Quote:You really need not worry that there is any risk that the US will become some apocalyptic craving theocracy. Just as no one need worry that if Kerry becomes president that he will surrender the nation to the UN. These are feeble scare tactics, and too common in elections.
I wish that were true. Unfortunately, I have been paying attention. There is a theocracy being put into place, and it is very organized and intentional.
Squinney, you don't know how much this comment disappoints me. Here I was thinking that you were one of the few relatively rational, though passionate, Liberals on A2K (unlike that bounder bipo), and then this. I'm sure you are paying attention, but I'm afraid I have to question your ability to process the information to which you have attended.
How can you possibly contend that a theocracy is being put in place? Please don't respond with partisan rhetoric. Instead demonstrate how power (as opposed to influence) is being invested in the religious leadership within this country. What governmental power has been invested in clerics. What governmental policy has been established or enforced by the clergy?
The very notion that Bush and Robertson may be at odds on what transpired during their meeting belies your claim.
The bold in the original is my emphasis.
I knew it!
The first bolded areas deal with God intending all people to be free. I think Bush's claim that God wants all people to be free is hogwash. If that were true, why wait until now?
So, you don't believe that God wants all of his people to be free? This is a peculiar contention for a self-professed Christian. Correct me if I am wrong, but Christians believe in free will. Doesn't this mean that God can want all of his children to be free, but will not directly intercede in human affairs to assure that this is so?
I don't know to which specific Christian sect you belong, but I am not familiar with any that believe that God expresses his will through the course of human events. I'm not a Christian though so maybe you can enlighten me.
Why put Bush in charge of freeing everyone? What kind of person does it take to believe they were chosen for such a task? (A bit pompous in my estimation.) And, I also find it to be a set-up for invading other countries in the name of freedom with the rational that God told him to do it.
Why indeed. Who has suggested that Bush has been put in charge of freeing everyone? Not Bush.
If one were John Kerry, who has aspired and contrived to be president since he first began to grow pubic hair, one would never acknowledge that God played a role in one's ascension, however, if one were a n'er do well frat boy who had a late in life conversion and then found himself in the Oval Office, one might suspect that a divine plan was at work.
This. certainly, doesn't prove that God meant for George W Bush to be president, but it does suggest a certain appealing lack of ego on the part of W. Even he is amazed that he is president and therefore he feels his election was a matter of providence. I admit there is an attendant danger here. If he is convinced that God wanted him to be president than it isn't much of a leap to assume that any decision he might make was not only blessed, but engineered by God.
Perhaps this is the way he thinks. If he does, how much worse is it than someone who thinks their decisions are correct simply because they are confident in their own ego driven infallibility? Six of one; half dozen of another in my book.
An effective leader is confident. An effective leader is decisive. An effective leader doesn't lose his or herself in a downward spiral of contemplation.
Anyone who strives for the presidency, in my way of thought, has a flawed personality. If we are lucky, the strengths of the personality outweigh the weaknesses. I prefer someone occupying the White House to believe that they are there through the will of providence rather than manifest destiny.
The second part I emphasized was:
Quote:
If God told him to invade, why has the reason for the war had to change ten times? Either God was right that there were WMD, God lied, or Bush didn't hear Him right.
How silly.
You are making the flawed assumption that if God told George Bush to invade Iraq that he explained his reasoning in detail.
I don't believe God told Bush to invade Iraq, or that Bush believes God told him to do so, BUT if God did, it is more in keeping with our Biblical notion of God that he simply commanded "George, invade Iraq."
It is flawed to argue that God didn't command Bush to invade Iraq based on a contention that God would have commanded him to do so because God knew saddam had WMDs, and we now know there were no WMDs. You, as a Christian, are playing fast and loose with the manner in which God works his will. If I were a Christian, I might think that you were flirting with blasphemy.
Bush doesn't contend that God told him to invade Iraq. If you know otherwise, prove it.
The thing is, that FACTS had to be ignored in order to implement "Gods war plan." Serious FACTS, such as the number of troops needed, the financial cost, the cost in terms of human life, intelligence reports and inspectors that said no WMD were present.
I have greal difficulties with this comment.
First of all you cannot prove that Bush believes God told him to invade Iraq.
Secondly, you have made rather ridiculous assertion that God's command to Bush included a "War Plan."
Finally, you are making a quite profane, and consequently flawed assumption, that the invasion of Iraq has been an utter failure.
As a product of man, it cannot be anything but flawed. If you are measuring it against perfection you are not recognizing the nature of man.
The test of the Iraqi War is not whether or not it has been executed with perfection (even assuming God's direction, we cannot assume God's perfection) but whether or not it, ultimately, advances , first, the interests of the US, and secondly the interests of mankind.
Fortunately I am not a Christian, because I doubt Jesus would approve of my priorities.
I don't happen to be comfortable with a president leading our country who ignores facts and brushes aside those that do not agree with him, in order to do what he claims God told him to do.
Nor would I, if this were the case. Prove it and stop relying on partisan blather.
The clever thing about the Bush approach is that it can't be refuted. How does one refute what apparently God is disclosing only to Bush? How clever for God to "trick" Pat Robertson and tell him something different than what He told Bush. He's a sly one, that God!
When did Bush ever contend that God disclosed something to him that he kept from everyone else? It is all well and fine to argue that he has, but if you are going to do so, than intellectual honesty compels you to provide some evidence that supports your charge.
You are reaching for straws if you insist upon making anything of this issue with Robertson. Plain and simple.
Here's a good question: What else is God telling Bush to do?
What is God telling Squinney to do, or doesn't God influence squinney's life?
Of course there need not be any connection between God's will and Squinney's life. Squinney is perfectly free to think and act unencumbered by the dictates of a medieval Christian God.
However, if Squinney is going to declare herself a Christian in order to score points in her argument against repulsive Christians, than it would seem, at least to me, that Squinney needs to abide, in even the most superficial manner, with the teachings of Christianity.
