31
Oct
16

To American “Evangelicals”


There is only ONE hope for the PEOPLE of America and that is to abandon allegiance to their nation, its constitution, its flag, and any potential president and to turn their affections toward, and put their trust in, the King of Kings alone.

Advertisements

63 Responses to “To American “Evangelicals””


  1. November 1, 2016 at 12:39 am

    An absolute “AMEN !!” to this post.

    I’d add “abandon their unexamined faith in the democratic process.”

    Democracy is obviously the best system of government MAN has ever come up with. But its promise to produce the best possible candidates (and thereby, rulers) is revealed before our eyes daily as false.

    Not for Americans only, the operative belief of democracy rings false to our experience each and every day. It’s simply bad theology…call it a lie…that “the voice of the people” is the voice of God.

    I’d agree too that HOPE is what God offers to American Christians who abandon their false beliefs. Please pardon what feels like “self-promotion,” but I’m providing a link to my blog-post “This is a Hopeful Time.”

    http://cross-purposes.blogspot.com/

    Blessings, Steve

  2. November 1, 2016 at 7:19 am

    As Churchill reputedly said… Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest (my paraphrase).

    In other words, democracy is the best in a very bad bunch of (human) options. It at least gives the opportunity to replace a bad government (too often with an equally bad government.

    Democracy is like changing one’s socks (by changing the sock on the right foot with the one on the left foot and vice versa).

    God is not democratic. His King will rule with a rod of iron – with total justice and righteousness.

  3. 3 Marleen
    November 1, 2016 at 8:26 am

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/phyllis-schlafly-a-conservative-activist-has-died-at-age-92/2016/09/05/513420e2-73bc-11e6-be4f-3f42f2e5a49e_story.html?tid=hybrid_content_1_na

    I didn’t follow this woman’s whole career, but I was influenced by her early on in my own life (she is more the generation of my mother and Ronald Reagan, my mom is a bit younger than they). My mother, like her, was in favor of Goldwater (which is not something I knew about my mother or this woman until much later, people had learned to hide most sentiments along those lines). I remember something this woman said that I heard when I was not associated with the same organization I had been in my teens [an activity aside from my private Christian school — thank God my school wasn’t pushing politics, even though there was a class in political science which I took]. She said receiving alimony was like being on “Welfare” (which — “Welfare” — to her was one of the evils* of American society). When I saw her endorsing Donald Trump, it confirmed how disgusted I have become with the so-called conservative movement. I’m not a fan of divorce, but Trump is emblematic of why it sometimes happens. Remembering her endorsement months later, I angrily said to someone I was telling about this that she should just shut up. She was announced dead the next day.

    I know that sounds weird, and I didn’t pray for her death — or anything like that. But everyone should be thinking eternally, not temporally when it comes to matters of morality and family and faith.

    * The philosophy is so infecting to the mind that I was once accused of being a socialist by the father of my children after he had come up with the idea he was going to buy me a new car. First, it was simply a plan to get me a car (to replace the one I already had which was running just fine). Then it was going to be a new car for both of us, and he was going to keep his sort of new car too. We still had our youngest son home with us at that time, and my son (youngest son of five sons) was using my car a lot. Then my son’s dad asked me to give my old car to my youngest son (who was going to leave for another city for college), to be given when he would buy the new car with both of our names on the car ownership (and mainly to be my car). I agreed to this, and he called my son and told him his big plans (to get appreciation). Then, he went and traded in his car (which would have been what he would mainly use) and got a new car only in his own name. But he still expected me to give away my car. I told him that if he still wanted to help our son in the way he said, he would need to help him get some other used car. He then became angry and said I was a socialist for wanting him to help “everybody.” When the kids were younger, he always said he was “helping” me out when he did anything about them (my husband and father of my children was doing something extraordinary, it seemed, to be a parent). This sounds so ridiculous, I have to elucidate that he’s from an upper middle-class family and is well educated.

    I’ll tell you what. I wouldn’t have had time to tell all the women in the world what to do (or to contribute to the grievance and entitlement culture of white men or men in general, especially well-to-do men) while I had six children like Phyllis, or even my five. And no one was offering to hire me a maid or nanny. Then again, I wanted to raise my own children — not just make sure I was home at night (but that too).

  4. 4 Marleen
    November 1, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    I am for our Constitution, but not as if it’s a document from God (a new ten commandments, as it were). It is the law of our land and (along with how our nation has developed) better than pretty much anything else out there; not making us better than every other country in how it conducts itself, but our version of having a republic/democracy.

    I am considering going to join demonstrations against current oil pipeline developers (and, sadly, hired guards and police who are enforcing the wrong things). I would put on one side of a sign (what I think I would do as I don’t plan to tangle with dogs and bulldozers) that I am in support of protectors of clean water (who aren’t calling themselves protesters). On the other, I would voice my support for U.S. – Native American treaties (which have been ignored to take away land).

  5. November 2, 2016 at 7:21 am

    Sadly there are some who DO see the constitution as being God-given and practically on par with scripture.

    Constitutions are a necessary tool in the political governance of a nation, but are often abused and reinterpreted to justify things they were never intended to uphold.
    The nature of gun laws in the US for example which have led to the US suffering (by far) the largest number of gun deaths in the western world, and probably only exceeded by some of the major violent trouble spots in the world as a whole.
    But clearly, manipulation of meanings isn’t unique to the political world and constitutions. Various Christian groups have been doing the same kind of thing with the bible for centuries (millennia?)

  6. November 2, 2016 at 8:04 am

    I included the brief text of my original post in a longer comment made on Bill Randles’ blog (under the thread that promotes the formerly mentioned deceptive, manipulative video).

    Another commenter partially quoted my comment

    “There is only ONE hope for the PEOPLE of America and that is to abandon allegiance to their nation, its constitution, its flag,”

    Then added her reply

    Aldrich “Rick” Ames, Robert Hanssen, John Walker, Harold O. “Jim” Nicholson, and others did just that, Onesimus. They are now serving life sentences in Federal prisons.

    Now I don’t have a clue who those people are, or why they were given life sentences, but I DO know that she left out most important part of what I said, avoiding the actual point I was making:

    ” and to turn their affections to, and put their trust in, the King of Kings alone.”

    Her approach is also typical of too many Christian attitudes , even to the Bible, quoting half portions of scripture to make a point that has little to do with the whole context of what’s being selectively quoted.

    Is such an approach honest?

    Truthful?

    Of course not.

    _________________
    link to the comment I refer to:
    https://billrandles.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/my-one-and-only-trump-column-i-hope/#comment-19927

  7. 7 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 9:51 am

    “Now I don’t have a clue who those people are, or why they were given life sentences”

    Then be a Berean, Tim, and look them up. They betrayed the United States. Of course, that is probably fine with you.

    “and to turn their affections to, and put their trust in, the King of Kings alone.”

    Oh, but they didn’t do that, either.

  8. November 2, 2016 at 10:10 am

    Jeanne, any “Berean” qualities I’d want to display would be towards matters pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
    And I’d be more concerned about traitors to HIS Kingdom.

    I don’t suppose those men did turn their affections and trust to the King of Kings – which kind of makes your point irrelevant.

    My comments were not about non-believers and their attitudes to secular forms of government over secular nations. My comments were a rebuke of alleged Christians who are more attached to their nation and political affiliations than they are to the God they claim to serve.

    Lying, deceiving and manipulative promotion of ungodly political candidates is contrary to the Kingdom of God.
    There is no room for nationalism or patriotism in the Kingdom of God – such things are idolatry.
    Making America Great is NOT part of God’s agenda.

    Clearly you are strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton. Fair enough. I can understand that.
    What I CAN”T understand is how anyone professing to be a follower of Jesus the Messiah could see that support for Donald Trump could be an acceptable alternative.
    And in particular I can’t understand how anyone claiming to have a love for Jesus could excuse and even promote lies to add to that support for Trump.

    We all have a choice to make. Do we serve God or do we serve something else.

    More and more I’m seeing “evangelicals” serving “something else”.

  9. 9 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 10:23 am

    “I am for our Constitution, but not as if it’s a document from God (a new ten commandments, as it were). It is the law of our land and…..”

    Marlene, when you say you are “for our Constitution”, what do you mean, exactly? Many people say that, but they don’t actually know what’s in the document. Do you mean that we should uphold and defend it, and obey it because it is the law? Some people say “I am for Jesus Christ”, or “I believe in Jesus Christ”, but it really doesn’t tell us anything about their walk. For some it means they like some of the things Jesus had to say. It’s the same with the Constitution. Some people believe they can pick and choose what to accept in it. Can you clarify your comments and be specific?

  10. 10 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 10:28 am

    “What I CAN”T understand is how anyone professing to be a follower of Jesus the Messiah could see that support for Donald Trump could be an acceptable alternative.”

    Well, I can’t help you with that, Tim. However you don’t seem willing to even try. Now, I’m not saying that Trump is an “acceptable alternative”. But at least I listen to others who do.

    “Lying, deceiving and manipulative promotion of ungodly political candidates is contrary to the Kingdom of God.
    There is no room for nationalism or patriotism in the Kingdom of God – such things are idolatry.
    Making America Great is NOT part of God’s agenda.”

    I agree with you completely, although it’s clear you have a different idea.

    As for being a Berean, we should not limit our quest for truth only to searching the Scriptures. The search for Truth should apply to all areas of life.

  11. 11 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 10:36 am

    “I don’t suppose those men did turn their affections and trust to the King of Kings – which kind of makes your point irrelevant.”

    They were not godly men, so my point is actually quite relevant. Your comments could be construed as asking Americans to betray their country when you write “abandon allegiance”. To abandon allegiance to your country when you have taken an oath to defend its laws is the definition of treason. Frankly, I detect quite a bit of animosity toward America in your posts, and this election cycle is exposing that animosity. Only you know where that animosity is coming from, but I suspect it didn’t develop recently.

  12. 12 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 10:52 am

    “It’s better to betray “one’s country” than betray the Kingdom of God.”

    You mean like selling its secrets to foreign countries? Or something else?

    “Contrary to what appears to be common belief, making America great is NOT and has NEVER been on God’s agenda.”

    I never said that. In fact, I’ve never even implied it.

  13. November 2, 2016 at 10:56 am

    I’m sure Marleen will have her own response to what you ask, but this is mine.

    A follower of Jesus should obey and respect the constitution and laws of the countries where they live, as long as those laws and constitution don’t require behaviours or actions contrary to the truth of the gospel.
    It is not the responsibility or duty of citizens of God’s Kingdom to defend or promote any secular constitution.

  14. November 2, 2016 at 11:01 am

    They were not Godly men so their situation has no relevance at all to anything I said.

    I have no animosity toward America, I have a concern for those who can’t see the separation between the Kingdoms of man and the Kingdom of God. I have a concern for the way the Lord’s name has been appropriated to promote ungodly political agendas, and how those who claim to be Christian, or “evangelical” are participating in a lying manipulative political situation that brings contempt on the name of God.

  15. November 2, 2016 at 11:05 am

    “However you don’t seem willing to even try. ”

    Jeanne why should I want to try to understand why professing Christians would accept and even promote lies and manipulation to push an ungodly presidential candidate? All I can do is call for them to repent of that sin and encourage others not to get caught up with it.

  16. 16 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 11:09 am

    “They were not Godly men so their situation has no relevance at all to anything I said.”

    that’s your opinion.

    “A follower of Jesus should obey and respect the constitution and laws of the countries where they live, as long as those laws and constitution don’t require behaviours or actions contrary to the truth of the gospel.”

    Did I say otherwise?

    “It is not the responsibility or duty of citizens of God’s Kingdom to defend or promote any secular constitution.”

    Obeying a [secular] constitution and laws of one’s country means you are upholding and defending its laws. You can’t have it both ways.

  17. 17 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 11:11 am

    “Jeanne why should I want to try to understand why professing Christians would accept and even promote lies and manipulation to push an ungodly presidential candidate?”

    Which “ungodly presidential candidate”? There are two of them. Are you unaware of that?

  18. November 2, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Jeanne said:

    Which “ungodly presidential candidate”? There are two of them. Are you unaware of that?

    But only one is being avidly promoted by “evangelicals”, even to the extent of using manipulative videos about the other in that promotion!

  19. 19 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 11:24 am

    “But only one is being avidly promoted by “evangelicals”, even to the extent of using manipulative videos about the other in that promotion!”

    Sigh…..

  20. November 2, 2016 at 11:25 am

    No Jeanne, its not my opinion. Its the truth. I’m the one who wrote what I wrote and I know why I wrote it. You insisting something else can’t change reality. Truth is not relative and up for personal interpretation as present generations tend to assume.

    As for the part about the constitution I didn’t make any indication that you said otherwise. I was expressing my view and not commenting on what you may or may not believe about the issue.

    But as for your final comment “Obeying a [secular] constitution and laws of one’s country means you are upholding and defending its laws. You can’t have it both ways.”

    I couldn’t disagree more. obeying a law does not mean that I have to “defend it”. I don’t even have to agree with it – but as long as its not requiring me to compromise my faith in Jesus, and as long as I choose to live in a place where it is law, I need to obey it.

  21. November 2, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Jeanne, please consider what I’ve said IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE.

    When there’s a clash between what your country expects of you and what the Kingdom of God requires of you – which would you betray? Does your country take priority or the Kingdom of God?

  22. November 2, 2016 at 11:38 am

    “But only one is being avidly promoted by “evangelicals”, even to the extent of using manipulative videos about the other in that promotion!”

    Sigh…..

    Was that “sigh” a denial of the truth of what I said or a recognition of it?

  23. 23 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 11:39 am

    “When there’s a clash between what your country expects of you and what the Kingdom of God requires of you – which would you betray? Does your country take priority or the Kingdom of God?”

    Tim, I’ve answered your questions.

  24. November 2, 2016 at 11:46 am

    Jeanne, I don’t need answers form you. Those are things you need to consider for yourself. Those questions were a rhetorical expression to point out the irrelevance of your comment about “selling secrets to foreign countries”.

    Promoting ungodly candidates and especially using ungodly methods to do so is the kind of betrayal I’m referring to.

    So why keep bringing things back to secular issues?

  25. 25 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 11:47 am

    “Was that “sigh” 1) a denial of the truth of what I said” or 2) a recognition of it?”

    No.

  26. 26 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 11:50 am

    “Promoting ungodly candidates and especially using ungodly methods to do so is the kind of betrayal I’m referring to.”

    Well, I’m glad you’ve cleared that up!

  27. 27 Marleen
    November 2, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Jeanne, I have given you no reason to doubt my actual support of the Consitution. It is my continued, principled support of it (in addition to my faith and dedication to truth as well as Truth) that has led me away from the hypocrisy of supporting someone like Donald Trump to be the next president (not the next sorry soul to try and nurture through some Sunday school classes). I learned what it theoretically meant to be conservative when I was young (and continued learning and adhering onward); my “problem” for many “conservatives” is that I think the laws/freedoms are for everyone (a black man born here, a Native American, etc.); and that I try to be fairly consistent (so, you can’t be against “the stinkin’ government” and still want what you want out of the government at the same time or be for liberty unless it is taken away in the name of a corporation or a rich or powerful person or aggressive individual).

    I have no reason to think you will find anything I say “satisfactory” as if you are the arbiter of reality (when all I have done wrong to you is not argue for Trump). I don’t intend to write a dissertation. But I’ll start somewhere. Do people in an open carry state have a right (as far as the law is concerned) to carry guns there (assuming they are not felons barred from doing so, etc.)? Or do we need to check first if a person is black or has black and white blood? Does a black-skinned person really have the “right” to be shot if carrying a gun? And, do guns trump everything? So, in a stand-your-ground state, does the person with a gun get to stand there and respond to any fear (well based or not) within himself by killing — while the person without a gun is expected, in order to be acceptable, to demonstrate passivity? How about a black woman who shoots a warning into the air to stave off her abusive significant other?

  28. 28 Marleen
    November 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    Wow! That was a lot of posting while I wasn’t looking.

  29. 29 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    “Wow! That was a lot of posting while I wasn’t looking.”

    Are we supposed to get your permission first? Or are we only permitted to post while you’re looking (and how would we know if you’re looking or not?)?

  30. 30 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    “I have no reason to think you will find anything I say “satisfactory” as if you are the arbiter of reality (when all I have done wrong to you is not argue for Trump).”

    ??

    “I don’t intend to write a dissertation.”

    I don’t mind if you do, but it’s not my blog.

    “Do people in an open carry state have a right (as far as the law is concerned) to carry guns there (assuming they are not felons barred from doing so, etc.)? Or do we need to check first if a person is black or has black and white blood? Does a black-skinned person really have the “right” to be shot if carrying a gun? And, do guns trump everything? So, in a stand-your-ground state, does the person with a gun get to stand there and respond to any fear (well based or not) within himself by killing — while the person without a gun is expected, in order to be acceptable, to demonstrate passivity? How about a black woman who shoots a warning into the air to stave off her abusive significant other?”

    Why are you asking me about guns?

  31. November 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Jeanne that kind of hostile attitude and comment is totally uncalled for in response to a valid expression of surprise at how many comments there have been on a forum that doesn’t usually have so much activity.

  32. November 2, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    Jeanne, that matter of guns ought to be self-explanatory in a discourse about the US constitution. It’s one of the main tactics of your favoured candidate to question another candidate’s stance on the constitution’s relationship to gun ownership.

    Why bring up questions if you are not willing to give the answers at least a little thought. Or maybe you have no real interest in the responses of others.

  33. 33 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    “that matter of guns ought to be self-explanatory in a discourse about the US constitution.”

    Then Marlene should be able to answer her own questions.

    “Why bring up questions if you are not willing to give the answers at least a little thought.”

    I did not raise the questions about guns.

  34. November 2, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    Jeanne T. said

    that matter of guns ought to be self-explanatory in a discourse about the US constitution.”

    Then Marlene should be able to answer her own questions.

    “Why bring up questions if you are not willing to give the answers at least a little thought.”

    I did not raise the questions about guns.

    I’m sure Marleen can and will answer her own questions if there’s anything needing an answer.

    You might not have raised a question about guns but you DID raise a question about the constitution and I’ve already explained to you the relevance of guns in the context of the constitution. The question of gun ownership is one of the more prominently and contentiously argued aspects of your constitution.

    As I said before, why ask questions if you are not willing to give a little thought to the answers given? Unless your interest has less to do with any answers given and more to do with being argumentative.

  35. 35 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    “Or do we need to check first if a person is black or has black and white blood?”

    Marlene,

    As far as I know, there is no such thing as “black or white blood” (Acts 17:26). I’ve never seen anything but red blood. Did you mean to say ethnicity? Perhaps some blood types are more common in one ethnic group over another (as are certain diseases). I don’t know.

    I’m quite sure that one’s ethnicity isn’t a legal criteria in determining who can or cannot carry firearms (open or concealed) nor should it be, as I’m sure you would agree. I’ve never heard of the “right to be shot” (?). I don’t subscribe to the notion that “guns trump everything”.

    Regarding “stand your ground” laws, they vary from state to state. You need to familiarize yourself with the laws regarding firearms in the state where you live.

  36. 36 Marleen
    November 2, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    Jeanne T. said on November 2, 2016 at 12:44 pm
    “Wow! That was a lot of posting while I wasn’t looking.”

    Are we supposed to get your permission first? Or are we only permitted to post while you’re looking (and how would we know if you’re looking or not?)?

    What a weird response.

  37. 37 Marleen
    November 2, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Jeanne. Apparently, you are a troll. Or YOU need to familiarize yourself with what has been going on lately in this country. You also need to familiarize yourself with your own conversation and what in the world it’s has to do with what someone is saying in respect to answering you. But I’m sure you don’t care.

  38. 38 Marleen
    November 2, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Jeanne T. Said on October 13, 2016 at 9:44 am in conversation here with Onesimus:

    “Jeanne, and I suppose Obama wasn’t born in the USA either?”

    Onesimus: I don’t understand your question. Can you please clarify? I haven’t seen any credible evidence to suggest that Obama was not born in the U.S. Have you?

    And yet she didn’t tell Bill Randle she “didn’t understand” his comment on said birth and legitimacy.

  39. November 2, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    Marleen,
    I wouldn’t go so far as calling Jeanne a troll, but she does need to learn how to listen to what others are saying and give some thought to it instead of jumping to assumptions that have nothing in common with what has been said.

    And she does need to tone down the attitude displayed in her comment to you starting with:

    …are we supposed to get your permission first…

    umping to

  40. November 2, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Jeanne T. Said on October 13, 2016 at 9:44 am in conversation here with Onesimus:

    “Jeanne, and I suppose Obama wasn’t born in the USA either?”

    Onesimus: I don’t understand your question. Can you please clarify? I haven’t seen any credible evidence to suggest that Obama was not born in the U.S. Have you?

    And yet she didn’t tell Bill Randle she “didn’t understand” his comment on said birth and legitimacy.

    Marleen, that response from Jeanne puzzled me – she seemed unaware of the 8 year campaign claiming that Obama wasn’t American born and therefore was illegally made President. A campaign of lies heavily promoted by the same D Trump being supported by 60-80% of evangelicals, who only recently withdrew his association with that lie – turning around and blaming Clinton for it all. (Dropping one lie to replace it with another)

    I don’t know whether I can believe that many Americans would be ignorant of that.

  41. 41 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    “Jeanne. Apparently, you are a troll. Or YOU need to familiarize yourself with what has been going on lately in this country. You also need to familiarize yourself with your own conversation and what in the world it’s has to do with what someone is saying in respect to answering you. But I’m sure you don’t care.”

    Marlene, I am no more a troll here than you are at Pastor Randles’ blog. Contrary to what you believe, I am actually quite familiar with what is going on here in the U.S., and around the world. You have absolutely no idea who I am, what I have done, where I worked, or where I’ve been.

    You said, “I have no reason to think you will find anything I say “satisfactory”

    I’m sure that’s exactly what you think.

    “as if you are the arbiter of reality”

    I’m not. And that’s reality.

    (when all I have done wrong to you is not argue for Trump).

    Now that is a weird response. I don’t feel wronged. Really, I don’t.

  42. 42 Marleen
    November 2, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    She commented at Bill’s blog that there isn’t a lot of commenting here (to which you responded that you don’t have a world following, based on not claiming to be a preacher). She likes digs and playing cat and mouse. To me, that’s a sort of troll; to draw people into caring what she’s had to say when she doesn’t.

  43. 43 Marleen
    November 2, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Jeanne of her own volition said (at Bill’s blog very recently) “…Obama is half white and half black…”

    I wonder which half. His left and right or top and bottom or front and back, alternating molecules?

  44. 44 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    “She commented at Bill’s blog”

    You noticed! It’s good to know you’re keeping track of me, Marlene. I hope you keep noticing, and responding there.

  45. 45 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    “She commented at Bill’s blog”

    Is there some reason why you did not address your comments to me instead of to Tim (talk to me instead of about me)?

    “To me, that’s a sort of troll; to draw people into caring what she’s had to say when she doesn’t.”

    Why are you judging my motives?

  46. November 2, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    Hi, Jeanne:

    “…obeying a law does not mean that I have to “defend it”. I don’t even have to agree with it – but as long as its not requiring me to compromise my faith in Jesus, and as long as I choose to live in a place where it is law, I need to obey it.”

    Onesimus’ distinction is a scriptural one. Obeying the laws of our secular nation, so far as they don’t require us to disobey God’s laws, is the teaching of scripture (notably in Romans 13:1-7).

    Do you see a scriptural teaching that we should “uphold and defend” our nation’s secular laws ? In any nation, and any time, wouldn’t that require Christians to “uphold and defend” evil laws ?

    blessings, Steve

  47. 47 Jeanne T.
    November 2, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    “And yet she didn’t tell Bill Randle she “didn’t understand” his comment on said birth and legitimacy.”

    Where did Pastor Randles comment on this? Please provide the link because I must have missed that thread. In any case, I was well aware of this issue from the beginning, despite what Tim is claiming.

  48. November 3, 2016 at 7:04 am

    And yet she didn’t tell Bill Randle she “didn’t understand” his comment on said birth and legitimacy.”

    Where did Pastor Randles comment on this? Please provide the link because I must have missed that thread. In any case, I was well aware of this issue from the beginning, despite what Tim is claiming.

    So why the give the impression of ignorance, as if you didn’t have a clue what I was referring to when I touched on the topic?

  49. 49 Jeanne T.
    November 3, 2016 at 7:26 am

    “So why the give the impression of ignorance”

    Is that what you thought? Here’s how you posed the question: “Jeanne, and I suppose Obama wasn’t born in the USA either?”

    Were you asking me, or were you telling me? You’re being disingenuous.

  50. November 3, 2016 at 7:38 am

    “So why the give the impression of ignorance”

    Is that what you thought? Here’s how you posed the question: “Jeanne, and I suppose Obama wasn’t born in the USA either?”

    Were you asking me, or were you telling me? You’re being disingenuous.

    Disingenuous?

    No, it was intended irony, something that can be easily missed when people don’t give thought to what is written or to what is being written about.

  51. 51 Jeanne T.
    November 3, 2016 at 7:45 am

    “Jeanne of her own volition said (at Bill’s blog very recently) “…Obama is half white and half black…”

    I wonder which half. His left and right or top and bottom or front and back, alternating molecules?”

    Marlene,

    The white half is Obama’s mother. The black half is Obama’s father. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was white. His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was Kenyan (his name is Arabic), and his ethnicity was Luo. He was killed in a car accident at age 46, and Obama Jr., who went to live with his mother’s parents in Hawaii when he was ten years old, did not have much contact with him. Apparently, you did not know that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Sr.

  52. 52 Jeanne T.
    November 3, 2016 at 7:47 am

    “No, it was intended irony, something that can be easily missed when people don’t give thought to what is written or to what is being written about.”

    Thanks for your response…….

  53. November 3, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Yes I’m sure Marleen and almost everybody is aware of Obama’s parentage, but that doesn’t make him “half white and half black”.

    A chess board is half white and half black, Cruella De Ville’s hair is half white and half black. Obama’s skin is dark enough that no one would consider him “white” and clearly HE self-identifies as a “black” man.
    And having a white parent never seems to be enough to save someone like him from being subject to racism AS a black man.

  54. 54 Jeanne T.
    November 3, 2016 at 8:03 am

    As always, Tim, I appreciate your Christ-like response.

  55. 55 Marleen
    November 3, 2016 at 8:15 am

    Exactly. And like he doesn’t literally have black and white blood. Oops. Irony.

  56. November 3, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Thanks for your response…….

    My pleasure Jeanne.

    I try to make what I write relatively easy to understand, but that’s not always successful. Cultural differences, even between those speaking the same language sometimes muddy what was intended.

    There was an element of truth in George Bernard Shaw’s statement: “‘England and America are two countries divided by a common language”. I’m sure Australia can be added to the mix too. 🙂

  57. 57 Jeanne T.
    November 3, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Well, Tim, it is always a pleasure to dialogue with those who are so clearly my intellectual superiors.

  58. 58 Marleen
    November 3, 2016 at 8:34 am

    Onesimus said: …Obama’s parentage… doesn’t make him “half white and half black”.

    A chess board is half white and half black, Cruella De Ville’s hair is half white and half black. Obama’s skin is dark enough that no one would consider him “white” and clearly HE self-identifies as a “black” man.
    And having a white parent never seems to be enough to save someone like him from being subject to racism AS a black man.

    Exactly. And like he doesn’t literally have black and white blood. [Note the irony, or hypocrisy (noting timing).]

    Bill, at his site, in a blog post article (under which comments section Jeanne posted), said:

    …..

    With all of it’s flaws and vanities, I believe that we are in a period of light, while the internet remains under US supervision. It is still basically free. People can express themselves openly.

    Obama, like all of the other elite State worshippers, is very uncomfortable with that.

    After all, there are too many people … pointing out fake documents such as Obama’s birth certificate…..

    There is so much twisted in knots about that supposed logic… sigh. [Not only the matter of the certificate.]

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-sigman/in-wacky-gop-presidential_b_845492.html

  59. November 3, 2016 at 8:34 am

    Jeanne T said

    Well, Tim, it is always a pleasure to dialogue with those who are so clearly my intellectual superiors.

    I’ve drawn attention to your attitude previously Jeanne. There is absolutely no excuse for rudeness.

  60. November 3, 2016 at 8:44 am

    Obama, like all of the other elite State worshippers, is very uncomfortable with that.

    After all, there are too many people … pointing out fake documents such as Obama’s birth certificate…..

    Which category of fruit does a statement like that, as well as the promotion of deceptive Trump promoting videos, belong?

    Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit.

    ________________

    source of Marleen’s quote re. Obama.
    https://billrandles.wordpress.com/2016/09/29/why-the-left-hates-the-internet/

  61. 61 Marleen
    November 5, 2016 at 8:00 am

    You’ve linked in your comments, onesimus, to both of Bill’s topics to which I referred (one way earlier than that one you just now showed). I also referred to comments in this topic on your site: https://onesimusfiles.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/reaping-what-was-sown/

    Also, I want to draw a bit of a longer look at this part of what I last quoted from Bill
    (which you re-quoted part of in your last post above):

    … while the internet remains under US supervision. It is still basically free. People can express themselves openly. Obama, like all of the other elite State worshippers, is very uncomfortable with that.

    So, you see, Bill is ambivalent about the state (or the U.S.), though probably subconsciously.
    In a way, he is sort of saying the same thing you are with your topic. But then he’s confused.

    Anyway, Obama has already been president for eight years with free speech Internet. Kinda moot.

  62. 62 Marleen
    November 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    A couple of little details have come up that I don’t want to forget to mention. I will do it in two separate posts, as they are pretty different from each other. First, someone (someone fairly credible) said Ronald Reagan changed his party affiliation in order to work for the Goldwater campaign (which would mean he didn’t officially switch until significantly later than 1950 — so, surprise (sarcasm), Wikipedia is sometimes wrong or misleading). So… I didn’t know that about him either (reference to my first post in this particular thread).

  63. 63 Marleen
    November 6, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    Second, Donald Trump Jr. said (in response to the topic of sexual harassment or assault when his father had said he would like to think Ivanka would look for a different job or company in such a situation and that, anyway, she wouldn’t allow it) that if you can’t handle the stuff that happens in the work environment these days, you should get out of the job market. He added, so go become a kindergarten teacher or something.

    That’s another statement full of all sorts of mess. It was pointed out that Ivanka would have had to leave the family long ago with that rule. Sexual harassment and assault happens without being allowed. If someone needs to work (or even just wants to, for that matter), they shouldn’t have to put up with that idiocy or find another place. Uh, and, being a kindergarten teacher isn’t part of the job market? And… no harassment?


Comments are currently closed.

Blog Stats

  • 68,338 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 227 other followers


%d bloggers like this: