Redstate

elected Democratic official who emphasized the values of the bible, a religious document that includes the Old and New Testaments.

Wasnt the main reason for the Democratic Party pretty much disowning him that he was a fir advocate for the Iraq war?

------------------------
Is it because I is black? - Ali G

for the Iraq War, why didn't they reject the other Democratic Senators who supported the war? Hillary Clinton supported the war, and they almost nominated her to be president. Lieberman is hated by the New Left because he represents the Old Democratic Party that emphasized traditional biblical values. If Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were now Democratic senators, MoveOn would target them for exile as well.

I have 2 points to raise...

1. Hillary Clinton supported the war in the beginning, but had softened her stance by the end of the primary season because of political expediency... and the ultimate nominee of the Dem Party is still someone who (allegedly) has always been against the war.

2. This is straight from NRO Corner... by Ramesh Ponnuru --- "Senator Joe Lieberman is also a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which codifies abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy and requires all levels of government to subsidize it. He might make a good SecDef, but he shouldn't be on Republicans' veep lists."

I dont know whether this statement is true or not, as I dont know much about this legislation... But if this is true, I dont know how we can characterize Lieberman as religious. I would assume that one of the first principles of religion would be respect for the sanctity of life.

Again, I dont know what his role has been in this legislation. How has Lieberman been on cultural issues, does anyone know offhand?

------------------------
Is it because I is black? - Ali G

The issue is not that liberals support social welfare and justice while conservative ignore these areas. Rather the difference is over the nature of people and the role of government.

The liberal tends to view people as perfectable and want to utilize the power of Caesar (i.e. government) to impose their good intentions on a populace, believing that they know how to do this and can competently effect the necessary changes.

This in history has lead to repeated failed utopias and the transformation of a well-intentioned government programs into a monster that eats its own...Or alternatively, the grinding down of creative solutions into bureaucratic oppression that spreads misery (more equally, to be sure) but still ends up preventing innovation and breakthrough.

The conservative recognizes depravity in people and thus seeks to better the social welfare by emphasizing private initiative and voluntary communal effort. This allows for a laboratory where many prospective solutions can find expession and the good ideas prevail while the misguided or wrong ideas fall by the wayside.

In addition, the conservative has a healthy mistrust of government because governments are comprised and run by fallible individuals, and thus government action is quite prone to compound evil as it is to usher in good, especially when it seeks to effect evil through compulsion.

Thus the conservative will favor limiting governmental action to areas of voluntary association: maintaining the domestic peace and punishing evildoers, defending against outside threats, facilitating social and commercial interactions (e.g. maintaining currency, transportation infrastructure).

Or to put it briefly, the conservative favors bottom-up approaches, whereas the liberal favors top-down approaches.

In practice, admittedly, conservatives have not always been consistent and have fallen prey to the temptatation to shortcut the process and run to governmental intervention too quickly, and they rightfully should be called on it when they do this. (And as a member of the SBC, you perhaps have been sensitized to the fallings to temptations.)

But the solution is not to emphasize a different agenda for government coercion but rather to focus more strongly enabling local initiatives to flourish rather than a one-size fits-all approach.

That is before rushing to impose well-intentioned programs on the country by governmental fiat, demonstrate at the local level how people of faith can make a difference, which others will want to emulate.

And Rightly So!

Conservatives want to use their own money to improve the lot of the unfortunate, and so do the liberals -- they want to use the conservatives' money to improve the lot of the unfortunate.

Surveys show that conservatives tend to support organizations that provide direct assistance, while liberals tend to support organizations that seek taxpayer funding.

...then I assume that you opposed Bush's "faith-based initiative" to send taxpayer monies to religious organizations?

For the record, I opposed it then, and I oppose it now that Obama has made comments favorable to the notion.

from the spinning you just did on that? Obama stated firmly and clearly that he would FURTHER and SPEND more on what President Bush has done with faith based initiative spending from the federal government....yes that would be quite "favorable".

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

...I just read a news article that said he endorsed the idea.

I DEFINITELY don't like the idea of him spending more money on the idea...ecch.

to "faith based funding" for a variety of reasons.

1. Following BO's pattern, he will provide funding but require that the "faith" is left out.
2. It gives the feds an entry into control of churches.
3. Christ's commands to help the less fortunate were to the Church and individual Christians, not to the government.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

also could be said to mean, take care of business with the state and then get on with what you do as a Christian.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

...but I think you may have a bit of a blind spot.

You wrote, "The liberal tends to view people as perfectable and want to utilize the power of Caesar (i.e. government) to impose their good intentions on a populace, believing that they know how to do this and can competently effect the necessary changes."

Which side of the political aisle pushes/pushed:

* Blue laws (those recently enacted),
* Interference with adult businesses,
* Sodomy laws,
* Bans on gay marriage,
* Prohibition (yeah, going back a bit),
* Bans on medical marijuana,
* Teaching creationism as a scientific "theory",
* "Moral choice" regulations that allow state-licensed health professionals (other than MDs) to deny care,
* shoot-even-if-it's-your-neighbor's-yard laws, and
* others with which I won't bore you?

From what I've seen, liberals want to coerce particular behaviors/decisions in public/community contexts (e.g. "hate speech" laws, smoking bans), while conservatives want to coerce particular behaviors/decisions in private/family contexts (e.g. sodomy laws, school vouchers, pharmacist exemptions).

I don't think you can call all of these mere "failings to temptation."

I appreciate and agree with your distinction between faith and religion. I to have difficulty with many “religions”, but consider myself to be of strong faith.

However that is the extent of our agreement.

“I won't fault a person of faith who says, "I can't help you until you show some responsibility," but neither will I fault the person who says, "I'm going to help you until you can take responsibility for yourself." It's two sides of the same coin.”

Not!

These are not anywhere near the two sides of the same coin. The first example demands personal accountability and responsibility be shown in order to receive the implied benefit. In the second example, the benefit is freely given and no responsibility or accountability is required. Therefore, the person receiving the help has no incentive to help themselves. They have no incentive to try harder, work harder, make smarter and less self-serving decisions. When they need it again, they’ll ask again, and the liberals give it again and again and again.

Responsibility and accountability comes up front.

Those who control energy, control society.

You wrote, "Responsibility and accountability comes up front."
Here lies one of the conflicts that inevitably arise when one tries to mix religion and politics.

Speaking from a political perspective, I don't disagree with you. Speaking from my faith, however, you'll have to show me where Christ taught that alongside feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and taking care of the widows and orphans. The Good Samaritan helped an outright enemy of his people, yes?

There are ways for government to do such things without compromising either perspective. For instance, I would turn welfare into a time-limited commodity. In the absence of permanent medical conditions, anyone who can't find work in, say, 36 months isn't trying; it may not be a job you LIKE, and you might have to MOVE, but SOME sort of work is out there. Thus, we make welfare time-limited to 36 months, usable throughout one's lifetime. The government is there to help people when they need it, but it isn't open-ended.

well-meaning liberals make - you are horribly confusing God's commandments to individuals with His commandments for government.

As individuals, we are to help others re: the verses you have pointed out. Governments have no such command, and frankly, no such authority. Israel did, but they were set up as a theocracy. Look in the New Testament, there is no verse ever telling government what they can or cannot do, except that they have the authority to bear the sword.

It is my duty to help those who need help, especially brothers and sisters in Christ. It is theft for someone else to forefully take that money from me to give to others, even those that truly need it.

Pastor Hagee is a mensch and a Righteous Gentile. Your comparison with Jeremiah Wright is invalid; while Wright is a bigotry-spewing America hater, Hagee is most definitely not.

"God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land."

Hagee was referring to the biblical prophesy that foresaw the re-establishment of Israel, and theorized that Hitler was the catalyst for that rebirth. Given that Hagee founded and heads the largest pro-Zionist organization in America, it is quite a stretch to contend that his statement constitutes an endorsement of the Fuehrer, and such stretches should be left to Air America.

"The Roman Catholic Church conspired with Hitler to kill Jews in the Holocaust."

Hagee documents this charge in his book. Poland and Lithuania were two countries where local church officials actively assisted the Nazis with the Holocaust. Certainly given the enlightened views of Pope Benedict, no one including Hagee asserts that the Catholic Church should now bear the stain of these misdeeds, but the incidents happened and he referenced them.

Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League and a vigilant opponent of anti-Catholicism, responded to Hagee's clarification of his remarks by saying, "The tone of Hagee’s letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed."

When exactly did Wright extend a conciliatory hand towards those he offended?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

if I remain thoroughly disgusted by your defense of Hagee?

Look, buddy. When a man says that it was "God's Will" for Hitler to exterminate Jews, nobody should have to sit you down and say "that's a bad thing to say. Hagee is a bad man."

Give it a rest, as you either clearly do not understand what you are talking about, are completely xenophobic in every possible way, or are so ideologically blinded that you cannot understand what is wrong with what you are saying.

I'm pretty sure it's the last one.

HTML Help for Red Staters

without commenting on the veracity of your charges, let me note: this is RedState, not the Daily Kos. We believe a man can make his own decisions and draw whatever lines in whatever sand he wants.

The difference is that we also believe said man should be personally responsible for his choices. So, on to my point ...

If you are going to excoriate Hagee for his anti-Semitism, will you also publicly denounce Obama for his stated intention of snuggling up with other anti-Semites? I believe it was he who indicated he would seek out those other folks who believed Hitler was doing God's work for a lil' tete-a-tete.

And while his reason for the chat is ostensibly national security, and while he will no doubt defend his actions by saying he's working on behalf of Americans, the argument can be made that since they are so bad for the Jews and for Americans that we need to talk them out of their stated intentions, it is also true Bush's plan for dealing with them is most effective.

So, what say you? It's easy, just cut and paste, "Barack Obama is an anti-Semite for his willingness to cozy up to terrorists as opposed to opposing them. As such he should be denounced by all who denounce John Hagee's anti-Semitism! I denounce him. I denounce him. I denounce him. " into a diary under your name.

Me and the crickets will be waiting ...

Blue Collar Muse

Smaller Government! Lower Taxes! Stronger Defense! More Liberty!

My comparison with the good Reverend Wright is spot on. Examine Hagee's "America is a nation cursed by God" quote side by side with Wright's infamous GD America quote. That's frighteningly similar to me.

I absolutely cannot accept the indefensible idea that God was somehow encouraging the Jews to return to Israel by sending Hitler to murder millions of them. That is twisting theology beyond the accepted bounds, IMHO. Now you could argue that God knew that it was coming (He sees all and knows all) and I would be in agreement with you. I subscribe to the concept of free will, however and can accept that Hitler and his associates chose to murder Jews. I cannot accept that God somehow influenced him to do it.

Also, I don't think that I implied Hagee's support for Hitler, simply the bizarre nature of his statement. Whether the statement is legitimately anti-Jewish is debatable, but I don't believe that it is pro-Nazi in any way.

The Church's involvement with the Holocaust is a despicable anti-Catholic canard. A mainstream, respected Masorti Rabbi, David Dalin demolished this argument in his book, The Myth of Hitler's Pope. John Cornwell, the author of Hitler's Pope, who made the initial accusation that Pius XII was a horrible man in league with Hitler has actually apologized and admitted that he erred in his judgment of the Pope and the Catholic Church.

Hagee should accept that his insinuation that the Church was in league with Hitler is false and despicable. In all fairness, as well, Hagee is no scholar. His background, other than seminary time, is in mechanical engineering. That does not exactly qualify him as an authority on historical research. I haven't examined the specific sources that he quotes in his book, but professional scholars have debunked the Church-Hitler pact nonsense already.

Bill Donohue wants a seat at McCain's table. Although he has done some admirable work in the past, I suspect that he is tired of being left out of the spotlight. He wants to be the Catholic version of James Dobson. After years of bitter condemnation of Hagee, to have suddenly seen the light and forgiven Hagee is a rather large coincidence. Not to mention the fact that Donohue hardly speaks for all or even a significant portion of Catholics. The Catholic League doesn't really amount to much more than Bill Donohue's private forum for complaints.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Me? If so, please list your points of disagreement.

Wright explicitly supports a genocidal terrorist group, publishing Hamas tracts in his church newsletter.

If Hagee supports a genocidal terrorist group, please identify it.

Wright personally associates with racists and anti-Semites, even accompanying Louis Farrakahn on a Middle Eastern junket.

If Hagee is in league with either racists or anti-Semites, please identify them.

Wright never apologizes after he makes offensive racial and religious remarks.

Hagee apologized to the Catholic League and to Jews who were offended by his comments.

Pending your response, I do not perceive that these men are cut from the same moral cloth.

Wright is an unrepentant hater who continues to preach bigotry.

Hagee is a decent human being who has apologized for making insensitive statements.

I understand why the Democrats are desperate to equate an ethical conservative preacher with a debased liberal preacher.

Why are you?

While I am not a member of Hagee's church, nor do I ever listen to his sermons or read his books, nonetheless I want to toss in my two cents as well.

First of all, let me explain myself, I am a born-again Christian and believe that every word of the Bible is inspired by Holy Spirit through prophets and apostles.

On the subject of Jews, first you have to realize that God made a promise to them, that if they kept God's commandments, they would be blessed. On the other hand, if they ignored His commandments, they would be cursed. The ancient Israelite kingdom was destroyed, because it went astray from God's commandments. However, in midst of destruction and captivity, God spoke to Jews through Ezekiel, a prophet who lived during captivity period, that one day Jews would return to their ancient homeland.

Ezekiel also spoke of two separate national resurrections: political and spiritual. God promised Jews that Israel would one day rose out of graveyward of nations. This is the first stage of national resurrection. This was accomplished in 1948, when Israel was resurrected politically through the feat of arms clashing with Arabs. This is also God's miracluous doing as well. The fact Holocaust helped to make this reality a possibility shouldn't be dismissed so easily nor horrify anybody. God works in mysterious ways, and if in His infinite wisdom saw the only possible way to bring about His Plan for Jews was that they had to suffer horribly at the hands of Nazis, so be it.

In the spite of Holocaust, God still preserved His Chosen People. Throughout Israel's rebirth and forming days, she managed to hold on her own over her enemies and even came out on top at the end of Six-Day War (1967). Even in 1973, when Israel was nearly annihilated, God still managed to preserve Jews. Why? Because they are His Chosen People, out of whom Jesus Christ came forth.

So, yes, I do believe that Hitler did Jews a great favor, however unintentionally, by obtaining worldwide sympathy for what they suffered at his hands. However, Hitler's actions against Jews shouldn't be condoned at all. Hitler was still punished for his actions by spending eternity in Hell, that is if he didn't accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior.

On the subject of Hurriance Katrina, whether it was judgment of God isn't clear at all to us, including born-again Christians. As a Bible believer, one should remember that during Old Testament times, God did use famines, pestilences, wars, and other natural occurances to punish Israel for her sins. Though the program of Old Testament is no longer applicable to New Testament times, because of Christ fulfilling all tenets of Old Testament on the Cross, doesn't mean God's way of metering out punishment isn't applicable to New Testament times as well.

It may be that Katrina was indeed a form of punishment from God. Or that it was simply a natural occurance that has nothing to do with the spirituality of America or New Orleans itself. Jesus Christ does say that rain falls on the just and unjust, therefore it isn't far from us to realize that bad things happen both to good and bad guys as well. Interestingly enough, there is a famous verse in Ecclesiastes:

Ecc. 9:2 All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.

This shows that one event can have a different meaning to different people. To non-believers, Katrina simply meant that natural ecosystem was just doing its thing and a part of evolution unfolding before their eyes. Nothing less or more to it. And that government messed up a great deal in Katrina crisis. To born-again Christians, it could mean that God was testing their faith as they endured the trying times in riding out Katrina in New Orleans and US economy affected by it as well. And that it was a sort of a sign from God that He wasn't pleased with the direction America is heading spiritually.

God can do as He pleases to human beings, because we are His creation.

That is all I have to say on Hagee, disagree with me if you must. You're free to do so.

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Hitler really did a big old favor to the Jewish people by exterminating 6 million of them.

What the [expletive deleted - NS] is wrong with you?

This is a family site.

Profanity is forbidden on this site. Watch your language. Read the Posting rules (linked near the top of every page here at RS). Live by them here.

Thanks, Mgmt.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Heh. I get 10 freaked out posters replying to me b/c I say a bad word, but no one cares that this guy just said Hitler did a good thing by exterminating 6 million Jews? And you're the moderator of this?

Wow. Just. . .wow.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I'd already banned him before I saw this, for a broad swipe at conservatives in another thread.

That was all the evidence of bad faith I needed.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Freaked out Poster aka gamecock will care.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Go leap off a tall building in a single bound.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Hitler's ultimate goal was to exterminate all living Jews, and tat backfired on him big time. How? Because of worldwide sympathy at that time, Jews were able to resurrect their ancient homeland. I'm pretty sure if Hitler were alive, he'd be screaming out of his mind if he knew that because of his actions, Jews actually got a better deal -- getting their ancient homeland back in their hands!

Nonetheless, Jews DID pay a horrible price -- 6 million dead and gone forever from us. Again, God did promise Jews that they would suffer greatly before seeing the light at the end of what turned out to be one very long, dark tunnel! As matter of fact, if you think 6 million is a lot, just wait and see what the Great Tribulation is like. Two-thirds of Jews will die during this period, when Antichrist desecrates the Temple, far worse what they suffered under Hitler and Nazis. Millions more will die, but at the end, because of God's promise, Jews will regain everything they've lost the last 2,000 years. One day, Jews will be the ultimate rulers of the world: reigning with Christ in His millennial kingdom. Just as Christians will also reign with Christ, it's going to be a wonderful time for all of us, despite the sufferings of so many Gentiles (Hitler did persecute Christians as well) and Jews.

I don't want to downplay the sufferings of Jews and the price they paid during Holocaust. However, neither do I want to downplay the result they got out of it: reviving Israel's nationhood. In the end, God is truly just in His dealings with His Chosen People and Gentiles as well.

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

"I don't want to downplay the sufferings of Jews and the price they paid during Holocaust"

A bit too late for that I think. You seem to contradict yourself even as the words come out of your mouth.

Try to read my comment a bit more carefully, you'd see that I'm not dismissing Holocaust, but placing it within the context of God's Plan for His People. How is it difficult for you to understand my comment? Where am I contradicting myself?

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

I cannot go along with Hagee's view of Israel and the Jews because 1) I do not agree with his version of Dispensationalism and interpretation of history, and 2) his position perilously approaches (if not crosses over into) a two-covenant theology that has the ironic result of his supporting and funding anti-missionary activities that negate Christians who want to preach to Jew and act to keep Jews today from hearing the Gospel.

Hagee's fixation on the establishment of a physical nation of Israel in his historical location (in order to herald in a set of catastrophic events culminating in the Second Coming) leads to the morally repugnant kinds of statements about Hitler above that I repudiate. Cheetah typifies it with this statement in his comment:

I'm pretty sure if Hitler were alive, he'd be screaming out of his mind if he knew that because of his actions, Jews actually got a better deal -- getting their ancient homeland back in their hands!

Nonetheless, Jews DID pay a horrible price -- 6 million dead and gone forever from us. Again, God did promise Jews that they would suffer greatly before seeing the light at the end of what turned out to be one very long, dark tunnel! As matter of fact, if you think 6 million is a lot, just wait and see what the Great Tribulation is like. Two-thirds of Jews will die during this period, when Antichrist desecrates the Temple, far worse what they suffered under Hitler and Nazis. Millions more will die, but at the end, because of God's promise, Jews will regain everything they've lost the last 2,000 years. One day, Jews will be the ultimate rulers of the world: reigning with Christ in His millennial kingdom. Just as Christians will also reign with Christ, it's going to be a wonderful time for all of us, despite the sufferings of so many Gentiles (Hitler did persecute Christians as well) and Jews.

Sorry, besides the fact I find this prophetic interpretation of future history to be both unsupported by Scripture as well as virtually proclaiming another Gospel, the implication is that the Jews shouldn't really be too bothered by Hitler's exterminating 6 million of them because they got a better deal in return - further exterminations and some kind of dual rulership with Christians. Frankly, I reject that schema.

No deal. God did not raise up Hitler in order to effect the reestablishment of the Israel; Hitler's was a reign of evil. God subsequently brought some measure of good out of that evil by touching the conscience of enough people in the world to allow the establishment of Israel, but I reject a utilitarian calculation that this "good" somehow outweighs Hitler's murderous outbreak (not to mention the millions of non-Jews exterminated in his death camps and the millions upon millions who died in World War II fighting (soldiers and civilians) that Hitler initiated - you can't ignore putting these weights on the scale also).

And Rightly So!

Let me hasten to say that I am not a member of Hagee's church, so I don't know Hagee's teachings fully. Nevertheless, I want to point out a couple of things:

In Ezekiel 37, God spoke of His promise that Jews would be returned to their homeland as one nation. This is the phsyical and political resurrection of Israel. Under Cyrus, Jews had returned from captivity to Israel, but Jewish rule was not politically resurrected. Under Macabee, Jews did briefly experience political independence, but that was soon crushed by Roman legions under Pompey. It wasn't until 1948, that Israel finally rose out of ashes for good. This fulfills God's promise to Jews that ancient Israelite kingdom would be restored, though its borders expanding to Euphrates River were not restored.

Thus, it proves that this interpretation of prophecy is indeed accurate and true. The last stage of Israel's resurrection hasn't occurred yet, it has to do with its spiritual relationship with God. But that's another subject for another thread.

Nowhere in my comment, did I say that Jews shouldn't be bothered with 6 million dead, because they got a better deal. You're putting words in my mouth. I did say that Jews suffered greatly and paid a terrible price in order to get their homeland back and experiencing political independence for the first time since Babylonian Empire destroyed ancient Israel.

Finally, I do believe God uses ALL people for His purposes. That includes non-believers as well. Though, we are gifted with free will, it doesn't mean God is blind to our actions or refusing to advance His agenda further. The devil is also using us as well. The truth is, from a born-again Christian's perspective, the forces of good and evil are using us against each other. That is why Paul wrote in Ephesians 6 that spiritual warfare is very real, and we should be mindful of the devil's wicked devices against us.

In the Bible, God did say that both Cyrus and Nebuezzar were part of His plan for Jews. In fact, if I recall correctly, that also included using Assyrians as well! So, God will use anybody for His purposes, both good and bad guys. Why God did this or that is something we will never totally understand or even freely accept without doubts, but that is God's way. God's thoughts are greater than ours, thus we can never truly understand His will, though we may beg for it.

Or put like this way: the devil was using Hitler for wicked purposes; God was also using Hitler but for the greater good. Hitler had free will, nobody forced him to decide murdering Jews and other groups, starting a world war, killing millions more across Europe. Hitler chose this way, the devil simply used him for his own purposes.

One should remember the devil's top priority is taking as many he can to the Lake of Fire. He doesn't really care about Hitler or anybody for that matter. He is determined to take as many he can so that he will have company when spending eternity in the Lake of Fire for good. On the other hand, God's top priority is winning souls as many He can to Heaven through Jesus Christ. The Jews are God's Vessel of Hope and Redemption for the entire humankind as well. Remember the famous verse in Romans, where it says all things together work for good according to God's purpose.

Let me ask you this question: was it wrong of God to use Nero and other wicked Emperors to persecute early Christians? Look at my signature. God set up kings and cast away them as well. God in a certain way set up Hitler, and it was He who cast Hitler away. God always retain sovereign rule over humankind. I think that's all I have to say right now. Please feel free to ask me more questions in regards to God's plan for the entire humankind!

Have a pleasant evening, civil truth.

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

Putting aside the specifics of the interpretation of certain Biblical prophecies, such as the Ezekiel 37 text, which would be a threadjack as well as a lengthy discussion, I do agree with the basic teaching that God is both able to and does use unbelievers (and even quite wicked ones), to supercede their wicked intents and actions to bring about a good. Habbakuk deals quite explicitly with this issue, as well as Isaiah (who spoke of Cyrus as God's agent) and others.

Where I would hesitate is to define that such usage is necessarily for "the greater good". That, to me, depreciates the horror of evil. I'm also in general leery of too quickly setting up the devil as the instigator of evil in order to reduce the moral complexity of evil in a universe under God's reign (but that is another whole topic that again would be a threadjack here).

The emphasis instead should be on God's redemptive power, the highest expression of which was the Resurrection, the ultimate reversal of the flow of sin - instead of concentrating on a weighing of evil versus good. Especially since we can never know "what would have been".

This even goes back to the beginning: God had a purpose for Adam and Eve; their sin broke that purpose, but God used their sin to bring about a different good. Not obligatorily a "greater good" than what God had in store of Adam and Eve had they not fallen - that would be a tough call to weigh the horrors of human history against the nobility of human actors - but God still effected a good that restores communion between God and his created beings in the mystery of Redemption.

And Rightly So!

whether they be for exile and/or captivity of the chosen people or as an instrument of betrayal to bring about his son's sacrifice, in scripture.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

that the sacrifice of the Lamb was a foregone conclusion from creation and that the Resurrection was the fulfillment of the Word. That seems like a critical hinge of the faith, to me. Failing to understand that has caused much distress over the years.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

I completely agree with you, my friend. Fearing the SBC is indeed ridiculous.

Now please travel to MentalHospital.com and spread the word:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/24/11573/1665/866/541189

why Jimmy Carter left the SBC? Because they were too nice?

Maybe it was because they were a bunch of crazies who think that they should impose their conservative agenda[the only ones who do this are the leaders of the SBC, not the followers--however the leaders do exert quite a bit of influence over the followers] on the government. Why do they do that? No other religion does that. To my knowledge, it seems that most often it is best if religious groups stay away from government.

professors and missionaries actually believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's why he left.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

...here's what Carter said at the time.

'Carter said the Southern Baptist Convention, which has almost 16 million members, has adopted policies "that violate the basic premises of my Christian faith," including a denominational statement that prohibits women from being pastors and tells wives to be submissive to their husbands.

He said the "most disturbing" reason he and his wife decided to disassociate themselves from the Southern Baptist Convention was the elimination of language in June that identifies Jesus Christ as "the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted."'

Source: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_SBC_Carter.html

If you've a source for your comment, please provide it.

Maybe it was because they were a bunch of crazies who think that they should impose their conservative agenda...on the government. Why do they do that? No other religion does that. [emphasis mine]

Your statement breaks down at least when it comes to Islam, where many groups calling themselves Islamic recognize no separation between church and state. We see this conflict in many countries have acted to impose Sharia upon their populace, leading to persecutions of those who don't follow Islam and those Muslims who disagree with their theological interpretation of Islam.

And in Western countries, including the U.S., we have many speeches by certain Islamic leaders calling for the introduction of Sharia into the legal systems of these countries. Since these often are spoken in Arabic, and to Islamic audiences, they have not received the kind of media attention and dissemination that more modest statements by certain Christian leaders have received.

Also, please don't confuse participation in the political system via advocacy with an intent to undemocratically impose one's views - all politics involve certain views prevailing over their opposites. And we do have safeguards built-in to protect the Constitution.

And Rightly So!

He sounded more reasonable when I was writing my comments, but looking over the record, I see that he went completely off the rails before I posted. I guess I won't be able to find out if he was capable of rational argument.

And Rightly So!

that the Democrats fear what they don't understand...They don't understand the way the SBC works and in their mind we're all these mind numbed robots dutifully going about doing the will of our SBC Masters who are bent on opressing them and destroying them utterly!

Anyone on the inside knows this is a joke...but the Dems have never been ones to let facts get in the way of their paranoid emotions and lunatic imaginations!

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

support for Israel, is as a safe haven against future holocausts.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

While I strongly vehemently with his theology regarding Israel, I recognize that Hagee does not personally subscribe to teachings historically associated with anti-Semitism and can not rationally be called an anti-Semite.

However, the consequences of Hagee's theological errors are likely to end up harming Jews and the nation of Israel.

In particular, while I don't know the details of Hagee's eschatology, most Dispensational schemas of history include a future death of huge numbers of Jews, which perhaps could be labeled a holocaust (but I won't insist on that term) during an era of history called the Great Tribulation, which is a necessary event for ushering in the Second Coming. I thus must wonder what is Hagee's longer-term perspective on the goals of his actions.

And Rightly So!

Those of us who are dispensationalists believe that God's plan for the ages includes the Tribulation and everything involved therein. Because of that, while we hate what is coming, we leave that part to God - He will do as He sees fit.

Therefore, we can't worry too much about what the political ramifications of those beliefs might be, since we didn't come up with them and we won't be the One who carries them out. While I'm not a particular fan of Hagee, I imagine that his feelings are the same.

Pastor Hagee thinks that when the Rapture arrives those who believe in Jesus will ascend to heaven and those who don't believe in Jesus will not. That is basic Christian theology: belief in Jesus as a prerequisite for salvation.

There is an enormous difference between believing in the standard tenets of Christianity and hating Jews. Hagee does not want to commit genocide against Hebrews; in fact, he wants to prevent it.

Contrast that position with the stance of mainstream Islam and its secular liberal sycophants. A day does not pass without a prominent jihadist demanding a reprise of the Holocaust, yet "moderate" Muslims and American liberals remain studiously oblivious to it all. When it comes to condemning the threats of impending Jewish genocide from Ahmadinejad and Hamas and Hezbollah and countless others, our Islamo/leftist friends are silent.

Like Sergeant Schultz, they know nothing. Nothing!

Or so they would have you believe. Of course, Muslims and liberals hear the threats of genocide, too. They just don't care. Or worse.

Meanwhile, Hagee and other bible-believing Christians aggressively side with the Jews, so excuse me for not accusing them of being anti-Semitic. Irrespective of their theology, born again Christians' moral vigilance demonstrates a level of decency absent among the vast majority of Muslims and secular liberals.

I did absolve Hagee of anti-Semitism, as I wrote:

I recognize that Hagee does not personally subscribe to teachings historically associated with anti-Semitism and can not rationally be called an anti-Semite.

I certainly agree that a substantial proportion of Muslims are hostile to Israel, and that railings against Israel and Zionists are frequently little more than a fig leaf for a more fundamental anti-Semitism. And I agree that in our country, a substantial number of moderate Muslims and leftists are either complicit in or at best, oblivious to the threat of an impending Jewish holocaust.

However, that doesn't mean that I need to uncritically accept Hagee political views and actions as being in Israel's best interests or in the best interests of the Jews. While I believe he does serve as a counterweight against forces hostile to Israel, I still reserve the right to criticize the theological underpinnings of his support for Israel, especially in light of certain harmful consequences that I perceive as ensuing from that theology, both to Israel and to the proclamation of the Gospel.

However, I really don't want to engage in a debate over Dispensational theology in this thread, tonight. Hopefully we can leave this discussion with a recognition that we share support for Israel while having disagreements over the basis of that support.

And Rightly So!

But you shouldn't reject them based on lies and false innuendo. I'm not a huge fan of Haggee But I've heard his interpretations of prophesy and what he teaches concerning Judah and I've read some of his books on Prophesy because it's a subject that's interested me before I was saved at 35 years of age. I know what the man believes and preaches and it's nothing close to what has been attributed to him.

He's also being hung with a false noose concerning what he says about the Catholic Church. There is evidence that the Catholic Church collaborated with Mussolini and Hitler even if the collaboration didn't go all the way to the Pope. Many have contended for years thet it did in deed extend to the Pope...but I'm not an expert in that subject and from what I've heard the evidence is circumstantial.

Something I find Curious in all this is the outrage that's heaped on Hagee even if he's wrong while people shrug off all the leftist jabs about the inquisition and pin all kinds of vile and crazy crap on the Church.

As to whether God had anything to do with Hitler's final solution...The Bible says over and over again that God governs in the affairs of men...that he set's up kings and kingdoms and he takes them down. Even going down to the point of saying a sparrow can not fall without his note.

Job was tormented by Satan who could only do to Job what God allowed him to do. God's ways are not our ways and what seems cruel to us are all part of God's plan. Hitler couldn't have done anything to the Jews unless God let him. 911 couldn't have happened unless God let it. Katrina couldn't have destroyed NO unless God allowed it.

That's in essence what Haggee said and Robertson and Falwell...They've all been raked over the coals for pointing out what the Bible plainly says by people that can't understand what they are saying who could care less whether they are truthfully characterizing what they said...they're looking to make political points!

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

I started a thought and didn't finish it because I got sidetracked in my thinking so I want to clarify before I'm handed my head

Job was tormented by Satan who could only do to Job what God allowed him to do. God's ways are not our ways and what seems cruel to us are all part of God's plan. Hitler couldn't have done anything to the Jews unless God let him. 911 couldn't have happened unless God let it. Katrina couldn't have destroyed NO unless God allowed it.

What Robertson and Falwell and Haggee got raked over the coals for was saying that God was punishing us with 911...and Katrina....That's the mischaracterization...I've avoided this subject because of the emotional reaction that is inevitable in discussing the subject but this is the question at hand since everyone has decided to focus on it to the exclusion of the rest of the OP.

What they were saying is that "America has been blessed as a nation beyond all others...we haven't had an attack upon the continental United States of America since the Civil War...and the War of 1812 before that...He's had his hand of protection over us, much like he did Job, for all this time...and now that hand of protection is gone. Whether he's removed it because of our sins, or for some other purpose only he knows. Maybe it is punishment as Robertson and Falwell said...maybe not... My faith tells me it doesn't matter why he does what he does or doesn't do...My faith is that whatever he does it is for the best of all who love him and are called according to his purpose.

Should Haggee, Fallwell or Robertson be condemned for what they've said on the subject? I don't know...it makes me uncomfortable because I know how statements like that can be used against a person by their enemies and the timing of Falwell's and Robertson's timing was too close to 911 for my tastes so I would say yeah...it's a legitimate critisizm...what's wrong is saying the statements were made because of hatred for certain people or because they hate this country as J. Wright so obviously does...there is simply no comparison so that critisism is a false one based on easily quantifiable fact!

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.--Ronald Wilson Reagan

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Let me know when we have state religion and a church tax like they have in Europe, and then I'll start to buy that we have anything like htey had.

HTML Help for Red Staters

When government starts picking and choosing religious organizations to receive taxpayer monies as outright grants, thus allowing them to spend more of their money on religious activities, I start to worry.

When government starts sending taxpayer monies to religious schools via vouchers, thus directly subsidizing religious education in many cases, I start to worry.

When you couple both of these with the tax-exempt status enjoyed by almost all organizations that name themselves "churches," well, you see the pattern.

It isn't that any of these necessarily equate to the establishment of a "state church," but does government need to follow that path? One could argue, though, that we're paying a "church tax," since some portion of our tax dollars go to these grants/vouchers.

If I'm not mistaken, he even believes Jews go to Heaven without Christ!

I would want confirmation from a primary source that Hagee believes the gospel message is different for Jews than the rest of humanity. I'm sure that Paul and the other apostles would have liked to have know that too, as it would have made their lives MUCH easier.

And Rightly So!