Monday, June 11, 2007

Consider this, part 2

As I've reminded you previously, Islam is a totalitarian worldview. For some insights into that, this New York Times article makes for interesting reading.

--Mike

P.S.: Forgive me for not being here so much, please. I have a lot on my plate these days, but I will be back in the regular swing of things soon.

74 comments:

WatchingHISstory said...

I lived in Adana, Turkey from 1974-78. My wife and I were young and naive and we pastored an American Church for American Servicemen serving at Incirlik AB.

My personal theology was hammered out in those five years. We were near Tarsus and Antioch, which bordered on Syria. We loved the Turkish people who are not true repesentatives of the Arabic Peoples.

We learned a lot about Islamic culture and can say that much of our problems with the Arab World stems from our lack of understanding them.

They seem to have a good idea of who we are even though their conclusions are not in our favor.

Strangely, I've just finished watching the 1933 King Kong movie and the ugliness of American is portrayed in our arrogance, especially the way we treat other nationalities. This was in 1933 before anyone dreamed of the future of Islamic terrorism against America.

It opens with an Arabic proverb: "An old prophet said, and lo the beast looked upon the face of beauty, and it stayed its hand from killing. And from that day it was as one dead."

solomon said...

Arminius,

Check your email, please.

Arminius the Troll said...

The Troll said:
I don't agree with him, but I respect his interpretation and his sincerity.

WH said:
Here we go with the truth is a relative thing again.

How conveeeeeeennnniiiieeeennnntttt

You just said Scripture can't be twisted! Then you twist it!


Scripture cannot be twisted. Why can't you understand that simple fact? You cannot put words into God's mouth. Period. When you misapply Scripture to suit your own needs, it is no longer God's word but yours. That's not twisting scripture, it's ignoring it.

This is where you and I will never see eye to eye, WH. Rogers said the wine was unfermented. I disagree. He said drinking is a sin. I disagree. Unlike you, however, I don't consider my interpretation of the Bible to be Scripture, and I don't consider it a sin if someone chooses to follow Dr. Rogers and not drink. I hope that they would likewise allow me the liberty to drink in turn. Furthermore, I'm not jealous that people would listen to him instead of me.

Maybe you and Lindon should get together sometime. Her legalistic tirades are very similar to your own.

Arminius the Troll said...

And Keith, I always check my email. I just don't pay attention to all of it.

WatchingHISstory said...

Arminius the Troll

It seems that the wine issue is majoring on minors, however the principle applies to the absolute Word Of God, not our interpretations.

Why can't we just say Dr Rogers was unbiblical about the wine issue. I don't see how your or my interpretation enters the picture.

Apparently you and I see eye to eye, Dr Rogers ignored the Bible when it came to the wine issue.

Arminius the Troll said...

I don't know of any way to learn the absolute word of God except by interpreting it. As an imperfect human, I must allow that perhaps I am mistaken.

Show me a rock solid verse from the 66 canonical books that allows for the drinking of fermented wine and I'll agree that Dr. Rogers spoke against Scripture (and so would he, if he were here). Likewise, if you show me a verse that prohibits the drinking of fermented wine in moderation, I'll admit that I'm going against Scripture.

And also, I've been thinking of buying a new car. What does the Bible say about that?

bugsii said...

Arminius and Watching, looks like I'm going to have to gouge my eyes out after pulling up my home page with a Victoria's Secret add. I regret that I will no longer be able to read your posts. So long fellow sinners.

WatchingHISstory said...

John 16:13-15 (King James Version) 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Armininus you are mistaken! You are not left to your own determination to interpret rather you are taught by the Holy Spirit.

I don't know about buying a new car but my old 1995 Buick died on me and the Lord by his Spitit led me directly to a 1993 F-150 by Jeremiah 29:11. I read that verse and walked out the door and around the block and there was my 1993 F-150 right before my eyes. The way I found it was absolutely supernatural. "I know the plans I have for you."

He has plans for you as well, definite plans. The details he uses to accomplish thoes plans are amazing.

WatchingHISstory said...

bugsii

They are producing a braile version of Victoria's Secret for the blind.

Arminius the Troll said...

Come now bugsii, are you really going to let girls who have no career skills other than parading around in their skivies keep you from deep theological discussion?

May it never be!!

Arminius the Troll said...

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death"

How can I discern the difference between God's plan and mine? More importantly, what if my plan encroaches on the plans of others?

What does the Bible teach about that?

And I really like the new 'vettes...

WatchingHISstory said...

Arminius the Troll said...
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death"

How can I discern the difference between God's plan and mine? More importantly, what if my plan encroaches on the plans of others?

What does the Bible teach about that?

John 10:27 (King James Version)
27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

Arminius the Troll said...

So I feel led to buy a new 'vette. My spouse says the opposite.

Which of us is the sinner?

Arminius the Troll said...

It opens with an Arabic proverb: "An old prophet said, and lo the beast looked upon the face of beauty, and it stayed its hand from killing. And from that day it was as one dead."

!

Am I reading this correctly? This is really an arab proverb?? Peace leads to death???

NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike Bratton said...

Y'know, I don't know where the beverage alcohol sub-thread fits in with a discussion of the substance (or lack thereof) of Islam, but I'm an easy-going guy...

Pastor Rogers often observed that what we know as wine is generally not what the people of Bible times--particularly during the writing of the New Testament--understood as wine. If my failing memory serves, their "wine" was a much more syrupy concoction than what the Mogan David folks box up today. And he was also quick to observe that Scripture reference the use of wine for (not euphemistically, by the way) "medicinal purposes."

The biggest problem with the consumption of beverage alcohol, aside from the impairment it will incrementally produce, is the problem of perception. If there is a glass of Cabernet sauvignon on your table, how is anyone casually strolling by to know if it's your first glass, or your fifth?

Way back when, if the water would kill you but the "wine" would be beneficial in small amounts, the "wine" was the right choice ten times out of ten.

But we don't live way back when. Consequently, we have no business consuming beverage alcohol.

--Mike

lovecakes said...

Mike (may I call you Mike? It's more affectionate),

It's a great article, but it does not support your overarching thesis--that Islam is totalitarian across the board. Actually, this piece supports my thesis that radical Imams distort, twist and cherry-pick from their scriptures to justify actions that are, in fact, forbidden.

It goes back to the notion, that if you really want to, one can justify just about any action using religion or ideology as a springboard. Bepatient would like to partition the issue, but the author of the article covers much of the same ground as I did in the last thread:

"Islamic militants are hardly alone in seeking to rationalize innocent deaths, says John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. “Whether you are talking about leftist radicals here in the 1960s, or the apologies for civilian collateral damage in Iraq that you get from the Pentagon, the argument is that if the action is just, the collateral damage is justifiable,” he says."

Now, the quote is from a university professor, which I guess mean that the remark can be attributed to a librul, anti-christian worldview. But for this librul, how does an evangelical rationalize the thousands of needless deaths and suffering by innocents in the Iraq war?

Don't answer; it's because the GOP is God's own party and GWB is a born-again Christian (nuff said). It seems Muslims aren't the only ones who follow flawed men with an appetite for distruction.

So, you guys justify collateral damage and the Islamic radicals justify Jihad, and the whole world is a better place for it, eh?

Mike Bratton said...

lovecakes said...
Mike (may I call you Mike? It's more affectionate),


But of course--and I'm still looking for your e-mail.

And I just can't get my brain around "Cakes." Is there an alternative?

It's a great article, but it does not support your overarching thesis--that Islam is totalitarian across the board.

Excellent observation. It wasn't meant to, though; I found it fascinating that the NYT would even go so far as to admit the thought patterns existed. :)

Actually, this piece supports my thesis that radical Imams distort, twist and cherry-pick from their scriptures to justify actions that are, in fact, forbidden.

Then where is the outrage? The disavowal from "plain" Islam?

I've looked for it for many years, but it really isn't there in anything resembling critical mass.

It goes back to the notion, that if you really want to, one can justify just about any action using religion or ideology as a springboard.

Whether one should, or whether one can legitimately do so, however, is another matter entirely.

Bepatient would like to partition the issue, but the author of the article covers much of the same ground as I did in the last thread:

"Islamic militants are hardly alone in seeking to rationalize innocent deaths, says John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. “Whether you are talking about leftist radicals here in the 1960s, or the apologies for civilian collateral damage in Iraq that you get from the Pentagon, the argument is that if the action is just, the collateral damage is justifiable,” he says."


Perhaps he meant to say "regrettable," "sickening," or some other word, since "justifiable" isn't applicable.

Now, the quote is from a university professor, which I guess mean that the remark can be attributed to a librul, anti-christian worldview. But for this librul, how does an evangelical rationalize the thousands of needless deaths and suffering by innocents in the Iraq war?

I've never met one who even attempted to do that, so I couldn't tell you anything about such a cognitively dissonant process. That sounds more like George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove, actually.

Don't answer;

See, you have to tell me that up front--I take them as I see them! :)

it's because the GOP is God's own party and GWB is a born-again Christian (nuff said).

Of the two major political parties, which do you think is more welcoming to those of us who are Christians? More to the point, which do you think is more compatible with orthodox Christian theology?

And as for President Bush, being a professing believer doesn't give him carte blanche to do as he wishes--the immigration debacle being a prime example of that.

It seems Muslims aren't the only ones who follow flawed men with an appetite for distruction.

Bit of a reach, wasn't that? Particularly since those of us who are Christians by definition follow God, not man. However, if you meant in a secondary sense, humans as a rule have that weakness.

So, you guys justify collateral damage

No. Not at all.

And your notion is flawed, because it attempts to portray the War on Terror as something that's being fought under a partisan Christian banner. It is not, obviously.

and the Islamic radicals justify Jihad, and the whole world is a better place for it, eh?

The second part, you got right.

--Mike

lovecakes said...

Yes,

The republicans do court evangelicals, when it is in their interest to do so. They'll dust off the defence of marriage hoopla just in time for the elections next year, just wait and see.

Well, yes, I suppose the Iraq war is the central front, post facto, in the war on terror, since it is now the central recruitment rationale for terrorists. But the initial threat was cooked, and the utilization of the military has been botched all along the way.

I'm not speaking that all republicans are evangelicals, only that, by-in-large, evangelicals are republicans, and that, come collateral damage or Armageddon itself, they will support Bush and the party no matter what.

Obviously, many republicans of the non-evengelical stripe (and a few that are) are jumping ship on the war.

Sorry I did not communicate that better at the outset.

How's Bama for you, pal? Have you found fulfilling work? I'm looking for a summer job now that school is out--oi!

WatchingHISstory said...

1 Corinthians 8:9-13 (King James Version)
9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Notice here that the free and strong can eat meat offered to idols without his conscience being offended.

The weak and offended can't eat meat offered to idols. His tender conscience bears conflict.

A vibrant and excited Greek Christian couple make reservations and the finest Greek white wine preordered for a dinner at a restaurant with Steve and Donna Gaines. Steve promptly announces that he will not eat with them unless the wine is taken away or else they will leave. They will not drink the wine nor will they sit at a table where wine is drank. (assuming that it is acceptable for Christians in Greece to drink wine with a meal)

Whis is the strong and free couple and who is the weak and offended couple?

Who is taking the Bible literal and who is ignoring the Bible?

WatchingHISstory said...

A vibrant and excited Greek Christian couple make restaurant reservations in Athens and decide not to preorder a custonary fine wine because they know that Dr and Mrs Rogers will be offended by the wine.

Who is the strong and free couple and who are the weak and offended couple? Who believes the Bible literally and who ignors the Bible?

Arminius the Troll said...

Hypothetically,

Steve is being consistent with what he preaches. Dr. Rogers had no idea that alcohol might be served, but it wasn't so there was no offense.

The Greek couple seems to have a consistency problem, since they knew Dr. Rogers would be offended but not Dr. Gaines. (Perhaps their knowledge of the pastors came from the NBBCOF)

The Greek couple was at fault for their double standard. However, saying they ignored the Bible is a stretch.

WatchingHISstory said...

Clearly Gaines and Rogers are the weak and offended couple according to the Bible. Nothing Hypothetical.

Benny Hinn is consistent with what he preaches.

lovecakes said...

"Benny Hinn is consistent with what he preaches."

Maybe so, but that hair is unforgivable.

By the way, you guys sure are on a tangent.

WatchingHISstory said...

Yes but the tangent points to the fact that people who claim a literal interpretation of the Bible actually are capable of ignoring it when it is convenient.

If we are going to take the Bible serious then we .....

Arminius the Troll said...

I don't see how Dr. Rogers was weak just because he showed up for dinner. Famished, maybe, but not weak.

Maybe he should have issued a Fatwa against the Greek couple. (Does that qualify as getting off the tangent?)

Oh, and that proverb didn't come from the Koran. Mohammed didn't say it, so it's as valid to Muslims as 'God helps those who help themselves' is to Christians.

WatchingHISstory said...

It was the introduction to King Kong, take it up with him!

bugsii said...

"Benny Hinn is consistent in what he preaches". He consistently preaches heresy. I think a few years back he claimed Jesus would appear with him on stage.

I guess technically he could have meant Jesus his hairdresser.

WatchingHISstory said...

"Benny Hinn is consistent in what he preaches". He consistently preaches heresy. I think a few years back he claimed Jesus would appear with him on stage.

When I heard that I wondered if he had read the Bible about Jesus saying it was necessary for him to go away and that he would send the Holy Spirit back. Looks ilke if anyone was on stage with him it would have been the Holy Spirit. I bet Jesus got a laugh about that in heaven. I'm sure he has a sense of humor!

WatchingHISstory said...

Jesus had a sense of humor when he turned water into over 100 gallons of grape juice. And the disciples got a laugh when the people at the marriage reception were spewing grape juice all over the place thinking they were getting wine!!!

WatchingHISstory said...

"But we don't live way back when. Consequently, we have no business consuming beverage alcohol."

So it is relative, what was true then is not necessarily true today. While the Bible says drinking wine is ok in moderation we add to it because we can't do anything in moderation.

Seems that instead of a change in scripture we need a genuine change in hearts.

Legalistic people have problems with moderation in any form.

Syrupy concoction!!!

Arminius the Troll said...

It was the introduction to King Kong, take it up with him!

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Mr. Kong was killed. Apparently Donald Trump didn't appreciate him climbing on his building.

WatchingHISstory said...

"Benny Hinn is consistent in what he preaches". He consistently preaches heresy.

Dr Rogers was consistent in what he preached. He consistently preached a semi-pelagian armininian heresy.

The only difference that I can see is that Dr Rogers hair looked better!

Mike Bratton said...

WatchingHISstory said...
"But we don't live way back when. Consequently, we have no business consuming beverage alcohol."

So it is relative, what was true then is not necessarily true today. While the Bible says drinking wine is ok in moderation we add to it because we can't do anything in moderation.

Seems that instead of a change in scripture we need a genuine change in hearts.

Legalistic people have problems with moderation in any form.

Syrupy concoction!!!


If you can go down to your local package store and purchase the same sort of wine that was produced in New Testament times, by all means consume it with your meal in moderation, or for your stomach's sake and your many infirmities.

And a helpful word to you: Please discuss the issue(s) at hand, rather than resorting to specious allegations of legalism, all right? Remember, we are all incomplete in this life, even those of us who are Christians; if you're correct on this secondary issue, that's marvelous--but keep in mind that my understanding of Scripture in this regard may be the more accurate.

A little consideration is always a good thing in any discussion.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

SOTL

Steve Gaines has compassion for the pedophile

God has compassion for the pedophile

SOTT has no compassion for the pedophile

Is there a line drawn here

Would you want SOTL to be telling your children about Jesus?

SOTL, Stay away from my grandchildren!

WatchingHISstory said...

And a helpful word to you: Please discuss the issue(s) at hand, rather than resorting to specious allegations of legalism, all right? Remember, we are all incomplete in this life, even those of us who are Christians; if you're correct on this secondary issue, that's marvelous--but keep in mind that my understanding of Scripture in this regard may be the more accurate.

Please, in all consideration of me, speak in terms that I can understand. Break it down so I can understand.

Apparently you really understand me. I am attempting to be respectful of you. I really want to know hat you mean.

lovecakes said...

Respect the man by staying on topic instead of dragging your topic from NBBCOF--otherwise Mike will have a hard time convincing folks this isn't the anti-NBBCOF.

My position is if you can rationalize the war in Iraq, torture, endless internment of prisoners without access to legal representation, collateral damage in the 5 figure range, then a glass of wine at a resturant is the least of your worries.

WatchingHISstory said...

lovecakes

I agree with you, if you can rationalize torture, rape rooms, killing sons and fathers, endless internment of prisoners without access to legal representation, collateral damage in the 5 figure range, not even mentioning gassing Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq you need a stiff drink to stun your conscience to injustice.

But thank God we have a bold president to intervene in the dictators' kingdom.

WatchingHISstory said...

here is an interesting blog about the war in Iraq

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/death-or-glory-part-ii-of-iv.htm

lovecakes said...

Well,

The point is made then. President Bush is "bold" to stomach torture, internment without legal representation, wiretaps, firing judges to stack the deck in the administrations favor, cherry-picking intelligence, the deaths of thoudands upon thousand of innocent men women and children, etc,; yet, even after trashing everything he touches, you support him and his war. Why?

It goes back to what I stated earlier--that when one can only percieve the evil in the the other, without acknowledging his or her own capacity to justify violence and perpetuating suffering, such is slipping into the very mindset one decries.

So, the ooga-booga weapons of mass destruction didn't make it into your littany. Gee, I'm not surprised.

Why was going to war with Iraq needed, again? What was the threat? Not the reason this week, but the one sold before the war commenced?

Why don't you just say it was God's will, the facts that have come to light and the dismal administration of the war be damned, since no other good reason exists and the author is one of your own.

Who's your Imama?

lovecakes said...

I mean, I see a lot of "man meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" arguments for Padre's mistakes over at BBC, so extend that to our leaders in government too (unless they're a librul).

Whenever I hear people still griping about Clinton, I have to chuckle. I mean, really.

WatchingHISstory said...

lovecakes

Bush is "bold" to stomach torture,

What torture? We've just lost a soldier to capture and death and probally the other two are dead. Terrorist torture people without mercy. Decapitations, etc Sadaam tortured his own people. Iranians torture people on and on ... We had panties streached over a prisoners head and they were tried and prosecuted for their foolish treatment of prisoners.

internment without legal representation

Prisoners of war - not under civilian judicial jurisdiction. They provide valuable security information. Hold them till the war is over.

wiretaps

Often we are just a wiretap away from another threat of terrorism.
We had 911 and we should have learned our lesson obout the importance of gathering information.

firing judges to stack the deck in the administrations favor

A baseless charge in light of Clinton's firings. However an internal war we wage in America is the political correctness and civil rights that hinder us in the war against terrorism. We need conservative judges who will expidite this war.

cherry-picking intelligence

I don't know what you mean by this. However we need a cooperative effort of all intelligence gathering agencies including border control in our own countries without fear of someones rights being threatened.

the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent men women and children

How many were killed by Sadaam, how many were killed in 911, Spain, London, Lebannon, Israel. The on-the-ground tell us that inspite of the loss of civilian Iraqis they are appreciative that we are over there and they (Iraq) are fearful they under the influence of a liberal congress we will abandon them over there. But we are not going to, as long as Bush is president.

yet, even after trashing everything he touches

Strictly your biased opinion. You listen to too many libruls. (hopefully you are a misguided conservative. . hope...hope .. I hope)

you support him and his war. Why?

I support his, yourn and mine war.
America is at war with a small fundamentalist moslem minority who are more influenced with Nihilistic tendancies carried into the middle east from the european terrorist of the 60's and 70's "Red Brigade" etc. They are Islamo Fascist. They do not believe we are worthy of being conquered and reformed but simply anihiliated for the sake of destruction.

"It goes back to what I stated earlier--that when one can only percieve the evil in the the other, without acknowledging his or her own capacity to justify violence and perpetuating suffering, such is slipping into the very mindset one decries."

This is true of us and it certainly complicates things in our world, however we are up against an evil enemy bent on our destruction.

And we are close to that day of destruction and when they succeed in breaking down our walls they will not just systematically kill conservative republicans they will kill libural democrats as well. They hate us all.

lovecakes said...

I love Churchill, when he said, "all we have to fear is fear itself." In the aftermath of 9/11, carried out by mostly Saudis (to whom America curries), that's what America had, fear itself.

That fear is what was exploited in the march to war. Like a child blindly lashing out.

lovecakes said...

And it's never been my war; I was against it back in the days when Republican's were insisting on changing the name of French fries to Freedom fries, and that people who spoke out against the war were traitors.

It is unfortunate that you think the torture of prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere has been limited to fraternity pranks--is that what they are intimating over at Limbaugh, Red State and the Pat Robertson News channel?

War should always be a last resort, precisely because it open a Pandora's box of suffering, death and squalor, breeds disorder, lawlessness, rape and pillage on all sides concerned. Nope, I don't claim the doctrine of pre-emption, that W's legacy.

The reason all those other countries that gathered the same intelligence we did felt no need for pre-emptive war with Iraq, is that they also looked at the other intelligence too that disputed it--you know, the part the administration pre-emptively discounted.

Blaming other countries for our smafus is so funny coming from "personal responsibility" conservatives. What up with that?

Arminius the Troll said...

Hey, we've got the bomb. They don't (yet), so we've got the upper hand. I pay my taxes, so there.

lovecakes said...

"Hey, we've got the bomb. They don't (yet), so we've got the upper hand. I pay my taxes, so there."

That response really seems Christ-centered. Thanks for the solid points.

I can go to sleep knowing might makes right.

Chapter and verse?

Arminius the Troll said...

Proverbs 3:24
when you lie down, you will not be afraid; when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.

Sleep tight!

WatchingHISstory said...

lovecakes

drudgereport headline (Iknow how you must love Drudge)

Hamas takes over security HQ...
'They are executing them one by one'...

some of us conservatives think Hamas is another terrorist organization , however you probally think they are freedom fighters deserving honor.

WatchingHISstory said...

I'm just trying to stay on topic for lovecakes and Mike.

The real battle, greater than Islamo Fascism, is the harm that semi-pelegianism and armininism have done to the spread of the gospel over the face of the earth.

Hebrews 10:29 There may well be a connection of the 911 attack against America to the message America preaches.

Let's see if Pat Robertson picks up this story!

lovecakes said...

"some of us conservatives think Hamas is another terrorist organization , however you probally think they are freedom fighters deserving honor."

Well, how about engaging the things in which I actually say rather than freighting me with opinions that I don't have nor have given any indication of holding. Ad hominem is the lightweight's 1st defense, but I imagine it beats actually saying something of substance--thinking is hard.

You probably give Israel a blank check, no matter what they do, since that, like the Islamists', is a belief system that favors fundamentalist ideology over messy facts and geopolitical complexities. It all goes back to Jacob and Essau, eh?

I eschew violence of all kinds as a means of problem-solving. That is part of my faith that I cultivate; though you don't have to respect it.

WatchingHISstory said...

lovecakes said

You probably give Israel a blank check, no matter what they do, since that, like the Islamists', is a belief system that favors fundamentalist ideology over messy facts and geopolitical complexities. It all goes back to Jacob and Essau, eh?

watching said

Well, how about engaging the things in which I actually say rather than freighting me with opinions that I don't have nor have given any indication of holding.

WatchingHISstory said...

lovecakes

see my 7:31 PM, June 13, 2007 post. I tried to reply to your post.

my 7:14 AM, June 14, 2007 post was a thoughtless response which you pointed out. Sorry.

you said: I eschew violence of all kinds as a means of problem-solving. That is part of my faith that I cultivate; though you don't have to respect it.

I really do respect your opinion. I'm assuming that your opinion is Buddhistic, which I confess inadequate knowledge. AS a Christian I 'eschew' violence also but my Biblical heritage has included military defense and conquest as recorded in the OT.
Christ requested his disciples to carry swords for defense, they had two. Christ said that's all you need.

America has had justifiable wars; WWI, WWII, Korean and less justifiable wars; Civil War and Vietnam, kosovo etc.

The current war is a very complicated war that will last for many years (maybe a decade or more).

It is not just Iraq, but Iraq is the field of conflict, our choice to keep it contained in the middle east rather than on our soil.

However 911 was an act of first strike warfare of enormous perportion. It will expand to other fields including our own soil.

You are right about the Saudis and we will need to quit courting their favor. Iran and Syria will have to be confronted. Bush should not receive advice fron Christian premillenniaism rather He should pray and seek God's guidance in this war without curring favor with conservatives, Saudis or Israelis. Be a Churchill statesman for our nation.

junk99mail said...

WatchingHISstory said...
The real battle, greater than Islamo Fascism, is the harm that semi-pelegianism and armininism have done to the spread of the gospel over the face of the earth.

Do you believe that Arminianism is not true to the gospel? Do you believe that Calvinism and the gospel are intertwined or interconnected? Do you believe that unless a person preaches and teaches Calvinism they are not preaching or teaching the gospel correctly?

WatchingHISstory said...

Do you believe that Arminianism is not true to the gospel?

answer: yes

Do you believe that Calvinism and the gospel are intertwined or interconnected?

answer: yes

Do you believe that unless a person preaches and teaches Calvinism they are not preaching or teaching the gospel correctly?

answer: no A person preaches and teaches the Bible.

WatchingHISstory said...

Like Dispensationalism, Armininianism and Calvinism are theories of theology. Dispensationalism and Armininianism are at greater odds to the Bible than Calvinism.

We all need to get into the Word and ask the Holy Spirit to teach it to us. John 16:13-16

Isn't it so obvious that we can not let a man teach us. We need to know the Lord for ourselves so that we will hve no need to ask anyone, "do you know the Lord"?

junkmail, the questions you asked me should not have to be asked.
We in America are in the dark ages, Biblically!

lovecakes said...

Mike,

Come back--I got nothing to say on this armininimum vs. plegiolith vs. Kelvinism argument.

WatchingHISstory said...

lovecakes

That is part of my faith that I cultivate; though you don't have to respect it.

Do Buddhist act the same way as the NBBCOF when it comes to disagreements? Or have you associated with them too long?

Mike Bratton said...

Adrian Rogers was not a Calvinist.

Neither was he an Arminian.

To quote him thusly and like so (as best I can from my failing memory): "I'm neither Calvinist nor Arminian, just an old-fashioned, Bible-believing Christian."

Calvinism is an incomplete doctrinal viewpoint, just as Arminianism is.

As for the reference to semi-Pelagianism: Referring to someone as a semi-Pelagian Arminian is like calling a square a "four-sided square," in that it's rather redundant.

There is no such Biblical concept as "limited atonement." In response to that, my favorite quote from Pastor Rogers was a typically succinct one: "Who are the elect? The 'whosoever wills.'"

Likewise, there is no Biblical support to the notion that one can lose, reject, misplace, suspend, or toss aside one's salvation. My favorite quote on this subject is from an even more authoritative source than Adrian Rogers:

Romans 8:38-39 "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Romans 8, by the way, blows out both Calvinism and Arminianism all by its own self. :)

--Mike

lovecakes said...

Sorry Dude,

Wasn't trying to blaspheme, just inject humor, only not at your expense.

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike

While Adrian Rogers was definitely not Calvinist (I heard his anti-calvinism sermon and have his booklet, "Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!" and have heard numerous sermons with anti-calvinism injected) I have never heard a sermon from him about being anti-armininism. My memory fails me at times and I may have heard the comment you refered to as not being an Arminian but an old fashion Bible believing Christian.

I was born in Warren Co, middle Tennessee and I can say I am not a Tennesseean but the facts point to me being a Tennesseean.

I have two dear friends, one a Jehovah Witness and the other a Church of Christ and they both say they are Bible believing and I argue with them till I am blue in the face that they are not.

I said to junkmail: Like Dispensationalism, Armininianism and Calvinism are theories of theology. Dispensationalism and Armininianism are at greater odds to the Bible than Calvinism.

You are right that both are redundant (somewhat)

The BF&M states: "Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence wherby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation."

Ryrie states: "Armininism teaches that Adam was created in innocency, not holiness, that sin consist in acts of the will, that we inherit pollution from Adam but not guilt nor a sin nature, that man is not totally depraved, that man has the ability to will to do good and to conform to God's will in this life so as to be perfect, and that human will is one of the causes of regeneration."

Thiessen states: "According to this theory (Armininism), man is sick. As the outcome of Adam's trangression, men are by nature destitute of original righteousness and, without divine aid, utterly unable to attain it. Since this inability is physical and intellectual, not voluntary, God, as a matter of justice, bestows upon each invidual at the dawn of consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to counteract the effect of their inherited depravity and to make obedience possible, if they will cooperate with the Spirit."

Semipelagianism teaches that man retains a measure of freedom by which he can can cooperate with the grace of God.

It appears to me that the SBC and Adrian Rogers are semipelagian/ Armininian.

bugsii said...

Lovecakes,
I am a Christian and I got nothing to say on this armininimum vs. plegiolith vs. Kelvinism argument.

I am a Bible believer like Adrian and I don't believe any Buddhist jumped on the Christian bandwagon after being won over by an armininimum, plegiolith,Kelvinism argument.

Would you please start a post on your site. I don't care what it is at this point. It could be knitting and I'd politely contribute to avoid this. Do they have trolls on knitting sites?

junk99mail said...

watching,
What is the basic gospel message?

junk99mail said...

bugsii said...
Would you please start a post on your site. I don't care what it is at this point. It could be knitting and I'd politely contribute to avoid this.

Yes, knitting is so much more fitting for Christians to discuss than the nature of God's salvation.

bugsii said...

junk99mail, are you serious?! Beating the stew out of Arminianism, Calvinism, and Semi-blahblah is DISCUSSING the nature of God's salvation? If we were discussing the nature of God's salvation we'd be discussing the faith, hope and love that comes from knowing Jesus Christ, and not DEBATING the details of this other stuff. That can be exciting among friends, even friends that disagree but this discussion has NO purpose other than to beating someone into agreement or self-inflating egos. WatchingH has been dragging this topic around like a lead ball from site to site. He's been tossed off the other site and he is the only one blogging on his own blog.

This arguement has existed forever and doesn't save anyone. It's good for one to study personally but anyone that adamantly agrees with either side has not been reading the Bible very long. Or, maybe reading the Bible TOO much and not taking it out in the street.

Quite honestly I think terrorists are terrorists, politicians are politicians, and I think wine is WINE. I don't feel the need to have deep discussions about these topics. Maybe I'm just too simple and a little to shallow for this.

WatchingHISstory said...

junkmail
1 Corinthians 2
1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

WatchingHISstory said...

Maybe I'm just too simple and a little to shallow for this.

Maybe that is why you are not banned at NBBCOF

bugsii said...

Oh contraire mon frere WatchingHISstory, I am banned from NBBCnotOF. Or, the last time I checked I was. One of my last posts was to defend you as OC threatened you several times. I thought you were playing devil's advocate with a pretty good point regarding the pedophile and I thought you were being polite. But OC wouldn't entertain the thought. (Aristotle or Socrates said it is the mark of intelligence to entertain a thought without accepting it). I posted to ask how long the blogmaster was going to let that go on but she was not concerned and didn't see fit to post that item. I even agreed with Cakes one time and posted to say so and it was not fit to allow either. However, the rest of my posts over there were regarding the horrible way the regulars treat Christian's with opposing views.

I apologize for some of my posts on this thread as I was trying to break the monotony. If you were reading a newspaper and in the letters to the editor section people were discussing nothing but aminianism and calvinism(and the pedophile) week after week, would you continue reading? Unlike the paper, this forum allows for someone to input at will. So I did.

Why would anyone read this stuff anyway. As Christians, the Holy Spirit changes our lives(along with prayer, reading my Bible, etc...). Discussions about arminianism and calvinism the least bit edifying. As a non-believer, well, Cakes has said he has nothing to say on this topic either.

Watching, I quit reading your posts a while back when you stopped making sense and were talking about "she" the holy spirit.

I agree not to post again on this thread until the topic changes.

solomon said...

bugsii said...
Why would anyone read this stuff anyway.

...This arguement has existed forever and doesn't save anyone. It's good for one to study personally but anyone that adamantly agrees with either side has not been reading the Bible very long. Or, maybe reading the Bible TOO much and not taking it out in the street.


bugsii,
No topic has ever generated more scholarly study than the calvinist/arminian debate, which is actually the Pelagian/Augustinian controversy. Granted, it's possible to go off the deep end. However, there's much to be gained from the discussion not the least of which is a deeper appreciation of God's grace.

You made a good point that anyone who completely sides with either is mistaken. Both are in error. As our trollish friend 'arminius' has said, it's like asking someone whether they're a Nazi or a Communist (or somewhere in between).

I think it's a good time to get familiar with the arguments. We're currently seeing a movement towards a more Calvinistic atmosphere in our churches, which I believe is a result of the church growth movement, just like the emergent church.

Don't condemn all Calvinists as narrow minded because a few 'activists' are bent on forcing their thoughts on you. By and large, you couldn't tell the difference between the two if you tried.

WatchingHISstory said...

solomon said:

"I think it's a good time to get familiar with the arguments. We're currently seeing a movement towards a more Calvinistic atmosphere in our churches, which I believe is a result of the church growth movement, just like the emergent church."

Show me where the CGM and emergent church have a Calvinistic connection.

solomon said:

"...This arguement has existed forever and doesn't save anyone. It's good for one to study personally but anyone that adamantly agrees with either side has not been reading the Bible very long. Or, maybe reading the Bible TOO much and not taking it out in the street."

Aparently you are very spiritual and very learned in the scripture and you have achieved the balance everyone else desires You don't read the Bible too much and yet you are out on the street with the gospel. I admire you. How did you aquire such broad-mindedness?

WatchingHISstory said...

bugsii

I owe you an apology. I did not know that you had been banned.
Sorry

solomon said...

Watching,

You need to carefully re-read my post and understand what I was saying. Also, most people use italics to identify quotes from other bloggers. You incorrectly attributed bugsii's words (which I quoted) to me.

You were also very sarcastic, so I'm not inclined to explain my meaning to you.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WatchingHISstory said...

solomon

please accept my apology. You are correct I did not read your post correctly

Don't shut me out so quickly. Show me how Calvinism and the CGM and emergent churches are connected.

WatchingHISstory said...

7:54 PM, June 15, 2007 I said that: "It appears to me that the SBC and Adrian Rogers are semipelagian/ Armininian."

So everyone is going to attack me over silly ad hominen issues and not the substance of my premise. I have made some serious charges to the SBC and Adrian Rogers and no one defends them rather they attack me.

So what was JMO must be a fact the SBC and AR are semipelagian/armininian.
And no one can deny it!

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.