desire of a person to go to jail. That said, there was 200,000 murders in the 90’s, with 100,000 never solved. Should we change the law because there is only a 50% prosecution rate for murders? No we keep the law, because it makes us a nation that values life.

Al that being said, He is our president, we must support him though we must not support his policies. We have the wonderful option of voting in two years to show our disappointment or our approval of his policies.

540   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Joe,
Even if that were the case (and the stat I was sharing was not about overall numbers but about a particular segment of society, the lower class), then I would have one question: Why are abortions the lowest ever under Bush? Is it due to legislation? Or something else?

541   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 15th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Chad,
I would say you set up a false either/or situation. I would say that both legislation and many other factors play into it. It does stand to reason though that the more legal an act is the more it will be engaged in.
Anyone can argue that President Obama’s stance on education and poverty will help reduce the number of abortions amongst the poor and uneducated and the only thing I can say is that I am not a predictor of the future. I hope that is correct. I hope that he is successful there.
Despite my inability to predict the future I can look to the past and in the past, more or less legislation has effected the number of abortions in the same way.
Even using “liberal” numbers abortions increased greatly when it became legal.
In the end, our President may indeed decrease abortions amongst the people you group, but it seems unlikely he will reduce the overall number. It seems unlikely because he will make it much more accessible for people.
I’m not here to prosecute our President Elect, or defend our outgoing president but it is unfair statement to say that Republicans have done NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions.

542   amy    
November 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

That is why nc said your charicature is immature and unrealistic. And it is why you owe him an apology. Your extremes are absurd.

Actually, Chad, nc said that I said that he was :

cheering on a person to have an abortion

And I said,

Never said that either.

Read it again:

Never said that either.

,

But then I assume that you already read that comment.

543   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Joe,

I would say that both legislation and many other factors play into it.

The point though, I think, is that no legislation has been passed. And yet, the numbers have decreased overall, as you stated. My point is that legislation has not been the factor.

It does stand to reason though that the more legal an act is the more it will be engaged in.

This is the lynch pin, I think. You nailed it. And I am not convinced that this is a true statement. Why? Because abortion is a moral issue. My family, for instance, is not going to consider an abortion just because it is one of our “legal” options. So I disagree that just because abortion (or drugs or murder or stealing or anything else) is made “more legal” that more people will naturally engage in it.

In the end, our President may indeed decrease abortions amongst the people you group, but it seems unlikely he will reduce the overall number.

If he does decrease them among this group than it stands to reason that the overall number will be decreased, as this is the biggest segment of people getting abortions.

As for legislation, what do you make of the fact that of the total abortions worldwide, 94% of them are outside the USA and 40% of those (nearly 20 million annually) are done in countries where abortion is illegal?

544   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 15th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Amy, are you trying to be manipulative purposefully?

Here is what you said…again:

I’m having a hard time picturing a Christ living in one person, cheering them on while they have an abortion, saying, “Hey, that’s cool! You did the right thing for YOU, my beloved!”

And another Christ living in a person who is considering an abortion, “Life! Life! That is my creation! And I created you to love and be loved by that creation.”

I can’t reconcile the idea of two such very different Christs.

Any REASONABLE person would read that and take it that you are pitting your idea of Christ (the latter) with what you perceive nc’s idea of Christ to be (the former) which is, in effect, “cheering on” an abortion.

Now, if you did not mean to imply that nc’s (or my own) position renders Christ as one who is saying “that’s cool” to an abortion than why the heck did you have that as option A vs. option B?

I am happy that you don’t think that is what nc is saying but that is not what you said in that post – so you owe him an apology. Unless your self-righteousness doesn’t allow you to see that.

545   nc    
November 15th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Amy,

saying my Christian ID is not derived from the positions on abortion means plainly that my Christian ID is not contingent upon my position.

i.e. the fact of my Christian ID is not dependent on it.

That’s what it means to be offended by someone saying your Xian ID is somehow not real, therefore derived from, your position on abortion.

Second,

you set up the two contrasts–not in isolation, but in the context of my complaint and your questions.

whether you meant it or not the contrasts makes my position tantamount to the one you described as cheering on abortions.

you’re good at playing coy/being baffled, etc. but the complaint stands.

Joe,

if anything my complaint about doing nothing demonstrates how clearly I’m against abortion.

I don’t think waiting around for a court to overturn a law that won’t abolish abortions nationally is wise.

An amendment is the way.

But that party uses the church as a “base” if they actually exercise the “will” they wouldn’t be guaranteed a few million votes in our increasingly even steven split vote country.

It’s how I see it…people can disagree, but nothing less than a constitutional amendment on abortion will solve the problem nationally.

R v W goes and you still have abortion in Illinois, Cali, NY, and a handful of other states.

At the end of the day, that party won’t do it. So I say forget it and have the church move to other ways to fight abortion.

The only source of impetus for this I see is if they stop putting faith in the political process and doing so in such a way that just makes it harder for us to have a witness on a host of other issues as well.

PB,

I hear your point. There’s also a key pro-life leader that had to admit that the policies of services, etc. that Obama would push could reduce abortions actively rather than just claiming to be pro-life and waiting to pack the court on the issue.

Which, from a pragmatic standpoint, is also bad governance. The Supreme Court has to handle a world of issues that go to the health, strength, etc. of this country. Abortion isn’t the only issue there…further making my point about faith in the system.

sheeesh people…

I have to get all verbose and angry to convince you of my opposition to abortion.

Thanks for demonstrating my complaint.

And NO THANKS for helping me stumble into anger.

I’m so pissed off now i think my head is going to explode.

seriously.

i need a drink.

546   amy    
November 15th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

whether you meant it or not the contrasts makes my position tantamount to the one you described as cheering on abortions.

you’re good at playing coy/being baffled, etc. but the complaint stands.

I’m not “playing coy” and I was not making your positions tantamount to the one “cheering on abortions.” (Did you think that before or after reading Chad’s comment?) In all honesty I wondered why you threw in that statement at all because I know you have said in that past something like ,or perhaps the very words, “I hate abortion.”

So, thinking that you had previously said you hated abortion it appeared to me as if you’re throwing in a new point – that one cannot derive one’s own or another’s Christian Id based on their opinions re: abortion and gay marriage. And I wanted to know what else you would add to that list.

Because I do believe that we are taught to examine our beliefs and our fruits to see if we are in Christ. As I further explained in #533.

But I am sorry if somehow I have miscommunicated to you.
_______
After Chad made the comment about my example of Christ cheering on the abortion as “immature and unrealistic” I got to thinking more about that example, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is an accurate picture of a “Christ” who affirms abortion. It might seem immature and unrealistic but that’s because we only see that “Christ” in disguise – and one of the disguises is a “Christ” who comes in the form of helping and loving the poor victims of abortion, offering them a way out – while at the same time telling them making the abortion available and acceptable to them.

547   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 15th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Joe,

I don’t think waiting around for a court to overturn a law that won’t abolish abortions nationally is wise.

agreed

548   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 15th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

and one of the disguises is a “Christ” who comes in the form of helping and loving the poor victims of abortion, offering them a way out – while at the same time telling them making the abortion available and acceptable to them.

Huh?

Amy, I sometimes wonder if you think Jesus has already returned.

Are you suggesting that those who love and support and help the victims of abortion are in some way being “less” Christ-like as those who have “proper” opinions about the abortion in the political arena? You must be joking, or this is another case of you “miscommunicating.”

We live in the already/not yet, Amy. Abortion is just one of the many remnants of our falleness. The Christ which you seem to denigrate and call a “disguise” that comes to the aid of those suffering in the midst of this fallen world are EXACTLY the image of THE Christ. My task is to give a plate of food to the hungry and in so doing I have done it unto Christ. Jesus does NOT say that I should abandon the hungry and focus my energy on electing a political leader who will end world hunger.

It all comes back to the same thing: You guys pin your hopes for peace and love in the land upon the one in office in D.C. I, and I am sure nc, does not. The fact that Obama was elected illuminates for many of us just how much the “Right” have made an idol out of their politics and have relegated the work of the Kingdom of God to the Capital rather than to the Church.

If you really hate abortion and want to see it end or at the very least decrease than stop waiting around for the right president or judges and stop blaming other Christians who voted differently than you and get off your *** and start an adoption agency or adopt some orphans or volunteer your time at a shelter or a pregnancy center or take in a pregnant homeless woman and promise to be with her through her labor….

THOSE are the ways you can be Christ in the world and actually BE pro-life rather than just talking big about it and your beliefs.

549   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

My point is that legislation has not been the factor.

I would disagree with this statement. Legislation has factored into it. It has become more difficult in some states. I don’t agree with the “if he reduces them in this group, then the overall number will go down.” Which is OK. You probably assumed that I didn’t, I’m just putting it out there.

Also, I think your argument that you and your family won’t consider an abortion simply because it is legal looks at the problem from the wrong angle. I assume you wouldn’t steal from your boss even if it were legal but there are many many people who would. Just as there are many many people who will consider abortion if it is made legal for them.
Also, I see your last paragraph to me as another false either/or. It is an irrelevant statement of a statistic. Murder of fully grown adults goes on all over the world too, but it is still illegal because it is a moral issue.
Crime of any nature is often a complex issue. Many times the perpetrators are poor and uneducated but I don’t hear anyone calling for lenience in other laws.
President Obama will address issues of poverty and education. He will also be the most aggressive pro-choice President we have ever had. Neither one of us can predict what effect this will have but we can both agree that we seem to disagree on what the logical outflow of his policies will be.
I will leave the last word to you my friend. I’m off for a Black and Tan.

550   nc    
November 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Amy,

My request for an apology came precisely because I was thinking and tried to express what Chad was able to articulate in a clear-headed way. So it was before.

In that context, then your characterization of me would be immature and extreme.

But…

because you are saying that it was intended in a “general” sort of rumination about how to see the issue, then I don’t expect an apology and believe that you did not intend to apply such a characterization to me.

So, with respect to that particular part of the conversation, I can move on.

Regarding “judging fruit”…

I just hope that that’s not some “junk drawer word” that gets to be filled only with the content of the issue du jour…

Fruit is delineated at the end of Galatians…I think it sufficiently encompasses Jesus’s own teachings, in my opinion.

I don’t see “not voting for Obama” in the list…

551   nc    
November 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

In general…

You’re not sufficiently pro-life if all it means is that you get angry at the “pro-choice” candidate and call them a baby killer every four years.

552   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 15th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Politics – what a divisive joke. How can we expect the secular world to line up with Biblical morality? The entire process is one compromising mess that divides brithers and gives false promises.

553   Joe    http://joemartino.name
November 16th, 2008 at 12:12 am

Politics – what a divisive joke.

Says the man that always has an opinion to offer when Politics comes up.

554   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 16th, 2008 at 7:33 am

Says the man that always has an opinion the truth to offer when Politics comes up.

Fixed. :cool:

555   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 16th, 2008 at 8:36 am

I cannot connect to the submissions. So here it is:

“Father forgive them for they know not what they do”???

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/sodom-central/homosexuals-plan-day-of-intolerance/

556   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
November 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

“Homosexual thugs.” Good grief.

SOL is S.O.L. in the grace department

557   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Christianity is not a moral crusade, it is a redemptive crusade which spreads the good news. I see absolutely no Christianity in post like those, and no compassion, no grace, no mercy, and no Christ. The most colossal act of sin was the murder of the Incarnate Christ, and those “thugs” heard “Father forgive them…”.

All I hear from some is “Father condemn them”. So many believers speak about others with a severely limited view of their own sin.