Jim Lincoln wrote: Churches are not to be in politics. The much greater evil of course was the Catholic Church supporting the NAZI regime, ---
From the news: "In contrast to Christians who resisted Nazi evils, German Baptists "were just happy to be left alone, you might say," historian Albert Wardin told Baptist Press. "And they were just happy to have the regime allow them to preach the Gospel within their churches. And so the German Baptists were not going to take any position that would counter any of the positions of the Hitler regime."
Sounds much like your position, Jim. You know, Rendering to Adolph Caesar, etc?
SteveR wrote: Penny Ron Paul today on how the US continues down the wrong foreign policy path "The CIA training of the rebels thus far has resulted in a direct pipeline of weapons from â€śvetted moderatesâ€ť to the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front and to the very ISIS that the administration claims to be fighting. In July, a full brigade of 1,000 fighters from a US-backed rebel group joined ISIS! Of course they took their US-provided weapons and training with them, some of which will certainly be used against the rapidly increasing US military personnel in the region. That Saudi Arabia is considered a suitable place to train Syriaâ€™s future leaders must be some kind of sick joke. While ISIS was beheading two American journalists â€“ as horrific as that is â€“ the repressive Saudi theocracy was beheading dozens of its own citizens, often for relatively minor or religious crimes" ---
Still maintain that when distraction is needed, or when "security" needs a boost, caused chaos serves a purpose. Who benefits this election year from chaos? People including conservatives continue to think it's about incompetence.
Jim Lincoln wrote: No, it doesn't. But then what I was answering had nothing about it either, yes, I do ardently support what is really GOPcare, q.v., /romney-care-massachusetts-healthcare-reform/>(If ObamaCare Is So Bad, How Does RomneyCare Survive?) which comes from GOPcare, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/conservative-origins-of-obamacare/ (Conservative Origins of Obamacare)[ Of course I don't like anything to do with abortion, but then again are you against prenatal care? excerpt from, the Affordable Care Act finally makes healthcare affordable and accessible for women.
didactics wrote: --- Rom 13. "He calls them the higher powers, not the supreme, who possess the chief authority, but such as excel other men. Magistrates are then thus called with regard to their subjects, and not as compared with each other. And it seems indeed to me, that the Apostle intended by this word to take away the frivolous curiosity of men, who are wont often to inquire by what right they who rule have obtained their authority; but it ought to be enough for us, that they do rule; for they have not ascended by their own power into this high station, but have been placed there by the Lord's hand. And by mentioning every soul, he removes every exception, lest any one should claim an immunity from the common duty of obedience. "For there is no power," etc. The reason why we ought to be subject to magistrates is, because they are constituted by God's ordination. --- (John Calvin)
Magistrates have subjects?
Most who at a given time have power want to keep it, and credit God for their lust to do so. Notice as well that even questioning this messed up and self serving interpretation of Rom 13 is put down.
John UK wrote: Well Mike, you know I don't know much about politics, but Westminster heavily subsidises Scotland, Wales, and NI. The Welsh are least supported, but are canny enough to know that without that help, they would not survive long. That is why they are going the devolution route, so as to avoid losing the subsidy. The Scots also take it into account, and is why I think they were fearful of "going it alone". Especially when "offers" of further devolution was coming from 10 Downing Street. They obviously thought that a better option. The man in the street will nearly always place his vote in that which improves his bank balance, or does not make it worse. ---
Fascinating that folks are happier to give much in the way of taxes to govt, then have govt make gifts to them of some of their own money in return.
Jim Lincoln wrote: You're right, Mike of NY just ask me Another good article, http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-nice-isis-jihadist-next-door/print/. You could look again at these articles besides asking me. The Christian Right Movement is a disaster for the mission of Christians! ' "The Reconstructionist movement and its allies and offshoots, by substituting political and cultural action for the proclamation of the Gospel, by substituting eschatology for soteriology, and by mangling the Gospel itself, have become tools of Romanist political action" (3/02, The Trinity Review).' excerpt from, .com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/notes_on.htm>Notes on Reconstructionism. Conservative Christians are overlooking SermonAudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=118121637304>The Inadequacy of Moralism and of political action. ://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm//dominion.htm>Dominion Theology/Kingdom Now/Reconstructionism is an anti-Biblical curse.
Off subject somewhat, but has anyone noticed that the usual jump in the cost of gasoline, always following some chaos in the Mideast, just isn't happening? In fact prices have dropped significantly at the same time IS has taken over much of Iraq and things are not looking too good. Could it be that instability in the Mideast doesn't have to cause price increases at the pump? That Iraq oil is ho-hum in relevance? Hmmm. Let me speculate. It's election year!
Jim Lincoln wrote: 1517, what if one of the Muhammadan players came in wearing "Know Muhammad, Know ...Jihad... even if was on a Nike brand shirt? Would that make it okay? There are quite a few places I think a secular face to world is better for everyone. This isn't a Christian country, and while the shirt, "No Jesus, No Peace," might even be more provocative, and I personally like the shirt with "Know Jesus, Know Peace," I can see why it can be out of place in this particular instance. He can wear that shirt I would think than other places besides in this particular setting and get the message across.
Sounds like you think Christians should only express their faith while within a church building, not in public, because you never know when a muslim might want to express his faith publicly. Since you see the wearing of the shirt "in this particular instance" as out of place, does that mean you see some congressional making of a law regarding an establishment of religion in it?
Michael Hranek wrote: Mike NY Let's NOT underestimate Satan (the real enemy) For Muslims to assassinate Francis I would imho create sympathy for the Roman Catholic Religion which one evil one disquised as an angel of light would abuse to drawn people (especially ignorant gullible "evangelicals" into the RCC, and in some instances 'convert' some Muslims to Catholicism. After all they supposedly adore the same god ---
Agreed. What does Satan care who misleads? Just relaying my thoughts on the suicide mission for IS should they succeed in their threat against the pope.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well being in the Vietnam war, we did have a lily-white officer core, but many of our sargents were black. My first company sargent was. I seriously doubt the blacks back then really cared if the lieutenants were White as long as they weren't racist. I didn't care if my sargents were black as long as they weren't racist. I didn't like racists of any color. ---
Yet you manage to call the white officer core by the racist "lily-white" with no equivalent phrase for the black sergeants. Interesting.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Mike of NY, may I suggest you watch either part 2 (3?) I think I saw this series from the first, The Roosevelts: An Intimate History, and Teddy called himself a Progressive, it is interesting that the Republicans should have actually a mule as their party symbol, because they are as stubborn as one. Oh, we still would be burning coal in our furnaces and trains, if the GOP had it's way. So, no, Teddy's Square Deal is just as much of an anathema to the Republican Plutocracy now, as it was then. This is why the present GOP, had better start paying attention to Samâ€™s Club Republicans Vs. the Tea Party.
You often manage to string words together, which when analyzed don't say too much. You should run for office.
Besides, (not speaking of TR's irrelevant Progressive Party, but of today's leftwingers who call themselves progressive) why should we be moved when a politician calls himself progressive. We shouldn't expect liberals to call themselves by their base philosophy, which is reactionary.
Always fascinating watching you bring up Catholicism and/or the GOP, and try to make some negative connection, regardless of context. But just so you won't go too far astray, more Catholics in the House of Rep. are Democrat than are GOP. Same for the Senate. You should be happy to have like-minded company.